These different ways of producing goods Marx called modesofproduction.Thefiveare(inchronologicalorder):theprimitive communist, ancient, feudal, capitalist and communistmodes
successive stages in a society's developmen known as modes of production
220 Matching Annotations
- Jul 2017
-
lti.hypothesislabs.com lti.hypothesislabs.com
-
-
t one of five different ways of organiz- ing production. These different ways of producing goods Marx called modesofproduction.Thefiveare(inchronologicalorder):theprimitive communist, ancient, feudal, capitalist and communistmodes
The way that society is organized to produce goods, categorized based on social relations between consumers, producers and owners of the means of production (machinery, raw material, human labor etc.). Marx imagined early production systems as early versions of communism -- thereby imagined a reversion of society to a previous organization of labor -- while the stages in between are characterized by the exploitation of labor between classes.
-
Without burrows, lacking fur or claws, in this vulnerable state humans need to work together to survive, hence they need to develop social relationsh
Being that humans need to produce use-able goods from their natural environment, we must rely on the collective strength and ability of their community. Many people are involved in the labor process in production, thus, production creates social relationships.
-
-
cole2.uconline.edu cole2.uconline.edu
-
Modes of Production
Socities developmental stages that are successive: Primitive Communism, Slave Society (ancient), Feudalism, Capitalism, Communism
this a type of economic system, that is about all the different ways humans produce the means of survival (the needs) and enhance socialness. history is then characterized by predominant methods production. there then will be succesive socities in evolving patterns formed
-
Superstructure
these are the ideas and culture of a given stage which are derived from the modes of production
-
Classes, Class Exploitation, Class Struggle
Marx proposes that history is made of up stages driven by class conflict where there is an ownership class which controls the means of production and a lower class that thus provides labor for production. One class is thus exploiting another class. When these two come into conflict it leads to social change.
-
- Jun 2017
-
mail-archives.apache.org mail-archives.apache.org
-
We run Kafka on the old and trusty m1.xlarge
aws kafka m1.xlarge
-
-
zookeeper.apache.org zookeeper.apache.org
-
Clustered (Multi-Server) Setup
production setup for zookeeper
-
-
docs.confluent.io docs.confluent.io
-
ZooKeeper snapshots can be one such a source of concurrent writes, and ideally should be written on a disk group separate from the transaction log.
zookeeper maintains concurrency in its own way.
-
If you do end up sharing the ensemble, you might want to use the chroot feature. With chroot, you give each application its own namespace.
jail zookeeper instance from the other apps
-
- Feb 2017
-
static1.squarespace.com static1.squarespace.com
-
Again I say, this is harmful,\ since the invention of arguments is by nature prior 10 the judgment of their validity,
This is crucial for me. And it harkens back to Lanham as well.
-
- Dec 2016
- Jul 2015
-
twentyfour.fibreculturejournal.org twentyfour.fibreculturejournal.org
-
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2588493
Grimmelmann, James. "The Virtues of Moderation." April 1, 2015. SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=2588493 keywords: moderation, online communities, semicommons, peer production, Wikipedia, MetaFilter, Reddit 17 Yale J.L. & Tech. 42 (2015) U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-8
-
- Feb 2014
-
blog.p2pfoundation.net blog.p2pfoundation.net
-
Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices
-
-
ubuntuone.com ubuntuone.com
-
THE ART OF
The Art of Community
-
-
cyber.law.harvard.edu cyber.law.harvard.edu
-
I n B u r r o w - G i l e s , t h e C o u r t d i s t i l l e d t h e s a m e r e q u i r e m e n t f r o m t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s u s e o f t h e w o r d " a u t h o r s . " T h e C o u r t d e f i n e d " a u t h o r , " i n a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s e n s e , t o m e a n " h e t o w h o m a n y t h i n g o w e s i t s o r i g i n ; o r i g i n a t o r ; m a k e r . " 1 1 1 U . S . , a t 5 8 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d ) . A s i n T h e T r a d e - M a r k C a s e s , t h e C o u r t e m p h a s i z e d t h e c r e a t i v e c o m p o n e n t o f o r i g i n a l i t y . I t d e s c r i b e d c o p y r i g h t a s b e i n g l i m i t e d t o " o r i g i n a l i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n c e p t i o n s o f t h e a u t h o r , " 1 1 1 U . S . , a t 5 8 , a n d s t r e s s e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f r e q u i r i n g a n a u t h o r w h o a c c u s e s a n o t h e r o f i n f r i n g e m e n t t o p r o v e " t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h o s e f a c t s o f o r i g i n a l i t y , o f i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o d u c t i o n , o f t h o u g h t , a n d c o n c e p t i o n . " I d . , a t 5 9 - 6 0 .
In Burrow-Giles the court defined authors, in a constitutional sense, to mean "he to whom anything owes its origin, originator, maker" and emphasized the creative component of originality.
-
- Jan 2014
-
www.yale.edu www.yale.edu
-
This suggests that peer production will thrive where projects have three characteristi cs
If thriving is a metric (is it measurable? too subjective?) of success then the 3 characteristics it must have are:
- modularity: divisible into components
- granularity: fine-grained modularity
- integrability: low-cost integration of contributions
I don't dispute that these characteristics are needed, but they are too general to be helpful, so I propose that we look at these three characteristics through the lens of the type of contributor we are seeking to motivate.
How do these characteristics inform what we should focus on to remove barriers to collaboration for each of these contributor-types?
Below I've made up a rough list of lenses. Maybe you have links or references that have already made these classifications better than I have... if so, share them!
Roughly here are the classifications of the types of relationships to open source projects that I commonly see:
core developers: either hired by a company, foundation, or some entity to work on the project. These people care most about integrability.
ecosystem contributors: someone either self-motivated or who receives a reward via some mechanism outside the institution that funds the core developers (e.g. reputation, portfolio for future job prospects, tools and platforms that support a consulting business, etc). These people care most about modularity.
feature-driven contributors: The project is useful out-of-the-box for these people and rather than build their own tool from scratch they see that it is possible for the tool to work they way they want by merely contributing code or at least a feature-request based on their idea. These people care most about granularity.
The above lenses fit the characteristics outlined in the article, but below are other contributor-types that don't directly care about these characteristics.
the funder: a company, foundation, crowd, or some other funding body that directly funds the core developers to work on the project for hire.
consumer contributors: This class of people might not even be aware that they are contributors, but simply using the project returns direct benefits through logs and other instrumented uses of the tool to generate data that can be used to improve the project.
knowledge-driven contributors: These contributors are most likely closest to the ecosystem contributors, maybe even a sub-species of those, that contribute to documentation and learning the system; they may be less-skilled at coding, but still serve a valuable part of the community even if they are not committing to the core code base.
failure-driven contributors: A primary source of bug reports and may also be any one of the other lenses.
What other lenses might be useful to look through? What characteristics are we missing? How can we reduce barriers to contribution for each of these contributor types?
I feel that there are plenty of motivations... but what barriers exist and what motivations are sufficient for enough people to be willing to surmount those barriers? I think it may be easier to focus on the barriers to make contributing less painful for the already-convinced, than to think about the motivators for those needing to be convinced-- I think the consumer contributors are some of the very best suited to convince the unconvinced; our job should be to remove the barriers for people at each stage of community we are trying to build.
A note to the awesome folks at Hypothes.is who are reading our consumer contributions... given the current state of the hypothes.is project, what class of contributors are you most in need of?
-
the proposition that diverse motivations animate human beings, and, more importantly, that there exist ranges of human experience in which the presence of monetary rewards is inversely related to the presence of other, social-psychological rewards.
The first analytic move.
-
common appropriation regimes do not give a complete answer to the sustainability of motivation and organization for the truly open, large-scale nonproprietary peer production projects we see on the Internet.
Towards the end of our last conversation the text following "common appropriation" seemed an interesting place to dive into further for our future discussions.
I have tagged this annotation with "meta" because it is a comment about our discussion and where to continue it rather than an annotation focused on the content itself.
In the future I would be interested in exploring the idea of "annotation types" that can be selectively turned on and off, but for now will handle that with ad hoc tags like "meta".
-
understanding that when a project of any size is broken up into little pieces, each of which can be performed by an individual in a short amount of time, the motivation to get any given individual to contribute need only be very small.
The second analytic move.
-