On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 12:41 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
> On Sunday 26 October 2008 11:30:38 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > >> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've
> > >> identified the following gene
On Sunday 26 October 2008 11:30:38 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've
> >> identified the following general models of partnership control.
> >> Can anyone think of
Also, what about Bayes? Arguably also the PNP acts slightly like that;
although it can be controlled democratically, it also does some things
in an automated way.
--
ais523 from Normish, probably this message will never arive as a result
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Rotational autocratic would be a variation of Unilateral, I guess.
I'm not so sure. Steve and I used this for a while when our group had
a lot of votes and just we two were active. Idea was: you can cast all
the votes this week (and I can't complain) th
woggle wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 22:00, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
>> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
>> of any others?
>>
>> * Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
>> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
>> of any others?
>>
>> * Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point Two)
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
> of any others?
>
> * Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point Two)
> * Capitalist (e.g. Primo, Reformed Bank)
>
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:54 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Jamie Dallaire
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a partnership between X and Y. If the Dow hits 6000 before
> hitting
> > 12000, X must transfer 1000 chits [[not sure what those are yet...]
On 26 Oct 2008, at 15:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
Not at all. It just proved to be a useful too to balancing the PBA's
initial rate flaws. Now that the PBA rates are more in line with what
they should be the RBOA abuse should slow or stop completely.
...until actual usage patterns show up a differ
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 09:05, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> I would recommend against the doom and gloom that indicates teh RBOA
>> will fail. Despite any setbacks it is still doing fine.
>
>
> However, its model has been shown to be fu
On 26 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Roger Hicks wrote:
I would recommend against the doom and gloom that indicates teh RBOA
will fail. Despite any setbacks it is still doing fine.
However, its model has been shown to be fundamentally flawed.
--
ehird
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Jamie Dallaire
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a partnership between X and Y. If the Dow hits 6000 before hitting
> 12000, X must transfer 1000 chits [[not sure what those are yet...]] to Y.
> Else, Y must transfer 1000 chits to X.
That wouldn't require a part
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 08:49, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2008, at 06:43, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
>
> This is a partnership between X and Y. If the Dow hits 6000 before hitting
> 12000, X must transfer 1000 chits [[not sure what those are yet...]] to Y.
> Else, Y must transfe
On 26 Oct 2008, at 06:43, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
This is a partnership between X and Y. If the Dow hits 6000 before
hitting 12000, X must transfer 1000 chits [[not sure what those are
yet...]] to Y. Else, Y must transfer 1000 chits to X.
Chits are the currency of the Reformed Bank of Agora,
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 00:43, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
>> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
>> o
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
> of any others?
Neat divisions! I'm not familiar with Agora's partnerships yet,
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 22:00, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
> the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
> of any others?
>
> * Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point Two)
> * Capitalist (
Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified
the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think
of any others?
* Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point Two)
* Capitalist (e.g. Primo, Reformed Bank)
* Unilateral (e.g. AFO)
* Democratic (e.g. Per
18 matches
Mail list logo
