diary-2004

www.prudentbear.com/archive_...ntent_idx=39603
www.supportthetruth.com

Unfortunately you've misinterpreted most of my ideas.

> ... you said that "Locked OPEN" seed DNA was a bad thing ...

Either I misspoke or you misheard.  "Locked CLOSED" is the strategy Microsoft, most seed companies, and land owners have always used to enforce artificial scarcity (hoarding).

"Locked OPEN" is a strange state of property enforced by the Copyleft attribute of the GPL, and the state I will use to overcome hoarding in general.

Hoarding begins losing its power when another owner (whether of software, organism genetics, land, machinery, etc.) chooses to "Lock Open" their solution - even when the 'Free' solution is not as complete.

> ... you say money should not be a considered factor ...

Money is a terribly confusing subject for more than one reason.

What I meant to communicate was:  We have been taught that our goal is to "make lots of money".  But money is just paper.  It doesn't solve anything by itself.  That may sound ridiculous, or simply a matter of semantics, but it is the first step in understanding that the proletariat need _solutions_, not money.

>  ... open piece of land for people to grow ... But to still have to pay money to rent it from an authority who will not provide any feasible sort of support.

Money is needed initially to climb out of our current situation.  If we can get a large enough piece - probably county sized, then we won't need to pay external property taxes.

Beyond that we should eventually be able to stop using Federal Reserve notes.

Using community owned currency removes yet another drain.

The rent I mention has to do with the desire for the community to build its infrastructure.

Every community should make their own decisions about whether taxes should be optional.  No outside force should set their stage.

I think it would be best to make the rent/tax/lease-fee optional, but required for VIP access to community-owned resources.  Non paying member would be treated as all other non members - allowed access only after paying a (possibly above cost) rental fee.

> ... back into medieval times, having a Lordship who own the land, who policed their lands, and who collected forms of payment from their land workers whose lives could be compared to slave labor ...

You are describing the current state of most of the world.  How do we get such Low, Low prices at our retailers?  How does GAP, Disney, etc. do this?  Economic slavery enforced via finite resource hoarding.

My plan is to relieve the burden of hoarding so solutions may be had at 'cost' instead of paying for somebody else to 'profit'.

> You also say "solutions are the problem", but that solutions are needed ...

I meant to say: "Locked Open solutions are a problem for those that utilize artificial scarcity".

Microsoft, Monstanto - in fact most businesses use artificial scarcity.

The scarcity is artificial because the product could otherwise be propogated for (nearly) free.

> ... you wish not to contribute to ..

The point I meant to make is about human nature and dependence.

Contributions are nice, but we must not depend on them.  One of the powers of "Locked Open" resources is the ability for others to pick up the ball.  We can now literally build on the work of others.

Humans are mostly lazy and greedy.
When you depend on another for something you need, you put yourself at risk.
If they stop working or begin hoarding what will you do?

While the final goal of Communityism is a community of wealth,
The first goal of Communityism is raising the lowest rung.
When every individual (or family) can meet their own organic needs, wealth is available to any who choose.

Current interdependencies in the world block those solutions - even for those that struggle the hardest - working 12 to 15 hrs per day at 12 cents per hour, some as young as 9.  For many of the cases I've looked into the people spend over 90% of their income on food, 5% of their income on water.  They don't own the land they live on, so most of it is considered slum since they don't have the time or capital to improve it.  And even if they did have time and capital, they don't own it.  That means the owner would come wipe them off the land if they ever built up a good situation for themselves - since then they could demand higher wages while the sat home eating papaya.

A free person should be able to:
Sit in a lean-to and die of starvation.  That is a choice.
Raise expensive organisms and build a gleaming castle.
Have a small garden and just a small shack.

Communism requires people to "hold up the tent pole" for the benefit of others.
The community can not survive if the workers are lazy and greedy.
They must be policed and forced to work or the system fails.

Communityism _never_ requires work for the benefit of others.
Communityism is designed to allow anyone to succeed with their own work alone.
Communityism is just like capitalism with hoarding disabled.

Communityism gives everyone an opportunity.  Capitalism doesn't because of hoarding.

> ... it seems the ramblings of a mad man...

It is a big subject.  Nobody has the time or interest to really figure it out.  Your email shows extreme misinterpretation of my intent.

... Linux environment to a lower level than they believe Microsoft environments ...
I'm not sure what you mean "to lower level".  It sounds like you are talking about personal fighting and pettyness.  If that is the case, my only statement is: That is not important.  I care nothing of opinions, and neither do the poor.  All they need is access to solutions at _cost_.

> ... OS war really be about human nature in forcing others to want what you want or have?  Typical to a monarchy, or more as in communism?

It doesn't matter what people want.  It only matters what people are disallowed.  The poor suffer when solutions are made artificially scarce.  Locking solutions open creates wealth for the community while denying hoarders the use of artificial scarcity.

> ... individuals who are worthy of holding a corporate skilled IT professional's job are the only ones that matter in the war between MS and Linux.

I'm not sure what you are saying here...

> Money is the element which causes these issues to be brought up.

The term 'money' is easy to use because it is such a big bucket.  You must break money down to find what people are really after - and what keeps them from it.

> And Microsoft could change their pricing plan to match that of Linux, if it becomes as big a contender as Microsoft became to Unix.

Ha!  Good luck!  Is that what they will do?  Stop charging licensing fees?  I think I remember reading in some email something like 80% of our revenue from licensing?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure it's not small.

> They have made billions of dollars in surplus from selling their OS, having to merely sustain their OS would not destroy their company.  And what happens when Microsoft releases their package of Linux?  It is reasonable.  And I wonder if they hadn't already been working on it.

That is an extraordinary proposal.  You should email MS CFO John Connors.

www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/18/ballmer_linux_lawsuits Use Linux and you will be sued, Ballmer tells governments

Buffoons of the Apocalypsewww.gnupc.com/
lcdsmartie.sourceforge.net/smartied.htm
www.washingtonvotes.org
chip or clip wood from trees
pond
What if suddenly you were in charge?
It was determined you should be king of the world.

Would you have a plan to make it all right?
Do you think it may take a bit more than might?

Saw part of interview with Ray Kurzweil about book "Fantastic Voyage" and his belief that genetic manipulation and nanotechnology will increase human longevity.
Unsugared money news: www.moneyfiles.org
Fears of a brutal dollar plunge goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?p=80510#post80510
Experts grim on economy: Descriptions of long-term trap becoming increasingly accepted business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=59118

Ruthless empire builders atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FL15Dj01.html
A monetary coup d'etat atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FL17Dj01.html

US Dollar worthless now? www.indiadaily.com/editorial/12-16g-04.asp

The cost of borrowing www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3494519

Dollar Drops as Investors Slow Purchases of Securities in U.S. quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aYnaFYUUq4ls&refer=news_index

India Has Much to Gain by Dumping Dollar Link: quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&cid=mukherjee&sid=aaRl0WnGIYRQ
walden3.org
Photocapacitor physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/3/1
Debt Limit to Rise to $8.18 Trillion www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60963-2004Nov18.html
Stocks Drop $10Bln in a Day www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/12/10/001.html
Japan Threatens Huge Dollar Sell-Off www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120904_japan_threatens.shtml
www.terrorize.dk/911
www.gallerize.com
bombsinsidewtc.dk
independent.com/news/news906.htm
www.questionsquestions.net
www.peaceproject.com
www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/downlevel.htm
www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk
www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_messenger_remove.htm
www.prisonplanet.com/wtc7collapse.ram
www.prisonplanet.com/wtc-7_cbs.mpeg
www.infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV
www.prisonplanet.com/noexplosivesplaceddemolition.mpeg
www.prisonplanet.com/strategicdemolition.ram

www.stopthelie.com
www.hijackingcatastrophe.org
www.americanempireproject.com
www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf
www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia/Behind_the_Green_Curtain.wmv
sf.indymedia.org/uploads/a20dcimfworldbank56ksnowshoefilmsdotcom.ram
www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia/PSI_01.ram
www.prisonplanet.com/video/RMmorelli00028467_020908_194213hi.ram
Overheard:
"'
The guy ... the bomb.
I was carrying ... blew up like six of them - HA HA HA.
Chasing the terrorists
I like to use the submachine gun ...

I like the machine gun fire, the effects and such, but there is just too much swearing!
Ya, just turn off the sound

If you were in real combat you wouldn't be yelling.  You'd be doing your job and talking ...
It just sucks because it's what I hate about the whole thing.
I must have heard the F word more this last week than in all the last year.
If I wanted to go see an R rated movie I would!
Potty mouths ...
'"

Heavy computer users - especially myopic - have higher glaucoma rates globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041116.gthglaucoma16/BNStory/Technology

Experimental Machines Workshop

www.armory.com/~wavejump/Community.html

marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm is one of a couple of essays from Brian Marshall about the social and economic consequences of automation.

Automation is Client Policy XML

I had a dream 2 nights ago about tens of thousands of varieties of edible and medicinal mushrooms growing all over my property and spreading all over the neighborhood.

----

From: John Tomlinson <jrt126us@yahoo.com>
Subject: hey
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:22:55 -0700 (PDT)

Hey Pat whats going on I finally have a damn minute to
e-mail. So anyway how is everything going. um its
kinda just same old shit different day forr me I just
hurt a lot and on all these meds I am like stoned but
hey takes the pain away but the vicodin for my back is
making me feel that way. anyways e-mail me back man
talk at you later John

Nate Bushman wrote:

> votepair.org
>
>
> Lets you coordinate swapping votes with someone in a swing state.

Too bad Diebold (the same company that 'accidentally' screwed up the Florida electorate database - causing ~ 48,000 voters to be erroneously disqualified from voting) is involved with the electronic voting machines that many states will be using this year.

These machines will further trivialize the thieving of our democracy.
www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm

But I hold no hope for any such tactics.  Even if the elections weren't a joke at a dozen levels, our public officials (Republican == Democrat) have become too powerful.  National - and often world - decisions are based on personal financial gain.  They hide behind a theater of pomp and righteousness while collecting favors from the corporations they coddle.

We must disempower them.  We must starve them.  Boycotts are only realistic when an alternative can be had.  I now know how to implement the cry of "Power to the people".  Nobody yet believes me, but one day everyone will say "obviously".

My latest T-shirt slogan:
    Own or be owned.

Overheard: ... the pirating in China and Russia ...

"'Central to Gandhi's philosophy was the principle of 'swadeshi', which, in effect, means local self-sufficiency.'" -- www.squat.net/caravan/ICC-en/Krrs-en/ghandi-econ-en.htm

Download the latest backward Emacs from: patware.freeshell.org/linki/htm/NoteMacs.htm

We need a Roots Revolution!

=== Features ===
1.  Those accustomed to *indows or CUA bindings may find Emacs especially foreign.
Note Macs comes with these bindings on by default.
Use  M-x customize-group .Note Macs RET  to adjust them.

2.  The hundreds of modes in Emacs are somewhat consistient.
Note Macs key bindings increase consistiency - especially for navigation.
See ~/Note Macs/.keys to adjust them.

see ~/Note Macs/.custom for mostly cosmetic changes.

=== Installation ===
Download Note Macs from freecache.org/patware.freeshell.org/NoteMacs.zip
Unzip Note Macs.zip into your HOME directory (c: by default).  The .emacs file should end up in HOME.

Download Emacs from nqmacs.sourceforge.net

Unzip Emacs anywhere you like (say c:\Program Files\Emacs).
Run "c:\Program Files\Emacs\bin\runemacs.exe"

=== Extras (offline for bandwidth reasons) ===
The ~/Note Macs/bin package raises the standard of living on W32.

Notable inclusions:
~/Note Macs/bin/cygwin.min/: bash bzip2 chmod chown cmp cp cvs dd diff diff3 du find grep gzip ls md5sum mount mv ps rm tar top touch umount unzip wget which zip

~/Note Macs/bin/3rd/: Context FILEMON I_VIEW32 PropsFor REGMON arcext coolplayer ctags ht modplug mpg123 mplayerc pdftotext upx w3m

=== Discussion ===
I appreciate the itch you are trying to scratch for others stuck for whatever reason on Windows, and have myself encountered many unnecessary-seeming difficulties with several similar Emacs on Windows projects (all-in-one binaries from the Text Encoding Initiative, Cygwin, and Lisp in a Box), but, speaking strictly personally, I can have no confidence whatsoever in such a totally a) undocumented download from b) an unknown and in fact  c) unnamed ('patware') source, d) hosted on apparently untracable (I didn't try) freebie domains (freeshell.org and freecache.org, with email at bigfoot.org).  And what do you suppose 'Note Macs' connotes to a skeptic?  I do *not* doubt your good intentions, but frankly, this does not seem at all attractive.  I trust the Emacs mavens here to either give this implementation a peer review, consider asking for adequate documentation, or deleting this entry on behalf of those who might only give Emacs one or two chances on Windows.  There are other Emacs on Windows solutions -- I've named three -- and these need better documentation, too.  -- Anon

: Thanks for the feedback.  Here are my answers (in backward order):

: 1. EMacro, Lisp:wthreetwo-feeling-mode, WThirtyTwoInstallationKit and many other projects and snippets compete with Note Macs.

: 2. I will assume you are a skeptic.  What does the word Note Macs connote to you?

: 3. I've removed the binaries for size reasons, but can elisp not do as much damage?  Emacs gives you full access to disk, net working, process creation.  All elisp should be checked with UnsafeP before execution.

: 4. Do .com domains instill more confidence?  What about .net?  What kind of email address gives you that sure feeling?  If my web hosting and email addresses were different would you have downloaded and run these programs?  What if the elisp contained a virus?  Is this possible?

: 5. Freeshell.org is very slow, and is not enough space.  I'm attempting to host from my house connection, but don't have it set up yet.  Freecache.org is an interesting project that let's communities share bandwidth.  I hope to eventually get a project up on SourceForge or Savannah or Gna.

: 6. The goals of the three projects you mention are not similar to those of Note Macs.

:-- PatrickAnderson

333

I've added a few questions of my own to the [[Note Macs]] page.  You should add your wiki-linked name there, as well as on your Note Macs download page, [[PatrickAnderson]].  I only found your name by poking around here longer than intended.  Please accept my apologies if my 'expression of grave concern over Note Macs' (as I summarized my post) seems overly skeptical, but I've just wasted a couple hours with trying to get *another* underdocumented Emacs on Windows 'solution' to work on Windows, and I'm losing my patience.  And that buggy one came from a well-known individual on a major open source project.  (At this point, I'm beginning to think, based on the contemptuous expressions of disdain for Windows, and even Windows users, I've seen in [[Richard Stallman]]'s helpful Emacs tutorial, and elsewhere, that he really *doesn't care* if Emacs works well on Windows.)  Be that as it may, without knowing in advance what specific itches Note Macs scratches and what files it includes and what functions they peform, I can't imagine why anyone might be interested in downloading it, when similar solutions of some tenure are on offer from reputable sources.  Please take it as a wake up call -- documentation matters!  -- Anon

: Thanks for the feedback.  Here are my answers (in backward order):

: . Tenure and reputable sources - Oh My!  I'm sorry you can't imagine.
: . Why would Richard Stallman be interested in anything at all?  Aren't your interests more important?
: . You say "wasted a couple hours ... Emacs on Windows 'solution' ... from a well-know".  What package is that by the way, I'd like to steal some code from it.
: . Sorry to hear you "poked around here longer than intended".  Kind of addictive isn't it?
: . Note Macs seems like a terrible curse but is meant to make Emacs more intuitive.
:-- PatrickAnderson

--

Patrick, I have constructive answers to your first six substantive, clarifying questions, but they can wait.  You are getting bent out of shape for no good reason.  I offer you a gift, a marketing manager's perspective on how to make this page more informative and your package more appealing to your target market, newbie users of Emacs on Windows, such as myself, but we cross-edited to bad effect,  as you'll see below, so I won't address your latest somewhat erutammi remarks, but wait for you to read this, and delete from my mark 333 above to the 666 below.    Or not.  It's your package, and your page as far as I am concerned, and if you are happy with how how it is doing relative to what you say are "many other projects and snippets compete with Note Macs", then so am I.  At the moment all I have to contribute to the Emacs community are my newbie eyes and online marketing sense.  FWIW, I did download your package and await your editorial eyes. --  PaulWilson, for the third time, and not Anon

History of WThirtyTwoInstallationKit

Revision 19 . . . . 2004-09-07 21:07 UTC by PatrickAnderson (minor)

Revision 18 . . . . 2004-09-07 21:06 UTC by PatrickAnderson -- moved Note Macs rant.

Revision 17 . . . . 2004-09-07 21:05 UTC by PaulWilson -- removed my ignorant questions, which were answered on Note Macs page (minor)

My marking my self-deletion minor did not help, rendering it invisible in RecentChanges I suppose, but your copy and paste, er, yank, followed within seconds, so it looks like just one of those things that make online communication so challenging.  Let's start over.

666

Running late.

I'll just work from home after noon unless you need me.

756 6306
started working on ui.exe again
Tommy Franks interviewd in Cigar Aficionado Dec 2003
The Armageddon Plan
Thanks for the feedback.

Nushman wrote:

>Well, if you really want to know, the following statement sounds a bit
>like a fanatical rant.   It's the kind of statement that makes people go
>"Uh, right, okay... I'll read remaining text with many grains of salt."
>
>  The term "The Economy" in this document refers to the
>  hoarding-enabled raw capitalism and globalization that
>  is destroying humanity and our planet.
>
>Many people may feel that they benefit from a good "economy" despite the
>fact that much of the wealth of the economy is held by proportionately
>few.
>

Yes, it is a bit strong for those not aware of what is really occurring.  3rd world poverty/slavery and the environmental destruction our government is paid (by corporations) to cause is bringing our species to the brink of disaster.  I should be a little more light handed - especially at the beginning of the document, and considering I don't give any data to support such a claim.

>
>People may also feel that they benefit from the development of resources
>by corporations even though the resources are locked closed.  They may
>also see difficulty and disadvantages with the locked open paradigm
>because it can be a disincentive to resource development due to a more
>uncertain profit.

Uncertain profit from locked open finite resources.
    This is still certainly the case with

I've heard this view many times by those who claim Free Software is not successful because of lack of incentive.

If I were RMS in 1985 trying to convince you, I would have nothing more to say since there would not yet be any proof.

But today this claim (with respect to software) is difficult to support.

Did you know MicroSCOfts CFO rated "Linux and Open Source" (they never use the term Free Software because they don't users to understand the difference) as their #2 threat?

"Microsoft is taking the Linux threat seriously. So seriously, in fact, that open-source software comes in at the No. 2 spot on the company's top five list of risks." -- www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=12800942

Here are some other

Free Games
Free Media
Free Music
Free Hardware
Free Access
Free Food

>Personally I think that sometimes it makes sense to
>lock a resource closed and sometimes it makes sense not to.  My gauge
>for whether it makes sense or not is whether it will be profitable.  I
>believe this is the only practical gauge as I, like every other human
>being, am selfish.

Higher profit from locked closed finite resources, selfishness.

>If companies have less incentive to develop
>resources which are in turn used by the consumer, then the consumer may
>end up with less choice/selection, which isn't desireable.

Less choice.

>They may
>also feel that the selfish nature of capitalism is actually a good
>thing, in that it gives the individual the incentive to compete, thus
>benefiting the whole, not to mention that selfishness is inherent to
>human nature and should be leveraged for communal good rather than
>stymied.

Thank you for the thoughtful critique.

Your response is very different from any of the others.  Though you misunderstand me and address issues I am not interested in, these difficulties must be addressed to make the final document more clear.

Coworker wrote:
>As you explain these various forms of economics, pay attention to the
>words "allows" and "disallows".  Allows = freedom.  Disallows = slavery.
>You are trying to _force_ people to be generous and not hoard things.
>That in itself is a form of slavery.  When you take a people who are
>selfish and force them to be unselfish, you are forcing them against
>their own wills and the whole system will collapse eventually as it has
>repeatedly with communism.

Realize any LOCKING license - both Microsoft EULAs and the GPL are only licenses.  They are neither laws nor economic systems.  If you read the document carefully you will see I don't intend to change laws or the economic system because they are too difficult to change.

LOCKING licenses are adjustments to the ownership rules of resouces - but can _only_ be applied by the owner.  When I LOCK OPEN organism genetics I am not stopping you from hoarding your property.  I am only stopping you from hoarding _my_ property (I should mention the ability to lock such things at all - to even claim them as property - is distasteful to me, but since Monsanto and others have already started locking them closed, we must defend ourselves).  If you choose to build upon my work (for instance by adjusting the genetic qualities of peach you grew from a seed received under the GGPL), then you have agreed (through the license applied to that peach) to lock your changes open.  But you are not forced to do so.  If a locking license doesn't appeal to you, you should find organism genetics that are still UNLOCKED.  There are many to be had for now, but if you look carefully at seed catalogs you will find there are fewer each year.

If you still want to think of LOCKING licenses as _forcing_ compliance, it is worth noting that LOCKED CLOSED licenses force people to hoard.  Since LOCKED OPEN is the only way to keep finite resouces from being LOCKED CLOSED, eventually everything will be locked one way or the other.  Do you hope they are CLOSED or OPEN?

>When people hoard and make mistakes and are jerks and choose the wrong
>things, they can learn from those experiences and become better people
>if they choose to.  If you take away the choice of hoarding, being
>selfish, making mistakes, etc., you take away that person's freedom and
>you become a controller of people just like the "bad" people who are
>enslaving people today!  You also take away their right to be generous
>of their own free will too!  They are generous because they are forced
>to, not because they learn to do it of their own free will.  They are
>therefore dependant upon you for their own generosity.  If you leave the
>picture, their selfishness will return and you haven't improved them one
>bit.

Does our society use laws that disallow?
Would you say a society should never use laws that disallow?
Is there a way to categorize activities which should be disallowed?

>
>It's not the economics, it's the people!  If the people are "good"
>(unselfish, etc.) then these economic models would probably work.  If
>the people are "bad" (selfish, etc.) then these economic models would
>probably fail.  Work on the people and getting them to be unselfish by
>their own free will.

You are hoping selfishness can be solved by "work[ing] on the people"?  What should we do - beg the hoarders to give up their land/IP/genetics/designs?  This is very unlikely to have any effect.  Even if it did, they would immediately be grabbed by others to hoard again.

>I think that the only way to have what you desire is by getting people
>to become less selfish of their own free will rather than compelling
>them to be unselfish.  Gather these people together and form a society
>with them.  These people would be selfless, generous, concerned for
>others as much as for themselves, and completely free!  You would then
>only allow people who are (of their own free will) truly generous to
>enter the society.  The rest of the people who don't choose to be that
>way will eventually die of their own hoarding and selfishness.

This sounds extraordinarily far fetched.  On the other hand, it is similar to a long term goal I have to LOCK OPEN some land.

later...

Coworker writes:

> I guess all else being the same, LOCKED OPEN destroys competition, which is why socialism and communism always collapse since we humans seem to need some competition and a bit of greed motivating us to work hard and come up with newer and better things, etc.

So it would probably be best if the GPL had never written, and even more important that the a Generalized GPL never be written, for the freedom would make greed unimportant.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat, what happened to you?  You used to be so upbeat.  You'd walk into work, all, "I love everything, especially you, Tom."  And also, your time-honored selfless advice to simply refrain from having kids.  Given while shaking your hands at your monitor, no less.    You are one of my favorites, sir.  For my part, I don't credit people with sufficient intelligence to pull off a global conspiracy.  Some unremarkable internet essayist whose name I don't even remember once said, "Never assume malice in what can reasonably be explained by stupidity."  I was also glad to hear you are starting your GNU produce thing

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think they need to be so smart.  Our government is actually very sloppy, but since corporations have such heavy influence ("Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini), and since mega-media conglomerates are nothing more than corporations - it's easy to see our media is finally _State_ media.  They feed us so carefully that the acts of terrorisms they create for their own purposes need not be ingenious.  I challenge you to watch this video and think about my claims: www.prisonplanet.com/painful_deceptions_excerpt.wmv (26 Megs)

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't blame the supplier of news in this case.  It sells.  I blame the people buying it.  Our country eats this stuff up.  They don't watch the discovery channel, they watch the sensational news for tales of human suffering.  They want train wrecks, suicide bombers, plagues, and worst of all in my book, reality television.  Innovation in entertaiment is stifled by the greed of the people at the top of that heap and they simply dole out what sells as cheaply as they can.  Who is going to win this fall's election?  Kerry, due to what some claim is a liberal media bias?  Maybe, but if he wins all that will mean is that he gave more money to the media.  It doesn't mean they agree with him.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Both candidates are members of the "Skull and Bones".  It is easy to dismiss this as an unimportant conspiracy theory, but where do their allegiences lie?  Our republic is in danger because our "leaders" are too powerfull.  The only way to take that power back is to stop paying the corporations that run them.  The only way to stop paying is to boycott.  The only way to boycott is to have an alternative.  The only alternative is owning your means of production.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
with the peanuts.  I remember some conversation about an apple analogy for an intellectual property discussion back in the day at Novarad.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Please tell me more about the apple analogy if you remember.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
Once upon a time we were talking about intellectual property.  I was expressing the opinion that software couldn't be free just because it is infinitely and costlessly reproducible.  The apple analogy was a question you presented to me.  You asked something to the effect of, "If an apple were infinitely and costlessly reproducible, should it be free."

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
I've discovered that apples are very close to being infinitely and costlessly reproducible after the initial setting up (soil preparation, automatic irrigation, gifting ground cover).  Lowering the workload through

1. old time wisdom
2. careful decisions
3. modern, low-cost technology

Unfortunately there are many corporations (Monstanto is a good example) that are locking organism genetics closed to make such things artificially scarce.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
The commune is more commitment to anti-establishment ideologies than I can muster.  The Man doesn't care, and unless you hold a fanatical reverence for the ideology from which such a commune would stem, it would make no positive impact on one's quality of life.  Good luck with it, though.  Let me know how it

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
You claim it would make "no positive impact" because you are (along with most US citizens) currently near the top of the heap.  But that heap is not guaranteed to be infinitely sustainable.  In fact, if I am able to help the 3rd world slaves achieve personal sovereignty, the cheap labor that gives us LOW LOW prices will dry up - as those people will then have the choice, the option of staying home to work on their gifting landscaping instead of working 18 hrs/day for 12 cents/hr, some starting at age 9 sewing shirts for Disney in a Bangladesh sweat shop while spending up to 90% of their income on food and almost 5% of their income on water.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent point.  The progression of other societies would be excellent and solving the survival problem from a personally sustaining perspective is the first step towards doing that.  There is a societal change that takes place after that initial growth that I will address later.

This reminds me of the early science fiction idea that robots would work side by side with people, doing the dangerous, tedious repetative tasks, in a way providing and producing goods for humans who are then fortunate enough to live in a peaceful egalitarian soceity of plenty.  The reality is that robots replace people and people get left behind.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
There are two parts to my answer.  They are separated by _ownership_.

1. We already use robotics to accomplish tedious tasks.  The automatic irrigation I mentioned is a great example of this.  If the citizen _owns_ the apple tree, then the solution is good for society, and nobody is 'replaced'.

2. On the otherhand, if the citizen is working for someone else (irrigating apple trees in this case), and the _owner_ of the trees begins using robotics to automatically irrigate the trees, the solution suddenly appears to be bad for society because the worker loses his job.

This very phenomenon is occuring in China.  The manufacturing capital of the world has seen a decline in manufacturing jobs even though the output has continued to rise.  This comes from increases in automation and efficiency.  It's easy to see if humans do not have the opportunity to have some ownership over land (actually Finite Resources including water and other things), Intellectual Property (including both technology designs and organism genetics) they (the have-nots) will become more and more poor as the rich become more and more rich.

This is not neccessary.  It is by design.  Land and IP hoarding concentrate wealth through artificial scarcity.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Exploitation is occuring in this world because humans have been tricked out of sustainable practices to perpetuate the ancient magic of slavery.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaborate on "sustainable practices."  What I think you mean is practices which do not depend on another party in order to be perpetuated, which breaks down quickly on examination of any theoretical soceity that is not entirely engaged in survival.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainable practices _can_ be achieved.  They have been achieved in the past, and things are only easier when you apply modern techniques of organic gardening and use some low-cost technology.  They have had only limited success in the past for several reasons:

1. The greatest barrier to sustainable living (which I call personal sovereignty) is artificial scarcity.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
This concentrates wealth through artificial scarcity of land, technology and organism genetics.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
Because these things cost money, they are automatically unavailable to some portion of the population.  The things is, it takes resources to produce technology, which is the limiting factor on the usefulness of the other two.  As technology increases, the portion of the population necessary to supply the physical needs of the people decreases.  It would follow that this surplus population would work to distribute goods, which would be distributed more efficiently as technology increases, and others would work to support existing technology, some would advance the technology and other would manage the implementation of new technology and recycling of displaced technology.  Finally some people would be necessary to manage the allocation of personnel, or at least manage the human scheduler that runs HR.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
todo...

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that due to progression of technology the role some people fill will be bound to change.  Retraining takes resources.  For that matter, initial training takes resources.  Add teachers to the above list.

Currently, the grand management system of our economy is money.  It doesn't succeed universally, but the remarkable thing about it is that it works assuming self-interested, self-aggrandizing, competitive behavior.  You think that it is controlled by some higher power.  I simply disagree.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
todo...

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
works out.  It's all a great big game, this economy; the mechanics of living in it.  Take care that you don't pay too high a price to stop playing it.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm actually hoping to break the rules - making money along the way by stealing from the rich (selling organic products in small packages to vanity driven consumers) while employing the poor to do the work.  I'm currently ramping up to planting several thousand almond and northern pecan trees along with grains, berries, herbs/spices, mushrooms, etc.  The idea is sometimes called 'permaculture' or 'edible landscaping', but my idea is beyond just food - to include plants, animals and fungus that can be used as drugs, cloth (cotton, silk, hemp, flax), fuel (ethanol, methanol, biodiesel), nearly every human need.  It is an overwhelming project, so I'm sure most people (as you have indicated) will have little interest initially.  But in the end it creates wealth that is virtually impenetrable.  When the economy finally fails because of fiat money (which is the main goal of the Federal Reserve), those with the ability to employ themselves (without even the need to have consumers) will continue to live comfortably.  My eventual goal is to buy cheap, undeveloped land and create entire self-sustained municipalities based on this concept while using Henry George's land taxation ideas to ensure the city develops quickly.  There is much work to do - especially in the arena of material handling automation - though much of the work has already been done, but needs to be scaled down.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the only way to actually be independant is to provide for every necessity yourself.  The world got the way it is largely because of human nature.  Once liberated from their current masters, there would not automatically be an absence of the undesirable qualities possessed by what you refer to as the "Global Elite" because only the people at the bottom of the heap want equality.  Even the poor, alongside other poor people, want to be better than their peers.  As even as you could possibly make the social structure, individuals, even a minority of them, will always do their best to make peaks out of their little niche.  And I assert that a large portion of the people who did not feel the need to raise themselves up would become discontent upon discovery of those who did.  In the event that everyone must work to support the social well being, what does everyone do?  Do we return to subsistence farming?   In the event that the basic necessities of life are provided be a relatively small proportion of the population as is currently the case and technologically possible, what does everyone else do?  This leads easily to your sequence of questions at the end of your email.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
And in retrospect, I apologize for the winking sarcasm indicator.  It is moderately homosexual.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuals are people that should be respected as much as any other.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously.  I am well over homophobia and at this point it is really more of a colloquiality.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
I am not particularly interested beyond potentially collecting a paycheck.  AccessData is

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you work?  This is an annoying question meant to slow down your thinking.  Please answer as a prioritized list.

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
I like eating regularly.
I require medical insurance.  Out of pocket, my medical bills would cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
I enjoy recreational activities that cost money.
I want to be in a position to raise children with as wide an array of opportunities as possible.

That is pretty much it.  Nowhere in there is personal fulfillment, ambition, or a desire to contribute to society.  Those things exist to any degree that the do as a byproduct of trying to justify the time I spend satisfying the above four objectives.  Three of the four are possibly addressed in other ways, but the insurance thing is set in stone.  My blood all but refuses to clot.  I cannot solve that problem myself.  My choice as to whether I play this grand socioeconomic game is sufficiently bleak as to be functionally nonexistent.  Thus I make do.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Why do "slave laborers" work for slave pay?

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
Three reasons:  They don't know.  Subtly different from the first is, their perception does not include the possibility of a "higher" state.  Often times, they don't have a better option.

The baseline for existence isn't content survival.  If you don't play by the rules of society, in most cases that means you are denied some of the necessities of life.  There is no default "get fed and do nothing option."

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Why do people try to immigrate to the US?

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
There is little question that on average the quality of life in the United States is higher than other countries.  The US isn't the best theoretical country, but it is about as good as they come in reality.

Patware----------------------------------------------------------------
Is a world plenty and peace possible?

Verrd----------------------------------------------------------------
At present, no.  People will not arrive at such an arrangement unless forced, and if forced, it would be definition not be such an arrangement.
Coworker:----------------------------------------------------------------
This seems a bit interesting.  The first two minutes or so are in Dutch but the rest is in English.  If this stuff is true, it seems as though there's some funny business going on.  :(

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

Patware:----------------------------------------------------------------
This is also covered in the movie Fahrenheit 911 - which I saw last week.

Of course the internet is overloaded with info about this.

Here's a link about Carlyle I found a while ago which includes Rumsfeld ties
www.counterpunch.org/stclair05222004.html

I suppose one can never really know the truth.

Coworker:----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes - it is very difficult to see clearly with all of the politics and power, etc.  I think your idea of detaching from all of this and becoming completely self-sufficient is the only way out.  I believe that this will all come crashing down, either on purpose or by accident, and when it does, I had better have my garden up and running.  And if it's all just false propaganda and fear mongering, then that's still fine and I just get some free food out of my own garden.  :)

Patware:----------------------------------------------------------------
Some claim the Great Depression was planned and purposefully executed.  Land hoarding plays a big part in the problem.

I would like to take credit, but this isn't really "my idea" - it is a conglomeration of ideas that people have been trying get up and running since the beginning of time; well since the beginning of exploitation.

The ancient magic (magic meaning it is a trick played on our mind that we must be subserviant to those in control) of slavery will continue until we create options to allow us to choose _not_ to fund the mega corporations that invade countries for their own benefit.

The IMF and WorldBank are conduits which allow corporations like Enron to decimate entire countries such as Argentina.

A garden is an important starting point.  This gives us the power to not fund the wars through our food purchases.  But in my mind we must have ownership over all needs and wants.  This means using licenses to lock open land, technology, transportation, medication, media etc. in sensible ways so that people who are willing to work cannot be exploited by denying them their basic organic needs.

Plant genetics and ancient knowledge is being locked closed to concentrate wealth through artificial scarcity:
ip.aaas.org/tekindex.nsf/TEKPAD?OpenFrameSet

I was looking at maps that show over 60% of the land in the US is supposedly owned by foreign holders, much of it through the UN.  I don't fully understand it, but a friend of mine told me that figure continues to increase because we sell 'bonds' to allow us to carry our "national debt" (or was it deficit?).  Anyway, I need to research this more.  It is a major concern of mine.

Participating in a system that uses the sweat of the worker against that worker is not just a dead end road, it is a road to death.

Henry George talked about this in the late 1800's.  The game Monopoly is based on a game invented by a woman attempting to make a political statement about George's ideas.  Her version was called "The Landlord's Game" and had two sets of rules.  One set of rules were approximately what Monopoly is today.  The other set caused the players to uses Henry George's ideas to preclude the resource speculation (hoarding in hopes of capitalization) that is the root cause of poverty throughout the world.
rpgdx.net/whitedoor/main.php
overheard: "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." on the God Station.

coworker:----------------------------------------------------------------

>Neverball is fun though the controls take some getting used to since the
>"camera" seems to change angles and make the controls relative - it's
>weird but with practice, I'm sure I could get used to it.  I'll check
>out the rest.
>
>You mentioned "Free as in freedom" in the subject but wouldn't public
>domain be freer than open source?  In that way, you would be free to use
>and share and contribute or you would be free to use it, tweak it, keep
>your changes if you want to and make it proprietary?  Freedom means that
>you have choices and it seems that public domain would be freer than
>open source.  What do you think?
>

patware:----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the response.

Summary: The only liberty "Free as in Freedom" software limits is enslavement.

RMS uses "Free as in Freedom" to describe products (the following are my own words) that have been 'Liberated' from the artificial scarcity that the property owners have used against mankind for thousands (maybe even millions) of years.

You say "... you would be free to ... make it proprietary."

The problem with making something proprietary is that the only benefit to _you_.  Proprietary licensing creates artificial scarcity which, though it is an enormously powerful way to concentrate wealth, is bad for humankind.

It may be clear that real property and imaginary property (sometimes referred to as intellectual property) can be in one of three states:

Open but not locked:
Open Source software is open (the source is available), but the gate is not locked.  Source code under Public Domain (PD actually indicates you have relinquished all copyright ownership), BSD-like, or Artistic licenses are examples.  Locking of this software by those other than the original owner is allowed.

Closed but not locked:
Source is not available, but the binaries may be used for any use (for instance you may reverse engineer them).  Freeware is sometimes in this state.  UltraHLE is an example.

Locked Closed:
Most proprietary software is locked closed.  The source is not available and it is illegal to pick (reverse engineer) these locks.  This includes my current employer.

The GPL describes one more state:
Locked open:
Free Software is locked open to protect us from hoarders who would lock it closed otherwise to create artificial scarcity.

Locking open solutions allows the have-nots to climb out through sharing.

People don't need a nursing state that disallows real solutions so the rich remain rich, while the poor remain destitute.

Land continues to be used against people so we enjoy LOW, LOW prices.

Here is a poem I wrote about this:

The ancient magic of slavery continues unseen.

How do get a people to do what you want?

First you take their food, and then their land.
You tell them it's all part of the master plan.

They simply must press on for the invisible man.
Who wants them to move stones across sand.

To build a pyramid that helps no one but them.
While those unemployed starve and stare at the sun.

So even those employed need barely be paid.
Since without such a thing there is no other way.

To get the food and shelter and things you need.
See, you must work for money.  You work for me.

Since I own the land and equipment and access to both,
You must grovel and fight hope and hope and hope.

That I am nice enough to keep you employed until tomorrow.
And allow you to live another day in utter sorrow.

I'll pay you just enough to keep you alive.
And make you believe hard work is how to survive.

Otherwise what would you have us do?
More hand outs, welfare, programs and free food?

Why do you liberals alway whine?
When it comes time to work you call it a grind.

We can't have land for all and personal sovereignty.
For such ideas are surely autarchy!

There is no such a thing as a free lunch.
So get back to work you lazy bunch!

You may also be interested in these (rough) explanations:

patware.freeshell.org/linki/htm/Why%20The%20GPL%20Is%20Bad%20For%20The%20Economy.html
patware.freeshell.org/linki/htm/Peace%20on%20earth.html

Patrick,

coworker:----------------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the info.  I looked at all of it.  I agree that the world would be a better place if we all shared - think of how much easier everything would be!  I also agree in property possession since we don't have that here in the good old US of A - try not paying your property taxes after you've "completely paid off" your land and see how long you "own" it for after that.  I also agree with most of everything else you say about slavery and basic needs and false scarcity, etc.  What I want to do for just a minute is scale it down to just one aspect without bringing everything else in - I want to deal with one single issue at the very heart of what open source is so that I can begin from there and work outward.  I'm trying to wrap my brain around this - please help me.

> When I asked you about "freedom" I was talking about the freedom of a programmer to do what he wants with code, not the freedom of the code itself.  Freedom doesn't have strings attached to it like open source does.  A true gift doesn't come with strings attached either.  Imagine if you got a gift on your birthday that had a card on it that said, "Here's a gift for you that you have to share with others or you have to give it back to me right now!"  I would rather see a card that said "Here's a gift, I got pleasure in sharing it and I hope you choose to share it too.  Keep it regardless of what you do with it.  I want you to choose."  I would share it, but someone else might choose not to.  I really just want to understand this all and figure out why it's called "free as in freedom" when the freedom is for the code, not for the people who want to use the code.  Please try to keep the scope of your answer down to this one simple thing.  I'm still trying to figure this core element out.

patware:----------------------------------------------------------------
FaiF = "Free as in Freedom"

You say FaiF is "for the code".
You say FaiF is not "for the people".

But you don't have the authority to make these claims, as you did not coin the term.  You have misinterpreted the phrase.  FaiF _is_ "for the people".  "The code" is incidental.

Another way to think about it may be to realize the concept is meant to protect the freedom of future users by disallowing the (possible) desire of current users to end that freedom.

Remember, FaiF is about liberation, not about "Free as in Beer" (which is a phrase some use to describe "Open Source" = Open but not locked).  A FaiF license (the GPL is just one example such a license) does not guarantee there won't be a monetary charge for the software.  A license is considerd FaiF if it meets these criteria:

"
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
" -- www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The analogy of the gift you give is inaccurate.  FaiF software never requires anyone to give it back (to stop using it).  If you build on the work the Community has created, you must not lock others out.

A better analogy would be:
Here is a FaiF gifting organism.
But it comes with a license which Locks Open the genetics of future generations.
The offspring of this organism may (most likely) have genetic differences from the parent(s) (some organism reproduce in such a way that this doesn't apply).
You may use and share this organism in any way except you may not Lock Closed its genetics (the way Monsanto does for instance).
You may even sell the offspring.  The only restriction is that you are not allowed to disallow future sharing.

coworker:----------------------------------------------------------------
> So, "free as in beer" is like public domain: "here ya go, do what you want to with it".  Is this correct?

patware:----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Domain is software in which the copyright has actually been abandoned.  The author enforces _no_ restrictions on its use because he in fact relinquished his rights to such power.  For all other software the author typically retains copyright ownership.

"Open Source" software (such as a BSD or Artistic or Apache license) often has some (usually very light) restrictions such as "You must keep these comments at the top of the source files", or "You must mention our name on the help screen of your product" or some such.  The author retains copyright in order to enforce these restrictions.

Both of these are traditionally considered "Free as in Beer".

I describe them as Open but not locked.

coworker:----------------------------------------------------------------
> So, "free as in beer" is like public domain: "here ya go, do what you want to with it".  Is this correct?

> So, with public domain you get full immediate freedom since you can do whatever you want with the code (though this allows you to not propagate these rights to others) whereas with open source you are forced to have a more lasting freedom by having some of your freedoms taken away as a current modifier of the code.  Does this sound accurate?

patware:----------------------------------------------------------------
Please slow down and notice the difference between Open Source and Free Software.  Sorry if I've confused you with talk of Public Domain.

Open Source is "Open and Unlocked" - meaning you can lock it (open or closed) in the future.  Public Domain is a form of Open Source (in fact _no_ restrictions).  BSD, Apache etc. licenses are Open Source, but may have trivial redistribution requirements unrelated to future freedom.

Free Software is "Open and Locked" - meaning all future (released) versions are also locked open.  GPLed software is a form of Free Software.

To modify and redistribute your statement (with changes in '|'):

"So, with |Open Source| you get full immediate freedom since you can do whatever you want with the code (though this allows you to not propagate these rights to others) whereas with |Free Software| you are forced to have a more lasting freedom by having some of your freedoms taken away as a current modifier of the code.  Does this sound accurate?"

coworker:----------------------------------------------------------------
Wow - that's not what I understood open source to be.  That's why Stallman gets so ticked off when people confuse the two.  So when we say something is "open source" we usually should really be saying "GPLed" or FaiF or something like that?  What would the difference be between open source and public domain then?

patware:----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad we've had this discussion.  I've been accidentally misleading you in 2 respects:

My understanding of the term "Free Software" was that it imposes the constraints of a license such as the GPL.  But after carefully reading www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html I see the term I should have been using is "Copyleft" since Free Software means: "Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to use, copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either gratis or for a fee."

Whereas Copylefted means: "Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms do not let redistributors add any additional restrictions when they redistribute or modify the software. This means that every copy of the software, even if it has been modified, must be free software."

So, while the GPL ensures "Free Software" rights, it is the Copyleft nature of the license that requires future (released) versions also be "Free Software".

Strangely I never hear RMS mention Copyleft, it's alway "Free Software" he talks about.

Maybe that means he is less adamant about enforcing the GPL than he is about ensuring extra license restrictions are not enforced: "The term ``open source'' software is used by some people to mean more or less the same thing as free software. However, their criteria are somewhat lax; they accept some license restrictions that we consider too restrictive."

To me this is very confusing.  The GPL is certainly the flagship license of the Free Software Foundation.  The reason GPL threat is so real is because of the 'viral' Copyleft requirement that causes all builders to help the community.

I also got Public Domain slightly wrong since some PD software may not include source.
Idea: Reality TV show where the participants accomplish valuable goals.  Designs are required to be GPLed.
Develop hybrid vehicle.
Develop sustainable household.
Develop better dishwasher, clotheswasher, food preparation (ala roboChef )

Free Media: www.torrentocracy.com

Artificial scarcity:
Diamonds:
    www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond_pr.html
    www.gemesis.com
    www.apollodiamond.com

www.buildfreedom.com/
www.nu2.nu/bootcd/#howboot
overheard:  They've got to realize that we _are_ better.  We're better, we're badder, so watch out!

... finally have a justification to drill in Alaska.

... the (native American) Indians are so wealthy.  We gave them an acre of land each, but they just party all the time.  They don't deserve it.
overheard:
A: "... some use it for bad things, but it is just a tool.  I could kill someone with a hammer, but they're not going to outlaw hammers."

B: "On airplanes they would."

The following items were requested on 3/16/2004 3:37:52 PM:

Item #   Description.............................   Quantity   Price

6244     Dewberry Plants                            5          $6.95
7036     Sedum, Creeping Red                        24          $7.65
6539     Raspberry, Canby                           3          $5.95
6653     Apricot, Manchurian                        2          $3.96
6017     Strawberry Plant Offer                     100          $13.50
5728     Festuca                                    12          $12.95
6814     Phlox, Creeping                            12          $3.76
6700     Crownvetch                                 5          $2.65
5103     Walk-On-Me Plant                           6          $3.00
6213     Blazing Stars                              50          $3.00
6223     Cherry, Dwf. Flowering                     12          $5.92
6589     Paw Paw Tree                               2          $5.75
1540     SWEET LEAF PLANT                           1          $4.95
1038     LEMON/ORANGE COLLECTION                    1          $6.95
1289     Banana Plant                               1          $3.95
6214     Nut Tree, Pecan                            6          $23.00
6216     Nut Tree, Chestnut                         2          $4.96
6101     Almond Tree                                2          $17.50
6129     Apple, Dwf. Mcintosh                       1          $8.88
6127     Apple, Dwf. Lodi                           1          $8.87
            Free Gifts as Earned
Free

      Sales Tax           $0.00
      Packing             $7.95
      Total Charge        $162.05

bought: Undocumented Windows 2000 Secrets: A Programmer's Cookbook by Sven Schreiber, Sven B.

buster2003 debugger
cmp.phys.msu.su/ntclub/index.htm

Inside Microsoft Windows 2000, Third Edition

www.cnr.berkeley.edu/csrd/
www.landofhypocricy.com
www.dowethics.com/r/environment/freedom.html
www.bhopal.net/index.php
www.mad-dow-disease.com/
www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=3&theme=&usrsess=1&id=26789
subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/otherworlds.html
www.sristi.org/honeybee.html
strangecompany.org/matrix/
ocsinventory.sourceforge.net/
www.krisis.org/
ready2capture.dekoder.de/

docutils.sourceforge.net/index.html
www.merten-home.de/FreeSoftware/rst-mode/index.html

openflows.org/
www.greens-efa.org/en/
www.rentacoder.com
www.nedprod.com/
www.nologo.org/
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030428&s=klein
www.ontoknowledge.org/
www.thinkcycle.org/

www.gmlets.u-net.com/home.html
www.futurenet.org/2Money/Lietaer.html
www.transnationalrepublic.org/
econpapers.hhs.se/paper/wpawuwpma/0203005.htm
www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/wir.html
www.mikro.org/Events/OS/frameset_e.html?Submit1=english

web.media.mit.edu/~rehmi/pengachu/v3_document.htm

liveherbnursery.com/
www.supremelaw.org
www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/overview.html
www.acmqueue.org
www.openresources.com
www.countertradex.org
www.audioseek.com
www.openbeos.org
write `create-key-definition' to allow dynamic key adjustments.  `create-key-definition-on-error' asks to bind the previous key sequence if the last error was something like `unbound-key'

blue collar workers choose Bush
www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16885

americans have been misinformed about the Iraq war
www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EI11Aa02.html
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html
www.pipa.org/
www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

"But the Bush boys on the commission have a problem. The evidence against the electricity barons is rock solid: fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," fake power delivery scheduling and straight out conspiracy (including meetings in hotel rooms). So the Bush commissioners cook up a terrific scheme: charge the companies with conspiracy but offer them, behind closed doors, deals in which they have to pay only 2 cents on each dollar they filched.

Problem: the slap-on-the-wrist refunds won't sail if the governor of California won't play along. Solution: Recall the Governor."

www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16902

Older entries: unavailable