From: Mitch Howe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Oct 19 2001 - 12:44:41 MDT
While I understand the reluctance of many to use any term involving "mind",
or suggesting heirarchy for PR reasons, I'm curious to see if people agree
with me when I venture to say that whether a distributed "subtrate" Sysop or
a locally confined overlord, the entity in question is still a single
"mind"; even if it is exists only as dispersed autonomous agents, these are
by definition still governed by identical or nearly-identical rules. They
are of "one mind", in a kind of Christian Trinity sense.
But in anycase, I beleive the following candidate for a neutral,
encompassing term might satisfy the biggest concerns:
If I'm not mistaken, this is the sysop of cellular biology. Miriam-Webster
online defines it as: "a group of closely linked genes that produces a
single messenger RNA molecule in transcription and that consists of
structural genes and regulating elements (as an operator and promoter)"
I like the way Operon suggests structure and regulation from the bottom up,
like the operator of an old switchboard. It allows for liberal, hands-off
futures as well as oppressive, tyrannical ones.
[Other, less optimal ideas I've toyed with in the last week include:
Nodemind, Enviromind, Schematrix, Schematron, Schemamind]
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT