Static or dynamic?!

Posted 26 Feb 2001 at 00:15 UTC by Malx Share This

Is it passible to build a dynamic system thinking in static way?
P2P is static over dynamic over potentially hostile over semy static system.
I mean defined system goals over lot's of different computers over Internet in coutries with gov.

You have stated the goal - to keep data consistent in any possible way. It is a static goal.
Dynamic counterpart whould be this pack of data must be prefered over that one.

Sounds alike, but fist one answers to "what if all is OK" the second to "what to do if something goes wrong".

I thinks switching to dynamic way of thinking will solve the problem of P2P implementation.

Here to define a system - you need to define a set of rules. One of them could be rule about adding a new rulers.

Static thinking will propose a static person to be the SEED designer, or static URL of geting source code for compiling P2P application. (Of course it could change, say, dyring a week, may be a day, but not faster - it is static).

So ... could you build entirely dynamic system with no dependency of static parts? I mean DNS,IP (and URL,email), person, news group, IRC cannel, written on paper data, spoken aloud on conference.... But still with a chance to be accessed from outside (with modem rare connections and new users)?...
I thinks this could be done, but the P2P Net must be active element. So P2P must send mesasges to USENET, IRC(no defined channel!!!), Web boards, chats,news etc.etc.. They whould expire in an our (with modem droping link) or even faster, but still they create none zero probability (you could caltulate it) of accessing resourse.

Thinks in style of probabilities and delays (set goal to how to find information no more then in 2 hours not the static one "how to find it at all means if it exists").

BTW. Most papers talk about building systems to store article, which could be found by some keyword (hiding notion about information about information location(IIL)). But IIL is also like an article, which could be located somewhere/mirrored/splited etc. But it is valued more then ordinary article. Again is it static decigion about value of data-pack or just current calculation based on some rules (trust metrics).

Also think about - is it good to have rulers/dictators of P2P network? The kings of it...
But it is pretty like an Advogato solution now - the SEEDs. It is ok while they obeyd to some unspoken rules...
Is it better to define this rules? (I know this is hard, but it could be simplified - like antiSpam/antiDoS filters are)

// Irc.ForestNet.Org, Malx

RE: Static or dynamic?!, posted 26 Feb 2001 at 01:27 UTC by itp » (Master)

If one examines the subdialectic paradigm of concensus, one is faced with a choice: either reject textual materialism or conclude that the task of the participant is social comment, given that Lacan's critique of textual desituationism is invalid. But the subject is contextualised into a subdialectic paradigm of concensus that includes reality as a reality.

"Sexuality is part of the meaninglessness of language," says Lyotard; however, according to Dahmus, it is not so much sexuality that is part of the meaninglessness of language, but rather the collapse of sexuality. If textual materialism holds, we have to choose between neocultural discourse and dialectic feminism. Therefore, the subdialectic paradigm of concensus holds that consciousness may be used to reinforce capitalism.

Hamburger implies that we have to choose between subtextual feminism and Sontagist camp. However, the subject is interpolated into a subdialectic paradigm of concensus that includes culture as a paradox.

The premise of textual materialism holds that class has intrinsic meaning. In a sense, if the dialectic paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between textual materialism and neodeconstructive theory.

Debord promotes the use of cultural nihilism to deconstruct sexism. However, an abundance of discourses concerning textual materialism may be revealed.

couldn't resist, posted 26 Feb 2001 at 01:54 UTC by sergent » (Journeyer)



Wow, posted 26 Feb 2001 at 02:49 UTC by timg » (Journeyer)

I'm still trying to decide which one is the joke..

Dynamism *is* the static modality, posted 26 Feb 2001 at 11:35 UTC by hanwen » (Journeyer)

You make interesting points. Let me mention in passing two other examples of sexism and militarism in mathematics that to my knowledge have not been noticed previously: The first concerns the theory of branching processes, which arose in Victorian England from the ``problem of the extinction of families'', and which now plays a key role inter alia in the analysis of nuclear chain reactions (Harris 1963). In the seminal (and this sexist word is apt) paper on the subject, Francis Galton and the Reverend H.W. Watson wrote (1874):

The decay of the families of men who occupied conspicuous positions in past times has been a subject of frequent research, and has given rise to various conjectures ...The instances are very numerous in which surnames that were once common have since become scarce or have wholly disappeared. The tendency is universal, and, in explanation of it, the conclusion has hastily been drawn that a rise in physical comfort and intellectual capacity is necessarily accompanied by a diminution in `fertility' ... Let p_0, p_1, p_2, ... be the respective probabilities that a man has 0,1,2,... sons of his own, and so on. What is the probability that the male line is extinct after r generations, and more generally what is the probability for any given number of descendants in the male line in any given generation?

One cannot fail to be charmed by the quaint implication that human males reproduce asexually; nevertheless, the classism, social-Darwinism and sexism in this passage are obvious. The second example is Laurent Schwartz's 1973 book on Radon Measures. While technically quite interesting, this work is imbued, as its title makes plain, with the pro-nuclear-energy worldview that has been characteristic of French science since the early 1960's. Sadly, the French left -- especially but by no means solely the PCF -- has traditionally been as enthusiastic for nuclear energy as the right (see Touraine et al. 1980).

Please read a fascinating, more broad and in-depth review of this topic here

To embrace or to divide?, posted 2 Mar 2001 at 07:41 UTC by Ankh » (Master)

It's easier to mock than to help, easier to divide than to heal, easier to tear down than to build.

If I understand Malx rightly, I think he (?) is asking some important questions about peer-to-peer networking protocols.

Malx, if you want me to help you redraft this so people understand it, and don't mock it, I'll gladly help you.

Yes, itp's response is funny, in a way, but it's sad too; please let's not sink to english-language elitism.

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

Share this page