Author Topic: New Hitches  (Read 23949 times)

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2009, 08:54:25 PM »
There appears to be an inconsistency with the Alove drawing1 top right p1 and left under on p2 wrt to the other Alove Hitches.
Yes.
The initial ("1") illustrations of the Alove are incorrect in the penultimate (3rd)
crossing of the arrowed completion, and this alone distinguishes it from Blove.
This is as Roo believed & I conceded must be the case.


Quote
Dan Lehman has a problem with different definitions and cannot make a choice?
 Dan, ... , so far I see you are left empty-handed.

And thus unburdened, on the bright side.

In my experience for now some 25 years I can't think off the top of my head
of any "new" knot that has been submitted as such that has impressed me as
having much of any value -- though "off ... my head" might be overlooking
something, admittedly.  I.p., not the "Irish Bowline", nor either of Mr.Chan's,
nor "Trident Loop", nor a host of others (to which I could triple the number).
Hmmm, well, --juices trickling to older grey matter-- a John Smith bowlinesque
TIB eye knot in KM#19-20 (IIRC) is interesting (and has appeared in other
versions 4 more times in KM); his Icicle Hitch got some attention, and an
adaptation (loading both ends, i.e.) by arborists, but when I want a friction
grip I am usually building it with compound structures vs. a single "best" one.
Roger Miles turned over some stones to find an interesting interlocked Overhands
("Symmetric") bend or few -- one of which got re-discovered by a Mr.Graves(?).

My personal favorite "new-to-me" knot found in the wild has been the
"Reverse Groundline Hitch", which though well-known & much in use, does
not surface in its used manner in readily available documentation.  Another
neat knot so far (to me) seen only in a replicated Samson Cordage photo
is what I regard as the paradigm "anti-Bowline"; this sort of thing IS shown
in EKFR p.70pl.28#94-5 (mirrored on vertical axis) --sort of-- but
in typical, know-nothing Hansel&Gretel make-believe fashion, lacking any
hint of which end to load (which determines whether this eye knot is a
*bowline* or *anti-bowline* in my thinking (anti-bwl loads #94 on left).

And also the fascinating variety of things that can result from different
forms of the "Fig.9" structure -- bend #1425 (arguably an abbreviated
such knot -- i.e., its interlocked Overhands being truncated Fig.9s),
and a corresponding eyeknot (the S.Part making the full Fig.9 here),
and mid-line stoppers (qua dockline markers?!) and in noose-hitches.

There are many other things yet to be revealed that my pen has traced,
but I've not seen much worthwhile outside of this.

Which brings me to one of Barry's points I neglected to reply to
fully as I'd thought:

"1. It must be useful."

We might not perceive this day the use some knot might serve,
so this criterion should not guard the door.  But, again, there
just isn't much to gain in crossing through the "maybe *new*"
door anyway, and if all we can muster is some verbal shrug
of admitting our ignorance of said knot at the time of consideration,
then that's it.

To put it another way, there is this pressure to make some kind
of binary & weighty determination re "new" which I believe leads us
the most off course -- off any good course.  "New" as in "new to us"
is pretty trivial; "not published" is both impractical to determine,
but also rather readily agreeably met by all sorts of simple extensions
and combinations.  Consider e.g. --:
|  "The Interlocked Round Turn Loop",
|  "The Round Turns With Interwoven Half Hitches" ("has no practical value"),
|  "The Round Turn Overhand Knot and Half Hitch",
|  "The Stevedore's Twin Loops Knot"
|  (which some people might see as structurally equal to the Constrictor!),
|   & "The Double Looped Interlocked Overhand Knot"
These are all supposed "knots" out of that make-believe world of
Hansel&Gretel's EKFR.  Wanna jump up'n'down and shout "Hooray"
for any of them?  -- count them ?  -- classify them? -- even tie them?!
And yet this book has contained and published them and it has been
reprinted for decades.  To what good end?  To me, the authors have lost
damNear all credibility for the amount of nonsense they have presented
-- which thus renders any actual-factual presentations suspect, alas.

( And as far as the publisher's hyping some clearly bogus knots
tally -- be it 3600 (latest ed., post-Ashley, for H&G) or 3900 -- , the sad
part is how many times both reviewers and other knots-book authors
have repeated the numbers as some kind of fact (irrespective of the
dubious value of even an accurate count in the bigger scheme of things),
rather than responsibly pointing out how obviously wrong they are! )

So, be prepared to say "maybe *new*, but ... <shrug>"; don't think
that there must be a Great Judgement rendered on behalf of society.
(And plenty of stuff will keep going on behind our backs, anyway.)

--dl*
====

« Last Edit: July 19, 2009, 03:48:04 AM by Dan_Lehman »

BambooFenceKnot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #31 on: July 19, 2009, 03:17:01 AM »
Derek,
 Well said. Now we will only have to wait till Dan Lehman unbunks to get his verdict.
 As for patented knots, check out http://www.patentsonline.com/ and query the site for 'KNOTS' .  Apparantly some structures have slipped the IGKT attention and even so, who is the "Guild" to stand up and defend the public ownership and freedom to use all and any knots? Can they? On which grounds?

Part of what attracted me to the field of knotting (not that I've made much progress) was an assumption that it was an Open Source (Free as in Freedom) area of endeavor. What if Mr. Clove had patented the Clove hitch? Would Mr. Constrictor or Mr. Snuggle then have been prevented from working on variations? Would the arborists be paying royalties to Mr. Clove and Mr. Buntline? Would there be wars over market share between Buntline Co. and Blare Hitch Corp.?  Anyone 'discovering' 'new' knots is making progress thanks to a long tradition on knowledge sharing.  I would hope the 'guild' would work to protect the free sharing of knot knowledge and enjoyment of finding new variations....

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=46849448925&ref=mf
  video with text and decoration on knowledge as a collective effort.. Seeds and Open Source Software.

  Stumbling on knotting and ABOK and then seeing this speech by Vandana Shiva made me think of knots as seeds of knowledge shared over the century. It's hard for me to express the thought in a more 'manly knotting' kind of way right now but how would patenting knots effect on-line explanations, diagrams and photos of knots. It just sounds crazy to me. But most of Intellectual Property Rights is just crazy, progress- and innovation-blocking progress.... I think Ben Franklin and other old wise notables said pretty much the same thing.. Vandana Shiva's talk on 'biopiracy' may have a lot of parellels for the world of knotting.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25a/039.html
Quote
The basmati rice which farmers in my valley have been growing for centuries is today being claimed as ?an instant invention of a novel rice line? by a U.S. Corporation called RiceTec (no. 5,663,454).[2] The ?neem? which our mothers and grandmothers have used for centuries as a pesticide and fungicide has been patented for these uses by W.R. Grace, another U.S. Corporation.[3] We have challenged Grace's patent with the Greens in European Parliament in the European Patent Office.
 Just using this board, writting in PHP an open source language, and freely sharing knot knowledge just seems to exemplify values that would reject 'ownership' or 'patenting' of knots...
« Last Edit: July 19, 2009, 03:25:31 AM by BambooFenceKnot »

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #32 on: July 19, 2009, 07:24:09 AM »
Indeed, BambooFenceKnot, knots as structures (distinction on behalf of DL :) ) can never be claimed as proprietary. Their usage/application, on the other hand, can be very proprietary. If a tight-knit usergroup never tells the world they use a specific knot that usage has become very local and the chances of that knowledge of that usage spreading become very slim. There is, IMHO, a strong correlation between numbers and knots. You cannot claim the "ownership of a number", walk over to the patent office and register it as "your number". If you apply a functional perspective to this type of tool usage, a totally different situation pops up, but that is not the topic of this thread.

siriuso

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 220
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2009, 11:08:44 AM »
Hi dear all, I deeply apologize for the errors in the drawings formerly (red line on Clove Hitch) and recently (Alove Hitch step#1). I will post a fresh set on the coming Monday. About these mistakes, I have to say I am not carefully cheched before I sent to Sweeney. I use CS3 (the new version of Illustrator) to do my drawings in which I have to make patches to cover some details in purpose to creat front and back layers. I admitted it is my fault. I am a retired designer, not just long, eventually I do my drawings with computer. My purpose is to name knots which are not named. Thanks here for everyone's view.

y Chan

BambooFenceKnot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #34 on: July 20, 2009, 01:33:32 AM »
Indeed, BambooFenceKnot, knots as structures (distinction on behalf of DL :) ) can never be claimed as proprietary. Their usage/application, on the other hand, can be very proprietary. If a tight-knit usergroup never tells the world they use a specific knot that usage has become very local and the chances of that knowledge of that usage spreading become very slim. There is, IMHO, a strong correlation between numbers and knots. You cannot claim the "ownership of a number", walk over to the patent office and register it as "your number". If you apply a functional perspective to this type of tool usage, a totally different situation pops up, but that is not the topic of this thread.

A tight-knit user group that keeps the knowledge of a knot's usage from spreading won't be able to charge fees or dictate how the knot should be used if someone re-discovers the usage... I think the discussion of patents and intellectual property rights may have developed off into interesting directions but not be relevant to Mr. Chan's intentions in sharing the knots. It is a fascinating area being on of the key points in the debate over 'corporate globalization' and the most expensive and restrictive form of 'protectionism' in the trade agreements oxymoronically labeled 'free' trade.

I'm going to think about the number-knot correlation. How about a correlation between phrases and knots. Can words or phrases be patented? Should anyone be able to patent them. Can Nike ('globalization poster child having hopped it's factories from Maine to Korea to Indonesia in search of the least restrictive labor, environmental regulations, wages..) patent 'Just Do it'?  Might there be parallels between songs or essays (really short works) and knots?  I had never thought of it before but now I'm seein the Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report having encouraging his show to be (illegally?) re-mixed. News magazine articles on literature say that plagairism was common, a lot  "the great works" of Western Literature plagairized (and re-mixed?) ealier works. Intellectual Property Rights, copyrights would have stifled a lot renowned work..

This Japanese Group, Tree Climbing Vest, was in the process of patenting a 'new' way of using arborist (tree climbing) equipment when I went to learn Tree Climbing. I took advantage of the opportunity to get the license but didn't understand how the process could or should be protected. They may be motivated by safety concerns, or be hoping for income generated from the educational and liscensing fees. I'm not sure, but depending on how restrictive their rights are it seemed like a great way to stifle further innovation.

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2009, 08:13:13 AM »
BambooFenceKnot, I agree that your interpretation of "free usage" covers more than my "tight-knot proprietary example". Also that it is quite a hefty discussion, but I do not think that this thread is the right place to have it. Tellywot: what about continueing on: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=946.0 where Derek Smith started "Just Plain Crazy"?

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2009, 04:43:45 PM »
Attached are the latest version of Chan's drawings (I am posting on his behalf as he has trouble reducing the file size).

BambooFenceKnot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2009, 04:40:52 AM »
BambooFenceKnot, I agree that your interpretation of "free usage" covers more than my "tight-knot proprietary example". Also that it is quite a hefty discussion, but I do not think that this thread is the right place to have it. Tellywot: what about continueing on: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=946.0 where Derek Smith started "Just Plain Crazy"?

Thanks for the link I will check out the other thread. To put aside the patent ("intellectual property rights") issues I like naming conventions that can go from Clove Hitch to ALove Hitch and BLove(d?) hitch. I was just concerned about the potential for the kind of abuse in the knot world that Vandan Shiva writes about in the agricultural world.

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2009, 09:22:19 AM »
BambooFenceKnot, thanks for the video link to Vandana Shiva and the fascinating thought in your quote:

Quote
Vandana Shiva made me think of knots as seeds of knowledge shared over the century

Very true; knots are seeds of knowledge. They are the smallest unit, if we may call them that, of solutions to problems involving rope. If you have not figured out how a specific structure works and you apply it to something which may cost you your life then, upon malfunctioning of your glorious device, you pay a high price for your uncultivated knowledge. Also its usage by a user group may aid in defining and reinforcing its cultural identity (e.g. knot logo's, headhunterknots, etc, etc,... endless list). On the other hand, if you view knots as packets of learning, or as Peter Suber (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/knotlink.htm) puts it:

Quote
a good practical knot is both a nugget of hard-won technology and a thing of beauty.

a totally different knotgame unfolds. Who owns the knowledge - and why should they? Vandana Shiva, in her Monocultures of the Mind, made that point from an agricultural/technological point of view. Recently I learnt about a US-Italian firm (X?) who managed to prevent germination of their wheat (I believe), by mean of genetically coded keys. Really smart! Tinkering with this kind of matter may potentially render all of the world's future crops infertile. You starve unless you pay Firm X for their genetic key. Good question why it should not hold for knotting-technology? There exist quite some claims to knots, ranging from industrial patents to usage based on professional proprietary exclusiveness; some outspoken, some tacit. Fut frankly I doubt any of them would hold up in court when subjected to non-superficial and fact-finding scrutiny.

As you mention; words and phrases should not be patented, but the Nike "Just Do It" slogan/meme generated billions of turnover for them, so they have a financial incentive, are keen on protecting that combination of words and branded it as "theirs". Barack Obama's utterance "Yes, we can!" falls into the same bucket, although I am not aware that he has patented his 3 famous words plus comma and exclamation mark, as yet. As for knots, we recently had Fred Wolf a Dutch angler from Wezep, who markets the knotless fish-hook (http://www.easy-2-hook.com) covered by a batch of patents. However, it is not so "knotless" as Fred would like us to believe. Check it out and try to determine whether his tanglement mechanism requires a knot or not? Fred is not claiming the "knot" by the way, but the little protuberance-eyelet combination, catching the loop swirled around the stem of the fish-hook and preventing it from becoming undone. So, he allowed Easy2hook knotters the confined freedom to cook up their own "knot". Wolf merely dictated a partial solution in terms of tying method. However, now we are in real trouble, because suddenly the structure is not at the centre of attention but its tying methods (in fact a whole battery of solution directions). If they can be patented, then so can the structure, which is the product of that process.

Joop Knoop.




 

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2009, 12:32:27 PM »
I think you are so right about patented genetic mutations - I have noticed that sellers of F1 hybrid houseplants forbid propagation (though quite how they enforce that in the case of a private buyer is beyond me); and the EU forbids that sale of "old" types of seed (ie from varieties which were grown before tests were done) unless a hugely expensive testing process is undertaken. Looking wider music piracy is an interesting example as more companies are trying to get buyers to legalise what they do by making the price attractive - they still have copyright however. And I can understand that an inventor of some sort of mechanical device would want to exploit that via a patent - the fact that a piece of rope, cord or fishline is used essentially as an accessory is outside the patent but the method of tying is included if it is intrinsic to the device itself eg the Niteize Figure 9 for joining ropes where a similar device might be manufactured to compete. A major difference between a mechanical contrivance and a knot is to my mind in the manufacture and sale - a patent is expensive and only if you can have made (in China?) and market a device will you see a payback and then only if you can take action to prevent copyists (ask the fashion industry!).

That said a set of knots making up an article might I think be capable of being a registered design with copyright eg a macrame bag. But any craft books I have only restrict copying of the book's contents and do not extend to the creation of articles in the book (which would almost certainly be a pointless exercise). So unless you have a machine to "knit" bags why bother?

Finally anyone can call a knot whatever they like - the Zeppelin Bend or the Rosendahl Bend? The former is probably better known but so what? Ashley has enough duplication to satisfy anybody methinks.

Barry

Barry

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2009, 01:15:36 PM »
Barry,

You wrote:

Quote
Finally anyone can call a knot whatever they like - the Zeppelin Bend or the Rosendahl Bend? The former is probably better known but so what? Ashley has enough duplication to satisfy anybody methinks.

I seem to have lost your reference to "naming knots", but I do not think that the issue is so simple as you put it. As the late Desmond Mandeville once said: "a nameless knot is merely a muddle of string". Blaise Pascal added: "let's define the things first before we start quarrelling about them". When there is a unique identificator for all knots (or at least the knots under discussion), then it is clear what we are all talking about. Theoretically they should be the same things. But you must, however, first establish that common nomenclatural framework. So, yes, anybody can name knots whatever they like to name them, but when they tread into shared pastures, all parties must compromise or perpetually have their interfacing frustrated - a fate, as you point out, Clifford Ashley also suffered.

Joop Knoop.


Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2009, 01:32:22 PM »
I do agree re nomenclature but I also think that this is unachieveble. Before I retired a very senior civil servant I worked for had the notion that every business we dealt with should have a single unique identifier. This, it is easily demonstrated, simply will not work when one deals with the same business across a number of different areas. And it became unnecessary once a computer could link all of the identifiers (eg knot names) no matter which one was used. 

To do this we had a project to index Ashley (  http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1305.0 ) which foundered through lack of interest (I assume) but which could have been the basis to add knots not in ABOK. So no matter what name you have it should have been possible to at least access all other known names for that knot - adding names as they became known. As a project it would also have gone some way to deciding how many knots are actually in ABOK (recording but not counting duplicates, fastenings which are not knots and composite designs consisting of many knots used together - once identified as such anyone can include or exclude the latter). Perhaps it will gain a fresh impetus one day!

Barry

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2009, 02:54:20 PM »
I see. Unsolvable nomenclatural/identificational issues, you say, create problems when one object has to become known across multiple domains. For me that is so hard to imagine, as you, "Barry", are "Barry" at home, "Barry" here on this forum, "Barry" elsewhere. Where do things go awry? When multiple instantiations occur? In that respect you differ from knots, I presume. This is the point I was trying to explain to Dan Lehman above. Knots may appear different, but they are intrinsically the same kind of thing. If you allow a classification to run across all possible knot-appearances then the lifespan of the universe will be quite insufficient catalogging whatever you meet. A pity your ABOK project floundered over the head of such matters.

On a different strand, we got away bleddering pretty well on this thread about "new hitches", but what is the status of mr. Chan's Alove? Is it a new discovery? Is IGKT going to issue their Certificate of Newness? Is the New Knot Claim Assessment Committee ready to proclaim its verdict by now?

Joop Knoop.

BambooFenceKnot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2009, 02:54:14 AM »
BambooFenceKnot, thanks for the video link to Vandana Shiva and the fascinating thought in your quote:

Quote
Vandana Shiva made me think of knots as seeds of knowledge shared over the century

Very true; knots are seeds of knowledge. They are the smallest unit, if we may call them that, of solutions to problems involving rope. If you have not figured out how a specific structure works and you apply it to something which may cost you your life then, upon malfunctioning of your glorious device, you pay a high price for your uncultivated knowledge.

  Thanks for following up on the knots as seeds of knowledg idea. I was suprised at myself when the idea popped into my head. I'm glad it seems worthwhile to someone else too. And thanks for the Peter Suber link too.


Quote
a good practical knot is both a nugget of hard-won technology and a thing of beauty.

a totally different knotgame unfolds. Who owns the knowledge - and why should they? Vandana Shiva, in her Monocultures of the Mind, made that point from an agricultural/technological point of view. Recently I learnt about a US-Italian firm (X?) who managed to prevent germination of their wheat (I believe), by mean of genetically coded keys. Really smart! Tinkering with this kind of matter may potentially render all of the world's future crops infertile. You starve unless you pay Firm X for their genetic key.

  The Terminator Gene is also a product of Monsanto. Do we really want some of the people that brought us Agent Orange to play around with the crops that feed us? Sure they do already with pesticides and herbicides (Food Crisis all over the world) but the Terminator Gene and the bacteria gene in corn and potatoes has the potential to spread and propagate itself, the 'living pollution' could be irreversible.. I'd rather not be a Guinea Pig. No one really knows what this all does to the soil in a lot of cases..


Good question why it should not hold for knotting-technology? There exist quite some claims to knots, ranging from industrial patents to usage based on professional proprietary exclusiveness; some outspoken, some tacit. Fut frankly I doubt any of them would hold up in court when subjected to non-superficial and fact-finding scrutiny.

 I think most people would think this kind of Intellectual Property right claim shouldn't hold for seeds or knots. Or a lot of other things. I can't remember where I read the discussion that patents were changing from processes to the finished product. This means that no one can find a more efficient way to do certain things, stifling innovation. If I can find the article I'm pretty sure the examples illustrating the insidious change made sense (at the time..)... I'm pretty sure it was one of the Multnational Monitor guys, who right about Pharmacuetical Prices. It may have been Dean Baker at cepr it seems like something learned from stumbling upon their articles.

As you mention; words and phrases should not be patented, but the Nike "Just Do It" slogan/meme generated billions of turnover for them, so they have a financial incentive, are keen on protecting that combination of words and branded it as "theirs". Barack Obama's utterance "Yes, we can!" falls into the same bucket, although I am not aware that he has patented his 3 famous words plus comma and exclamation mark, as yet.

   I think "Yes, we can!" has been around for a long time. I read somewhere that Obama was basically copying Cesar Chavez of the UFW. Someone interested in real change and with far fewer Wall Street advisors.

Quote
When Barack Obama adopted 'Yes We Can' as his 2008 campaign theme, he confirmed that the spirit of 'Si Se Puede' has never been stronger, and that it still provides the clearest roadmap for achieving greater social and economic justice in the United States.

This other quote from Vandana Shiva, about seeds being passed down through the centuries might also have parellels with knot knowledge.

Quote
Farmers everywhere have been saving seeds for centuries, preserving the most durable ones for replanting. Women farmers in India were no different; that is, until 1995. That year India signed an international trade agreement giving multinational corporations permission to patent, own and sell seeds. As a result, seeds are becoming the private property of a handful of corporations, transforming the tradition of saving seeds into a subversive political act.

I'd just like to say that in spite of teaching style disagreements and various arguments I'm impressed with the free exchange of knowledge on this board and appreciate the opportunity to learn from everyone that contributes knowledge here. I intend to follow this advice upon which Joop Knoop and Dan Lehman agree. I will go direclty to the source. The Japanese Fence Knot is everywhere. Landscapers have to perform it for a certification test. I'll post yesterday's pictures of yet another example of a tree supports involving the 'Otoko Musubi'(Ibo Musubi, Tsuno Musubi, Kakine Musubi). I think an object having a lot of different names is a sign of the importance placed on it. Either that or regional isolation in the past.

As for your expert advice to BambooFenceKnot, we are not in disagreement, for once. Looking for the knotzoos is usually a waste of time, I know because I have ruined precious years of my life trying to chart knotting bibliography from Russia to the South American continent and beyond. Just poking your nose into people doing a knotthingey in Bangladesh is far more rewarding than trying to find an illusive orginal Pakistani or Bengali knotbook.

I'm also glad to see that Sweeney is concerned about patents...

Quote
I think you are so right about patented genetic mutations - I have noticed that sellers of F1 hybrid houseplants forbid propagation (though quite how they enforce that in the case of a private buyer is beyond me); and the EU forbids that sale of "old" types of seed (ie from varieties which were grown before tests were done) unless a hugely expensive testing process is undertaken. Looking wider music piracy is an interesting example as more companies are trying to get buyers to legalise what they do by making the price attractive - they still have copyright however.....

 It's an interesting, timely issue. The plumbers on the construction site were talking about how many guys had work back in the lead-and-okum days. Now with PVC pipe and glue 2 guys can do the work of ten. I don't think you saw plumbers on prime time news hours complaining about the loss of work from this advance in technology but Sony and other entertainment corporations get plenty of airtime to rail against, and try to control, technology. They might just be obsolete with the new 'delivery system for' or 'communication of' entertainment.  Maybe we're heading towards more collaborative forms of entertainment that can't be controlled for a profit with TV and Radio. I can only hope the artists/producers and fans/consumers end up in better positions....I don't know much about the topic, I just think seeds and songs might illustrate why I hope that knot techniques and knowledge remain open and 'free as in freedom'..

J.Knoop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
Re: New Hitches
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2009, 06:47:33 AM »
BambooFenceKnot, thanks for the images and your thoughts. I will respond later in more depth, but I think we are discussing "ideas as memes" here. Richard Dawkins also once adopted that approach to knots. Unfortunately I do not have the details at hand here where he mentions 2 researchers noting the usage of the Trucker's Dolly as an evolutionary meme. I will excavate the reference later today/tomorrow.

Great to find somebody, in Japan, who sees similar mechanisms at work and manages to leverage them into a more generic context!

Joop Knoop.