User:Jukeboksi/Blog/March2004: Difference between revisions
< User:Jukeboksi | Blog
(distinction between product and commodity is good and other good things going on. thanks to 142.177.X.X for good recent works) |
(yup) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I like the distinction between [[product]] and [[commodity]]. This makes for a more clearly defined scope on all things material, though currently [[commodity]] is a redirect page and I think that things that are sold in commodity markets globally should be their own category ie. [[coffee]], [[sugar]], [[cocoa]] etc. | I like the distinction between [[product]] and [[commodity]]. This makes for a more clearly defined scope on all things material, though currently [[commodity]] is a redirect page and I think that things that are sold in commodity markets globally should be their own category ie. [[coffee]], [[sugar]], [[cocoa]] etc. | ||
:The distinction between a [[product]] and a [[commodity]] is basically only that of pricing on [[w:commodity markets]]. Even if something is not purchased through these markets, the price quoted on them affects all pricing on that commodity anywhere in the world - with [[transport]] costs being the only real price differential. There's a gradation here, and the idea of an [[industrial ecology]] where the [[waste disposal]] method of one process is the resource [[extraction]] method of another (!) is directly opposed to the idea of any kind of commodity market. We should think in terms of the [[service economy]] and imagine a world of high transport costs where commodity is more and more a fiction. | |||
Also reversing the linkage relation of [[campaigns]] that came to me inspired by Connelly Barnes's idea of an incredibly simple Consumerium standard wiki format seems like a good way to go. | Also reversing the linkage relation of [[campaigns]] that came to me inspired by Connelly Barnes's idea of an incredibly simple Consumerium standard wiki format seems like a good way to go. | ||
:Yup. Though we do have a fairly complex [[service cycle]] to model to get to any kind of idea of the [[comprehensive outcome]] of any process whatsoever. | |||
I'd also like to thank [[142.177.X.X]] for some great work s/he's done around here the last days. It was starting to get irritating when s/he was constantly just on a [[AWR]]-rage | I'd also like to thank [[142.177.X.X]] for some great work s/he's done around here the last days. It was starting to get irritating when s/he was constantly just on a [[AWR]]-rage | ||
:Just don't want us to go down any wrong paths. Reading the Wikipedia mailing list lately, it's a war zone over there, and when even Wales starts to use terms like [[sysop vigilantiism]] you know there's no [[due process]] at all. It won't be long now before they have to put some real [[governance]] in place, or just give up. Maybe they have enough interest and recognition to recruit that [[m:board]] now. But whatever they do it should not be our problem here. | |||
---- | ---- | ||
1.3.2004 | 1.3.2004 | ||
Revision as of 00:22, 3 March 2004
2.3.2004
I like the distinction between product and commodity. This makes for a more clearly defined scope on all things material, though currently commodity is a redirect page and I think that things that are sold in commodity markets globally should be their own category ie. coffee, sugar, cocoa etc.
- The distinction between a product and a commodity is basically only that of pricing on w:commodity markets. Even if something is not purchased through these markets, the price quoted on them affects all pricing on that commodity anywhere in the world - with transport costs being the only real price differential. There's a gradation here, and the idea of an industrial ecology where the waste disposal method of one process is the resource extraction method of another (!) is directly opposed to the idea of any kind of commodity market. We should think in terms of the service economy and imagine a world of high transport costs where commodity is more and more a fiction.
Also reversing the linkage relation of campaigns that came to me inspired by Connelly Barnes's idea of an incredibly simple Consumerium standard wiki format seems like a good way to go.
- Yup. Though we do have a fairly complex service cycle to model to get to any kind of idea of the comprehensive outcome of any process whatsoever.
I'd also like to thank 142.177.X.X for some great work s/he's done around here the last days. It was starting to get irritating when s/he was constantly just on a AWR-rage
- Just don't want us to go down any wrong paths. Reading the Wikipedia mailing list lately, it's a war zone over there, and when even Wales starts to use terms like sysop vigilantiism you know there's no due process at all. It won't be long now before they have to put some real governance in place, or just give up. Maybe they have enough interest and recognition to recruit that m:board now. But whatever they do it should not be our problem here.
1.3.2004
Yesterday I installed Debian on an old box that's been lying around for ages and now I'm playing around with it to get more aquinted with Linux naively hoping to some day accumulate enough *NIX skills to make a living out of it. I am getting into Python also and learning Dutch and German by reading the Wikibooks on them
One thing I need right now is a job.
Give Juxo a job, please.