XM Industry Standards Assessment Procedure - Revision history

Marcin: /* Assessment Procedure */

2012-03-29T23:40:49Z

Assessment Procedure

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 29 March 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	=Assessment Procedure=		=Assessment Procedure=

	A good analysis of industry standards should include:		A good analysis of industry standards should include at least 3 samples, and a chart for each:

	Brand - Model - Rating - Basic Design Features - Advantages - Drawbacks - Cost - Weight - Dimensions (Lxwxh)" - Link to Source.		Brand - Model - Rating - Basic Design Features - Advantages - Drawbacks - Cost - Weight - Dimensions (Lxwxh)" - Link to Source.

Marcin: /* Assessment Procedure */

2012-03-29T23:39:12Z

Assessment Procedure

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:39, 29 March 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	=Assessment Procedure=		=Assessment Procedure=

	A good analysis of industry standards should include ~~clear~~		A good analysis of industry standards should include:

			Brand - Model - Rating - Basic Design Features - Advantages - Drawbacks - Cost - Weight - Dimensions (Lxwxh)" - Link to Source.



	[[Category:XM]]		[[Category:XM]]

Marcin at 23:35, 29 March 2012

2012-03-29T23:35:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 29 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
			=Assessment Philosophy=

	Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to begin the development process of any technology is to perform exhaustive research on existing tools and their mechanisms. See [http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Ironworker_Prototype_II_Proposal#Analysis_of_Industry_Standards sample analysis] from the Ironworker machine. Otherwise, one risks 'reinventing the wheel' - the default practice of propriety research and development.		Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to begin the development process of any technology is to perform exhaustive research on existing tools and their mechanisms. See [http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Ironworker_Prototype_II_Proposal#Analysis_of_Industry_Standards sample analysis] from the Ironworker machine. Otherwise, one risks 'reinventing the wheel' - the default practice of propriety research and development.

	Is it really the default practice, if that seems wasteful? Yes, non-collaboratory business ([[BAU]]) is extremely wasteful. Wannabe monopolies do not publish their R&D openly - which means that development efforts in BAU enterprises such as universities or corporations start from the ground up - ie, reinvent the wheel - as opposed to building on a readily-accessible pool of knowledge.		Is it really the default practice, if that seems wasteful? Yes, non-collaboratory business ([[BAU]]) is extremely wasteful. Wannabe monopolies do not publish their R&D openly - which means that development efforts in BAU enterprises such as universities or corporations start from the ground up - ie, reinvent the wheel - as opposed to building on a readily-accessible pool of knowledge.

	Generating such a readily-available pool of knowledge - or neutral assessment of existing technologies ~~- published openly~~ - can contribute greatly in a [[Distributive Economy]].		Generating such a readily-available pool of knowledge - by open publishing of a neutral assessment of existing technologies - can contribute greatly to a [[Distributive Economy]].

			Therefore, the intent of the Industry Standards Analysis is to inform the general public as well as product developers of the state of art - as a take-off point for further development. Therefore, new developments will build on the existing know-how - as opposed to reinventing the wheel. However, designs and blueprints must also be available for building upon the work of others. Therefore, the Industry Standards Analysis is only the beginning of the full opensourcing of a given technology.

			=Assessment Procedure=

			A good analysis of industry standards should include clear

	[[Category:XM]]		[[Category:XM]]

Marcin at 23:23, 29 March 2012

2012-03-29T23:23:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 29 March 2012
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Is it really the default practice, if that seems wasteful? Yes, non-collaboratory business ([[BAU]]) is extremely wasteful. Wannabe monopolies do not publish their R&D openly - which means that development efforts in BAU enterprises such as universities or corporations start from the ground up - ie, reinvent the wheel - as opposed to building on a readily-accessible pool of knowledge.		Is it really the default practice, if that seems wasteful? Yes, non-collaboratory business ([[BAU]]) is extremely wasteful. Wannabe monopolies do not publish their R&D openly - which means that development efforts in BAU enterprises such as universities or corporations start from the ground up - ie, reinvent the wheel - as opposed to building on a readily-accessible pool of knowledge.

			Generating such a readily-available pool of knowledge - or neutral assessment of existing technologies - published openly - can contribute greatly in a [[Distributive Economy]].

	[[Category:XM]]		[[Category:XM]]

Marcin at 23:21, 29 March 2012

2012-03-29T23:21:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:21, 29 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to begin the development process of any technology is to perform exhaustive research on existing tools and their mechanisms. See [http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Ironworker_Prototype_II_Proposal#Analysis_of_Industry_Standards sample analysis] from the Ironworker machine. Otherwise, one risks 'reinventing the wheel' - the default practice of propriety research and development.		Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to begin the development process of any technology is to perform exhaustive research on existing tools and their mechanisms. See [http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Ironworker_Prototype_II_Proposal#Analysis_of_Industry_Standards sample analysis] from the Ironworker machine. Otherwise, one risks 'reinventing the wheel' - the default practice of propriety research and development.

	Is it really the default practice, if that seems wasteful? Yes, non-collaboratory business ([[BAU]]) is extremely wasteful. Wannabe monopolies do not publish their R&D openly - which means that development efforts in BAU enterprises such as universities or corporations start from the ground up.		Is it really the default practice, if that seems wasteful? Yes, non-collaboratory business ([[BAU]]) is extremely wasteful. Wannabe monopolies do not publish their R&D openly - which means that development efforts in BAU enterprises such as universities or corporations start from the ground up - ie, reinvent the wheel - as opposed to building on a readily-accessible pool of knowledge.

	[[Category:XM]]		[[Category:XM]]

Marcin at 23:20, 29 March 2012

2012-03-29T23:20:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 29 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to begin the development process of any technology is to perform exhaustive research on existing tools and their mechanisms. See [http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Ironworker_Prototype_II_Proposal#Analysis_of_Industry_Standards sample analysis] from the Ironworker machine. Otherwise, one risks 'reinventing the wheel' - the default practice of propriety research and development.		Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to begin the development process of any technology is to perform exhaustive research on existing tools and their mechanisms. See [http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Ironworker_Prototype_II_Proposal#Analysis_of_Industry_Standards sample analysis] from the Ironworker machine. Otherwise, one risks 'reinventing the wheel' - the default practice of propriety research and development.

	Is it really the default practice, if that seems wasteful? Yes, non-collaboratory business ([[BAU]]) is extremely wasteful ~~the sense~~ that such ~~critical research is not published by wannabe monopolies - since each wannabe~~ as ~~such~~		Is it really the default practice, if that seems wasteful? Yes, non-collaboratory business ([[BAU]]) is extremely wasteful. Wannabe monopolies do not publish their R&D openly - which means that development efforts in BAU enterprises such as universities or corporations start from the ground up.

	[[Category:XM]]		[[Category:XM]]

Marcin at 23:18, 29 March 2012

2012-03-29T23:18:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 29 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to begin the development process of any technology is to perform exhaustive research on existing tools and their mechanisms. See [http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Ironworker_Prototype_II_Proposal#Analysis_of_Industry_Standards sample analysis] from the Ironworker machine.		Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to begin the development process of any technology is to perform exhaustive research on existing tools and their mechanisms. See [http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Ironworker_Prototype_II_Proposal#Analysis_of_Industry_Standards sample analysis] from the Ironworker machine. Otherwise, one risks 'reinventing the wheel' - the default practice of propriety research and development.

			Is it really the default practice, if that seems wasteful? Yes, non-collaboratory business ([[BAU]]) is extremely wasteful the sense that such critical research is not published by wannabe monopolies - since each wannabe as such
	[[Category:XM]]		[[Category:XM]]

Marcin at 23:14, 29 March 2012

2012-03-29T23:14:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:14, 29 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to ~~assess a~~		Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to begin the development process of any technology is to perform exhaustive research on existing tools and their mechanisms. See [http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Ironworker_Prototype_II_Proposal#Analysis_of_Industry_Standards sample analysis] from the Ironworker machine.

	[[Category:XM]]		[[Category:XM]]

Marcin: Created page with "Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to assess a Category:XM"

2012-03-29T23:11:53Z

Created page with "Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to assess a Category:XM"

New page

Since OSE assumes in general that any 'breakthrough' is merely incremental mash-up of existing knowhow - the best way to assess a

[[Category:XM]]