[p2p-research] Post-Depression first: Americans get more money from government than they give back | csmonitor.com

[Ryan Lanham]

On 11/26/09, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 18:11:39 PM -0500, Ryan Lanham wrote:
>
> > This is soooooooo correct!  People don't realize just how much
> > damage has been done at the low end of labor...
> > ...
> > Happy to hear it discussed.  I somewhat feel as if Paul F. and I
> > have been saying it back and forth to each other in a vacuum.
>
> The day this list will enforce the same netiquette applied, without
> any effort, in almost other mailing lists around, many more
> subscribers will regularly engage in conversations. Right now, 90% of
> traffic here is a uselessly verbose flow of unreadable, messed up
> text.


Give us an idea of what a working model would look like (that is, another
list or process that works better)...I am all for standards and improvement.

As for Gmail, I appreciate the arguments that it is not "free."  But it is,
to my mind, very P2P and it is hugely technically superior to any free
options.  I've used several free readers and nearly all stink compared to
Google Reader.  My own view is that Twitter would best replace this
list.  Again, that is a for-profit venture that simply has vastly superior
technology.  Even on this list there is widespread (and accurate) grumbling
about the decline (and presumed fall) of Wikipedia.  Is P2P always to be an
isolated half-baked low tech set of wires and gizmos only understandable by
the tinkerer?

We have to assume some basic level of technology that has moved beyond mere
text.  Assuming html is hardly rocket science.

20 years ago I worked as a programmer.  I do not do that at 46.  So bashing
my own code to make some feature that is obvious and readily available seems
a huge waste of time.  If it demonstrates anything, it demonstrates how
inefficient and broken P2P processes are...outside of foundations and
well-organized non-profits.  There are few standards, few standardized
approaches and little in the way of non-technical tools.

Publish standards.  Propose new tools.  Guide us in our errant ways.  No one
here is trying to support corporations, make things inaccessible, etc.  On
the other hand, I do not avoid good solutions simply because I am
politically against for-profit and corporate solutions.  That seems
self-defeating.

Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091126/6614cc44/attachment.html>