React component state, managed in a shared and component-ful way. lucaschen/shareful. Find 114 ways to say SHARE, along with antonyms, related words, and example sentences at Thesaurus.com, the world's most trusted free thesaurus. Share definition, the full or proper portion or part allotted or belonging to or contributed or owed by an individual or group.

Note about this article: This is a good example case for seeing how the digging deeply developing love at any layer/flow meets the need of entanglement with (develeoped) loves from the other layers. In short, here there is an explanation of a path from a simple willing to share that meets the flow chain interaction (already introduced) at its end, something that will happen to every other love willing to be deepened/developed. See more concrete stuff at offer page

1. Review of an standalone lending platform based in owners

For lending be lovelier it should help people sharing their things more and better. For doing so, it will be useful to have some standard conditions for sharing a thing (a kind of creative commons project for physical things).

There was not any platform doing this, so we went to do it. We first did a minimal module and a theme for a centralised but popular free software platform such as wordpress. We offer people a virtual platform with features that facilitate the description of conditions for sharing real things, we thought that developing such easy loveliness for lending was going to be much enough, but we realized that doing such an stand-alone effort didn’t produce what we wanted, basically, because of the integral lack every project fails into.

It doesn’t matter how flashy or full is a platform that let anyone to choose conditions for sharing more securely something. When we think on lending, we want the lending to be meaningful, otherwise they won’t share it and will rather gift or exchange them to other (unknown) people. People will normally appeal to don’t trust to lend anything to other unknown in case «they will bring it back safe after borrowing them», but more in fact what they more care about is that «i want to lend it to anyone that would love me a bit or more because of that». If I lend and don’t directly give it, is because I love the thing. If I love it, I expect my offer to improve my life, I want to love life and my thing more after that.

So if we bring this relational issue further ahead: If you can give a good relationship analisys between a posible lender and a borrower, then it is better to suggest custom conditions (an inteligent request message) for the borrower, so this way taking worries away from the lender as well. Universal conditions can be a good tree to rely on, but they will be very custom depending on the trust relationship.

2. Resume: Target: Shareful suggestions

«Depending on who it is, I would lend with some specific conditions»

Depending on the:

1. a) Relational data (potential trust of the offeror with the borrower)
2. b) Economical data: The current material situation of the offeror: How much (s)he can afford not to «rather» exchange it (rent or sell it) (because of a actual or future lack of resources).

Conditions for lending can be suggested to:

1 Offeror (chooses within a set, see below)

2 Requester (to be developed) (it lets offerors to worry less about choosing)

3. Licensing limitations

Licenses are texts that we propose to formalize the use conditions in the offering of things. They are composed of a base text, options (clauses) and additional information that can be freely added.

Licenses should be understood as different aesthetics of an invitation, which at any moment can be updated through an informal conversation between the parties involved.

Licenses are mandatory for lending, but they are also useful for gifts and exchanges because they enrich them. Gifts can be offered with conditions, all loans are offered with conditions and exchanges can also be offered with conditions.

There they have implemented the offer but only of things

In this group we share everything, in the other only a few things

In the Terms of use it states that you can decide not answering to any requester. Besides this, answering and adding clauses gives you points in a chain…

Types of formalities

By combining different areas of formalization, final licenses can be simplified. The platform design itself is an aid for simplifying final licenses. I.e.

Promoters: Authorship of the «Terms of use» and authority over the platform core data

Disclaimers: Introductory information for avoiding possible misunderstandings of the(se) limits (…)

Terms of use: Legal version of the «Conditions of Use»

Conditions of use: Informal version about overall procedure of use, i.e. Vocabulary and information about the use of licenses, etc.

Transferability: Gifting, Lending, Exchanging: with Clauses and-or Wishes, etc.

Base license: License text included in all licenses

Clause: Formal license option predetermined by the platform and selected by offeror

Clause assistant: Additional informal information about the clause

Additional information: Binding conditions added freely

Comments: Nuances and updates of the offer

Profile information: Data in the profile, can be explicitly referenced

Additional private information: Additional information agreed to privately

License: Formal-binding conditions for the offer: Base license + Clauses + Additional information

Version of licenses: About the actual license relation with possible old versions of the license

Mode (aesthetic) of license: i.e. Legal, Formal (platform default licensing), Informal

Wishes: Non binding conditions on the offer

Binding conditions

In the first implementation we have offered 12 clauses (out of a total of 20 exposed here in this document), and a very short base license text only for the case of the offer as «clauseless lending»:

«Leave the thing as it is you found it»

Sharefile

These are the minimal implicit conditions (apart from those recognized by the conventional law) that the offeror expresses. But neither our basic license nor the clauses, no matter how much we developed them, nor what the conventional law predisposed will ever be specific enough to fully facilitate or transparently face all aspects of a lending relationship. These are some of these impossible questions to reply very accurately:

1-Give attribution (To each one that sees me with the jacket you lend me?)

—Do not transform it (No opinion?)

—Don’t tell anyone (Do not let it be seen?)

2-Non-commercial: Can not use the thing to enhance exchanges (or exchanges with euros?)

3-Do not modify it ( Do not touch it …?)

These are clauses that are standarized in the CreativeCommons project. Despite CC only or mostly applies to digital things (not scarce by design), they also have to cope with these undefineabilities. Other ones are:

–The offeror can cancel any condition at any time (Maintains all the authority that is supposed to reduce the offer)

–Leave it as you found it (My hands sweat …)

–Delivery of contact information (All that the borrower wants?)

Interactive zoom vlc mac. –Compensation for accidental damages as far as possible (Traps?)

–Proposed methods for the resolution of disputes (UN human rights?)

–Propagation of additionally attached wishes (non-binding?)

-…

Clauses

The clauses are the specific optional binding conditions that we make available to advertisers of offers.

The clauses open up possible agreements for a more and more creative relations, without its proposed formalization to act as constraints or being an obstacle for offering itseld, but rather an incentive and even an endorsement for that. As developers, we could have chosen to offer you more clauses, or other more restrictive or permissive or long clauses, or not to APIs but we chose to standardize them because we believe that they represent with simplicity the depth of the values ​​we want to represent and promote.

It is also very true that each culture or for each type of thing will have a set of clauses more appropriate than another, but that does not mean that we can recognize some scales of common (lack of) confidence that the licenses can help us to overcome. These proposed set of clauses for licenses can be extended, minimized or be completely rephrased.

We believe that the scheme of clauses that we propose serve both as for a simplified first implementation, focused on the action of «the offeror puts his-her conditions and waits to be contacted by requesters». For future developments, we are more focused on the clauses recommendation for the requester depending on his-her current and potential relationship with the offeror (See more: Clauses development).

Additional information

Additional information is public or private formal (binding and-o explanatory) information included in the license added beyond the clauses or the base license. For a platform, we propose these types:

-Nuances: More specific information about some of the selected clauses

–Tips or instructions for use: Necessary if the thing is potentially «dangerous» due to its capacities or fragile or deteriorated status

-Functional contribution: Small material or immaterial contribution to be able use the thing

30 Euros of petrol (to go to Madrid)

Free price to cover expenses

Dinner suit, I brought your suit, she brought…

-Stock or Maximum time of use: Total, per session or per person

2 washing machines per week, different people

3 free places to go to Madrid

The one who has least used it has preference

-Stories: Historical narrative associated with the thing

It was from my dear father

This ball touched her Messi

There are already 50 former borrowers…

-Etc

Conditions vs Non binding conditions

Who appreciates as much or more a wish than a clause … lives more abundantly

Clauses help you to show more information about a contract, then any personal action of yours can immediately disengage you from what you have proposed with the clause. Clauses (or conditions) have the power to be used in front of the community or the conventional authority to report an use abuse, which would entail its judicialization and adequate compensation, first through the community and, if not, directly through the conventional authorities (police, judge, etc) where the offer information created in the platform will help for providing more ground for such an abuse claim there.

Wishes, on the other hand, can not be used as binding conditions of the contract-license and, if they were, the community reporter would automatically become denounced by the community. The violation of a wish (not expressed as a condition-clause) entails only a «karmic» compensation that, once again, can not be used to report an abuse.

Of course, for example, someone who has felt that his wish has not been respected can choose not to return to lend the thing to which (s)he consider abuser of her-his wish. In this case, the alleged wish abuser can not report an abuse (falsification of the offer) by the offeror, (s)he can only rather appease his frustration or expect compensation with the feeling that:

The same karma to which the offeror appeals so strongly, will turn against her-him for being such a cheater or radical with me. I am going to send a message to the mediators of the platform to take her-his unsocial action into account and I will also explain the situation to my friends in private so they do not lend anything to that offeror either …

We are worth entering into this unsolvable binding/not-binding dilemma because through incentivating the expression of wishes attached to thing it is demonstrated that the more binding law is still dynamic. Increasing the reliance on non-binding wishes is what more can decentralize law itself, which despite its natural centralization effort, it can achieved it due to the higher dynamism that any human relation has.

Wishes examples

If you fix some flaw, great

I want it to bring peace in the world

Please do laugh with it

…

Challenges:

1. Launchers-Suggestions to post wishes attached to things and other types of contents (Attach «Main wishes», «Souls» or «Habits»)
2. Launchers-Suggestions to fulfill wishes from others
3. Main wishes syndicated in profile and exportable to contents and third parties
4. Consider stories as wishes (extended wishes)
5. Relationship matches through wishes

4. Shareful clauses

4.1. Destination

You can list them posively (only for) or negative (not for). The thing can only be used by a certain group of people who know or are experts in a particular topic, whether from a place or a culture, have certain common characteristics or act or behave in a certain concrete way. i.e. Formal association: cooperative, community of neighbors, social center, bar clients, etc … Informal association: friends, cousins, hobbiistas, etc.

Close means: The requester should show some common link (friend, known, interests) with the offeror, MyFamilymember, etc

Near means: The requester is unknown but shows a string link or he is already more than known for the offeror.

The friends of my friends are my friends

I want to feel that I share values with the people that I share my things with

Always more important is the tract, than the contract

Known means: People that the offeror has some reference.

Tell me we have a friend of friend or acquaintance in common

I want you to give me a phone number to contact you

Granted means: The requester must have a special authentication and or protection against possible accidents.

I need to see your ID and know your residence adress

I need you to have positive comments from 5 people or a friend in common

Sharefile Login

I need to cover possible accidental damages with the following formality in the endorsement: symbolic, partial, solidary, formal, notarial

Anyone means: All interested persons are invited to contact.

I do not want to doubt about people

For all, especially for strangers or non-users yet

4.2 Purposes

You can list them posively (only for) or negative (not for)

Common means: The requester has to convince the offeror to actively support the purpose of use that will give the thing.

I’m going to help you develop your projects with your things

I need a lot and I want you to help me develop what I like

Approved means: The offeror must passively endorse the purposes of the requester use

I think you’ll like what I want to do with your thing

Beneficial means: The offeror accepts the use that is going to be given to the thing but does not have to endorse it either

Profit with it, but to finance similar projects

Improvement means: The requester has to show the offeror that the thing is of high interest to her, or that she can make some improvement to the thing

I am going to send you a sensitive poem to persuade you …

I have an idea of using it for something that you will like

I will return it to you improved

Any purpose means: In principle, it is not necessary for the requester to tell the purpose of its use to the offeror

I prefer that you do not tell me

Thanks for making it easy

I do not want to deal with the temptation of morality

4.3. Contribution

Contribution means: The requester is requesting a material contribution as condition.

Symbolic contribution: The requester brings something special to use the thing

You must offer something to a third party

You must use or take something extra that I will give you to use this thing

You must re-lend it, especially to people who still do not know the thing

Patrimonial contribution: Supplies needed to use the thing and % of co-offer acquired by the use

Be part of it and your family

If it is yours you will take better care of it

Lend me means: The requester must be predisposed to lend him something of equivalent value to the offeror either simultaneously or later.

Leave your document while using the motorcycle

You will return the favor if I need it

Lend means: The requester must show that she is also lending something of equivalent value to some other person with similar conditions.

Only for people with certain shareful activity and reputation

Re-lend means: Once used, or while you are using it, lend it to other people as well, to the best of your ability.

I want you, just like you, other people from your confidence can also use it

If someone says you like it, give it to them

Comment means: The requester must give information about the use the offeror requires, including the need for public comment before or after the use.

Be nice

Thank me

Comment when returning

Comment in web (with photo in the boomerang application when returning)

4.4. Time / Space

Using it with me means: Using it simultaneously or concurrently with the offeror

Finish soon that I’m leaving and you have to leave with me

As it’s the first time we try, it’s the most normal

This way I share the experience of lending a lot more

Use it where it is means: If it’s a movable thing, you have to ask permission to move it beyond where you found it.

The washing machine, do not take it away with you please

I do lend my house things, but only inside the house

Return after using means:

After you, give it to the other one who will give it back to me

If it is to be inactive with you, bring it back that I will activate it

Return when I ask for it means: It can be carried and a limit time of use is not established apriori. Whoever takes it is committed to store it and return it in a maximum time to agree.

Keep it and save it well, I’ll contact you soon when I need it

Keep your phone plugged in, you only have a day to return it

Save it means: The requester agrees to store the thing for an indefinite but finite period of time:

I find mantaining it a burden and I would like to be able to use it through some other friend side

I would say it is a gift but I have not dared to do so in case i want it back in some time

5. Shareful developments

5.1 Extended subclauses

5.2.Hints attached to the clauses (i.e. See Table 2)

5.3.Other categories of basic clauses. See some at: wow.wiki.yt/en/Shareful (way back machine)

5.4. Common clauses for all things (i.e. at user profiles, etc)

5.5. Preferred dispute resolution i.e. Prefer who…

5.6 Clausing intelligence

The way we behave with things says things about the way we are and vice versa

We can add further analogies to the Atitude/Aspects one (Table 2). Here there is a humanoids rolified suggestion, in vertical (body) and horizontal rows (soul), i.e.:

You are quite Mari Puri and you tend to Uxía… See how much Encarna you are.

Default:

You tend to share with Mari Puri’s soul in Juanito’s body

1. Diagonal (where body matches with soul) as the default for all. i.e.

For near and beneficial purposes that re-lend and keep it

2. The middled one (clauses proposed by Juanito): i.e.

For known with benefitial purposes who also lend and return it after use.

3. Further analogies with other lists with categories of 2, 3, 4 and 5

5.7. Automation of acceptance

5.7.1. Access by pre-established confidence

In this network, they say that grandparents and mothers share everything with their children (See more: MyFamily)

5.7.2. Access by acceptance

Press a button that allows you to use the thing without having to ask for more permission (See more: Slock.it)

5.7.3. Universal access (Uthopy?)

We give everything to the NOS user because (s)he has everything. Everything is shareable, for now there are few hours to do in the factories needed for everyone to use anything. Anyone rarely has to wait for something to use something. See more: Venus Project (Zeitgeist)

5.8. Local shareful

A quick guide to make a sharing space with close or near people. Try it with this this test

5.8.1. Space (Memory, spreadsheets, website, etc.)

5.8.2. Contact – Moderation (troubles, times of service, meetings, etc).

5.8.3. Agency

For keeping the contact of the advertiser private and offerors to lend their things safe without having to deal with the applicants

Aod transmission. The advertiser 1234 asks to call 67984XXXX if man and to network XYZ if woman

5.8.4. Community

The collectivity thing offers the possibility that people can give gifts and loans to the community, without publishing their contact information.

5.8.4.1. Warehouse and collection of gifts

The storekeeper can give everything without asking who asks for it, ask for exchange some abundant reosurce depending how scarce totally is, and or just lend if the resource is scarce.

5.8.4.2. Institutional integration

This document summarizes initiatives to integrate the philosophy of the shared offer in public administration.

Moderation of moderators (Model prestogal.gal)

Council must approve moderating associations

Participation of social services

Social Services Clients don’t have to (partly) rent some things (La Palma)

Privileges of use of shared services or things

Participation of libraries and civic centers (Host poster, orientate with web, Moderate ads, Add ads from other local users, Moderate register of web user, etc)

Other possible integrations

Discounts taxes for adding shared things

Local for the employees only

Let warehouse spaces for donations, loans or workshops and courses All in one media player for mac.

Offers donations or loans collection service

Offers legal advisory services, security and arbitration

Grant possible Accidents, Finance project developments (better tools, sustainability of mediators-volunteers)

Publish the loaner things of the institution to other institutions

Publish surpluses as gifts and underused things as loans

Social currency accept, support, develop

Accept FairCoin, Bitcoin, etc

Cryptomoney backing, development

Political party adds some, several proposals in its program

See more at offer

Apr 21 trending

• 1. Watermelon Sugar
• 2. Ghetto Spread
• 3. Girls who eat carrots
• 4. sorority squat
• 5. Durk
• 6. Momala
• 7. knocking
• 8. Dog shot
• 9. sputnik
• 10. guvy
• 11. knockin'
• 12. nuke the fridge
• 13. obnoxion
• 14. Eee-o eleven
• 15. edward 40 hands
• 16. heels up
• 17. columbus
• 18. ain't got
• 19. UrbDic
• 20. yak shaving
• 21. Rush B Cyka Blyat
• 22. Pimp Nails
• 23. Backpedaling
• 24. Anol
• 25. got that
• 26. by the way
• 27. Wetter than an otter's pocket
• 28. soy face
• 29. TSIF
• 30. georgia rose