XM Industry Standards Assessment Procedure: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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]] | ||
Revision as of 23:18, 29 March 2012
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 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