Related: diary
Apr-29-2011: Wanting to remix SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2011/fosdem/moglen-fosdem-keynote.html
Apr-29-2011: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Project plan?
> Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> I'm talking about making Free as in Freedom Cloud
>> Computing by addressing the issues that arise when
>> we try to share hardware.
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> How does that relate to "the silverlining of the cloud" as defined by
> Eben Moglen and the common attractor at this mailinglist?
Do you sincerely not see how they relate?
I'm saying we will never have a silver-lining of the cloud
while the hardware owners are silver-lining their pockets
by stopping us from fulfilling our dreams.
We, the people; we, the users must co-own and co-control the
physical infrastructure required for the communications we seek.
We cannot rely upon the modern-day feudalists to provide us with
what we need, for their seeking to keep price above cost requires
they withhold solutions and create artificial barriers to stop us from
gaining the freedom that would put them out of business.
If we do not organize and learn how to share hardware for our own
benefit, we will forever be enslaved and subjugated by those who
organize and co-own hardware (through mutual funds etc.) for the
sole purpose of subjugating us!
Apr-29-2011: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Project plan?
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> It is _very_ exciting to hear about all the great things people are
> working on inventing, and all the different kinds of hardware people are
> working on getting freedom-enabling technologies into besides Plug
> devices.
Just to be clear,
I'm not talking about inventing new kinds of hardware,
I'm talking about trying to share off-the-shelf hardware
in a way that protects User Freedom while achieving
the benefits of economy of scale that helps proprietary
cloud providers underprice and outperform what we,
the people can currently offer to ourselves.
I'm talking about making Free as in Freedom Cloud
Computing by addressing the issues that arise when
we try to share hardware.
If we don't solve this issue at least for the connections
between us, then the ISPs that 'provide' and 'carry' us
will continue to be able to stop us for whatever arbitrary
reason they see fit as they strive to keep price above cost.
Apr-29-2011: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Project plan?
Anthony Callegaro wrote:
> I am trying to get some time to implement a Dropbox replacement
I think this is a great goal because it is fairly simple and
widely used. For the same reasons, I would like to help
create a solution for email.
But, while the software is already available, what I see missing
is the ability to *host* these solutions in a shared way.
I understand FreedomBox is all about individualistic ownership
based in a very small device, and there are good reasons for some
of that, though I'm not so sure these Plug Computers are really
that different from a very low-end Personal Computer...
But even after we all have PC, there will still be value in
pooling some amount of hardware in a semi-centralized fashion
because of how the economy of scale can bring down costs and
simplify administration.
So my question becomes: Is there room on this list for the
discussion of sharing hardware and working-out the complexities
of co-ownership, or is that beyond the scope of what FreedomBox
is meant to cover?
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Economic Systems Debugger
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Apr-20-2011: [fcf_discussion] Net Neutrality: The European Commission Gives Up on Users and Innovators
> users "voting with their feet" by switching
> operators can solve any infringement
Users can solve this permanently by organizing
to co-buy and co-own the physical layer for
themselves, for their own collective benefit.
This will give Users absolute dominion over
their destiny without ever needing to beg
owners, since they will then BE the owners!
Users already pay all the Costs of access and
they *also* pay Profit.
When we, the Users, awake from our slumber to
see how silly we have been for not accepting
the responsability and risks of ownership, we
will see that we can and must own to be free.
Apr-20-2011: Using TV frequency white spaces extends WiFi reach
Sepp wrote:
> Houston nonprofit Technology For All (TFA)
Here is the TFA homepage: http://TechForAll.org
They received $9.6 Million grant from the National Telecommunications
Infrastructure Administration (NTIA) September, 2010.
I wonder who really owns and controls TFA...
William S. Reed, D.Min. as the President & CEO. --
http://TechForAll.org/AboutUs/Staff/tabid/56 shows
He has worked on the FCC Consumer Advisory Committee Working Group on
Rural and Underserved Populations. Representing TFA, he serves on the
Technology Infrastructure Task Force of the Greater Houston
Partnership, among other things.
He co-authored "Developing and deploying multihop wireless networks
for low-income communities (2005)" --
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.122.81
More about the Huston Wireless initiative:
http://TechForAll.org/Programs/ResearchandInnovation/TFAWireless/tabid/107
Apr-20-2011: [P2P-URBANISM WA] a debate on country-city (dis)urbanism, moscow 1930
Jan Wiklund wrote:
> We will simply not afford automobility in a fairly close future.
Every city has ornamental plants, and more are being installed.
We can choose manufacturing plants for future installations
without causing any dispersion of humans living there.
Unless maybe you are saying we should eliminate ALL plants,
even the purely ornamental varieties - and surround ourselves
with only inorganic materials to reduce transportation costs?
Apr-16-2011: [Open Manufacturing] Open Sourced Blueprints for Civilization
John Griessen wrote:
> As I understood it, he's hoping for a 10kw "steel melter".
>
> So he'll need good insulation to keep in the white heat.
White heat?
This reminds me of "Solar "Death Ray": Power of 5000 suns!"
http://YouTube.com/watch?v=TtzRAjW6KO0
But this kind of free energy can always be retracted by our
'representatives' through Global Dimming, from "Aerosol
Geoengineering"
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_%28geoengineering%29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBjDSNWiuKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3YKIhxP9Ts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRot4ihq1JU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBuXKPWmC7o
Apr-16-2011: concerning an ideal structure
Devin Balkind wrote:
> My intention is to create a graphic that shows people how to structure an
> open project. My chart intends to describe the democractic governance of a
> foundation that supports/protects the work of a participatory community that
> creates a 'build' released through media to users.
>
> I've added 2 other graphs after my first slide that address issues of
> transparency within a polisci framework.
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AbhSktWsQi1VZGRyZ3NncnZfMjUwZm1obmJ3Y2s&hl=en
I am very concerned the graph seems to show Users being disallowed
entrance, when they should be a central to the movement.
Free Software developers often do the work (play) they do because they
are scratching an itch - in other words they are Users.
Richard Stallman (Saint IGNUcius) preaches "Free software is a matter
of the users' freedom" -- http://GNU.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Steve Ballmer wrongly preaches "Developers, Developers, Developers,
Developers" -- http://YouTube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE
Devin Balkind wrote:
> If people are contributing to the project, I'd consider them a part of the
> community. User's aren't disallowed entrance, they're just choosing not to
> become part of the community by limiting their interaction with the 'build'
> to be simply using the build and (possible) sharing the results with others.
>
> I updated the graph to make this more clear, but I'm very much not a
> designer and I think there's lots of room for improvement, especially around
> how the foundation is represented.
>
Thanks for making that change.
The new version is much better.
Showing the users as an outermost
container is I think better than my
suggestion to make them central.
It fits well with a metaphor I have
struggled to convey in a pleasing
manner - where the users should
accept the roles to protect, guard,
and generally support the welfare
of those who have the skills to do
the building that must be done.
This includes shouldering the risks
and burdens of funding, installing,
and maintaining all of the Physical
Sources any artisans will need to
accomplish the goals of 'building'.
I believe we must eventually also
include a way to supply a sort of
"Basic Outcome" for those players
so they don't need to worry about
the distracting problems of food,
shelter, basic health care, etc.
I envision a wide variety of these
structures - at least one for each
kind of product that any subgroup
within a community may want.
Each subgroup of users buys or funds
the construction of such a structure
(say a milk dairy or Avocado orchard)
and then attract those with skills and
the desire to operate those Sources by
offering to operate some Sources in
the community for which they have
skill and desire (say fixing teeth or
shoveling manure).
Operating in this way will allow us to
minimize the need to trade goods while
maximizing our opportunities to trade
a wider variety of skills which will make
work seem more like play because we
will be liberated from the monotony
and repetition of doing the same job
for much longer than we might want
because we, as workers, will not be
tied-down to the Physical Sources
(land, tools, buildings, etc.) we are
usually required to fund ourselves,
but will leave that responsibility to
the Users who desire that product.
Apr-16-2011: cutting out middle men - bulk buying
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> the idea is to bulk buy food, mostly locally produced food,
> as to reduce prices for consumers,
I agree "bulk buy" is a great way to begin.
I see this as one way for consumers to
"pre pay" for the products they need.
We could open a grocery store where
some customers would "pre pay" for
the great savings, while others might
buy products in the 'normal' fashion.
We would charge Profit against those
who pay late (whatever the market
will bear in that area), but then treat
that overpayment as though that
customer had "pre paid" for the next
round of bulk buy.
It is important to charge Profit against
late comers because if we don't, the
product will be far too cheap - causing
a sort of 'scalping' where middle-men
would buy all of the low-price goods
and then resell them to other to collect
that profit - removing our ability to
treat it in the special manner (as payer
investment) needed to establish the
negative-feedback loop used to keep
the collective auto-distributed during
growth.
Sorry if my suggestions are not exactly
what you envision, I am only trying to
brainstorm a way for us to grow such an
endeavor without suffering the typical
fate of all other well intentioned orgs.
Let me know what you think.
And yes, I am willing to do software work
for this, though I am more of a c/c++ guy.
Apr-16-2011: The Paradox of Dictatorship in Open Ventures (was: What is ProM)
Matt Cooperrider wrote:
> set yourself up as a weird sort of dictator
...
> Linus Torvald's original post on the creation of Linux
http://Linux-Mag.com/id/1231 wrote:
>> "The Great Dictator: An Interview with Linus Torvalds"
>> He may be benevolent and he may be delegating more work, but the Linux kernel remains Linus's project.
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/index.shtml
>> "Grand Replicator aka Benevolent Dictator"
>> Actually Linus operated and operates like a dictator and rules the development of the kernel with an iron fist
http://WikiQuote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds wrote:
>> My name is Linus Torvalds and I am your god.
Apr-14-2011: Feeding America
Vicki Escarra, President & CEO <info@feedingamerica.org> wrote:
>
> I wanted to alert you to this crisis right away and ask for your immediate support. We must raise $1,060,301 between now and June 30th to provide 7.4 million meals for American families in desperate need.
How about using some of that money to purchase the *Sources* of food - such as Land, Water rights, Heirloom seeds, Chickens, Cattle, etc?
Why rely upon Giga-Corporations to supply us with the output of Genetically Modified Organisms sprayed with dangerous petro-chemical?
> The problem is so severe that Feeding America's own employees have pitched in, offering an unprecedented $109,598 matching grant. That means every dollar you give will double to help get 14 meals to hungry Americans.
$218,000 that can be spent toward un-pinning ourselves from under the thumb of these modern-day feudalists.
You may think "Well, if we plant Almond trees and Grape vines and Avocado trees in our cities, it will just be too much work."
While the next breath will be used to plead for more jobs!
Let's purchase the Means of Production for our OWN benefit, instead of propping up the ownership of those that rape our planet and pillage our livelyhoods.
Apr-14-2011: Hybrid Funding - Growth Edge Dynamics
> Poor Richard wrote:
>> and whose users don't have to keep paying for the
>> copper/fiber/satellites/etc. forever and ever and ever.
Users will only pay *real* recurring costs once they (we)
co-own the physical layer. You don't pay more than cost
for transmitting bits across your living-room because you
own those wires. The same is true for multi-owner wire.
Charles N Wyble wrote:
> network scale and an associated revenue model (give away 50%
> of the ad revenue in various chunks to the different tiers). This keeps
> money local, drives the folks with the highest stake to keep things up and
> running etc.
This is similar to the hybrid funding approach I am trying to finalize now.
The difference I propose is that 50% of Profits be treated as though it
were a real investment from and for the user who paid it - so the users
gain *real* ownership in the network as it grows.
This creates a strange dynamic where Profit is incrementally eliminated
for those users who pay it long enough - since owners don't need to buy
the product from themselves, but own it already as a result of owning the
Sources - and from paying the recurring costs.
This leaves only a "Growth Edge" for traditional funders to reap Profits;
one which will expand in circumference, but will leave a wake of User-
Owned production in it's path - effectively destroying the 'market' for
that product for any other competitor, since how can a Capitalist possibly
compete with at-cost production that User-Ownership provides?
This will be production Of, By, and For the People, but not centralized to
any small, so-called 'representative' groups who might fondle a kill-switch.
Apr-13-2011: Working on Imputed Production as an answer to the NextNet "P2P Value Exchange" thread
Apr-01-2011: Facebook page
reine reine (using Gmail) wrote:
> Facebook=HELL
Is Google not evil?
> Do you own your data?
Those who own the hardware pwn the data.
> are the exchanges crypted?
Those who own the hardware pwn your password.
> are you a node or is there a centralised server
Is Gmail not centralized?
De-centralization is not the only way.
We can, and even *must* learn to share
if we expect to continue as a species.
We have been fooled into believing
Profit is the only reason for production,
while forgetting the original purpose of
Product itself.
We, the people, can and must learn to
co-own the Physical Sources of the
goods and services we need instead
of begging the current pwners to do
what we wish.
The current pwners have no choice but
to work against us because the investors
they have chosen require Price be kept
above Cost - for the only reward they
can imagine is the one called Profit.
The current pwners CANNOT do the right
thing because the financeers who risked
to begin that operation did so for the
single-minded purpose of keeping Price
above Cost.
When we finally awake from our slumber
and see the simplicity of the direct
solution we will begin attracting Users
to pre-pay for goods and services and
we will cause those Payers to receive
real co-ownership of the Physical Sources
of that production, for when the Users
co-own the Material Means of Production,
Price and Cost is the same - for there
no longer is any need to SELL the result,
for it is already in the hands of those
who need it!
Apr-01-2011: Facebook page
Sepp Hasslberger wrote:
> What I am saying is that nothing is out there that can viably be proposed to people who aren't geeks and who are not really internet savvy, to use instead of facebook.
>
Facebook is not just software and data, it is also HARDWARE needed to
*host* that software and data.
The problem we face has far more to do with the *hardware*.
We are losing because we refuse to address the hardware issue except
in solitary confinement.
The central issue is that we must learn how to share the costs of
co-owning the hardware.
We, the users, already pay for all the costs anyway AND we pay Profit.
If we, the users, were to co-own the hardware for our collective
benefit we would still need to pay the costs.
But we would not, and even could not pay Profit since we would not be
buying bandwidth and storage back from ourselves, but each would own
the % they already paid for - as a result of the % of ownership in the
Sources of that product and that they had paid* their recurring
portion of the operational costs.
(*) A user can 'Pay' by achieving goals (working) needed by subgroups
of the collective others, or by committing land or tools or buildings
to the collective others, or even by using regular old debt-based
currency to pay for things we cannot yet supply for ourselves. As we
grow, we will integrate vertically - buying or building electricity
production facilities, factories to make computers, foundries to forge
parts, and even mines and factories, tools, land etc. needed to build
the tools to make the tools, and also the land and water rights and
seeds and eggs and spores needed to supply our bodies with energy and
shelter, recursively through the entire tree of production.
Apr-01-2011: Nokia and Microsoft - White Spaces Phone?
Sepp Hasslberger wrote:
> Nokia and Microsoft - White Spaces Phone?
> http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/04/01/nokia-microsoft-white-space-phone/
> Could this be a game changing technology for a distributed net?
This is a spectrum-grab that will finally be used against us.
We will not Own and Control those boxes, and so THEY will dominate US in various ways to extract our wealth by applying Artificial Scarcity to cause us to overpay for that connectivity.
They will stop us from accessing information at Cost, and instead charge Profit against us without ever using that overpayment as our investment toward Owning a part of that network - and thereby keeping US subjugated.
Even if we can every finally realize how irreplacably important Ownership is, their boxes will be creating interference to stop us from using those frequencies for our own benefit.
Corporations, as they are currently structured and funded, can NOT do the right thing, for to do so would destroy the only (unfortunate) purpose for which they have organized == to extract Profit from the Users.
The only way to solve this completely is to:
1.) Organize Users to fund and therefore co-own the physical layer for their own benefit. This will allow us to pay only Costs since Profit is undefined when we do not buy the product but own it *already* as a side-effect of owning the Physical Sources.
2.) When surplus product (bandwidth or storage in this case) is sold to Users who have insufficient ownership, we should collect Profit from them*, but must treat that overpayment as Payer Investment - growing the network while simultaneously and continuously distributing the co-ownership of that network to those who are willing to pay for it.
(*) It may sound hypocritical to say we should collect Profit (charge Price above Cost), but if we do not, the Product will be resold for a Profit anyway, and yet will not be under our collective control, and so will not be able to apply the Negative-Feedback loop (treating Profit as Payer investment) needed to insure every User gains the Ownership needed to help them STOP paying Profit - for the co-owner of Physical Sources must pay costs, but does not BUY the Product since he owns it already as a result of his owning the Sources.
Apr-01-2011: P2P Value Exchange : ContactSummit@GoogleGroups.com
CulturalEngineer wrote:
> THE COST OF P2P TRANSACTIONS, ESPECIALLY IN CERTAIN
> DEFINED AREAS MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATED.
When you say 'cost', I wonder if you are talking about the 'price'
a consumer pays.
Sorry if that seems nit-picking, but it is very important that we
separate the two, for the difference between Price and Cost is
the magical value called Profit, and Profit is *undefined* when
consumers (co-)own the Means of Production.
For example, you must pay all of the initial and recurring costs
to install and maintain a network within your home, but you do
not buy that connectivity back from yourself each month, and
so can only pay the real Costs, while Profit is meaningless.
This is profoundly significant considering the amount of money
the corporate ISPs celebrate as 'earnings' each Quarter.
We, the users, pay that extra value called Profit, and yet we
never gain real ownership in those networks, and so remain
dependent upon those 'providers'.
Profit is something that we must charge against non-owners,
during growth, but we must treat that overpayment as an
investment from those late-comers which we will use to grow
the size of the network, but will finally 'vest' to those payers
as their real co-ownership - so the network can scale without
the concentrating ownership (and power) into the hands of
the few initiators.
> Some round figures: $25 times 150 million voters is $3,750,000,000.
> That would be all of 50 cents a week (giving you even a couple of
> weeks off for holidays!)
I agree. We, the People, must invest to fund and co-own the physical
layer for the purpose of having real control and also for the immense
benefit of avoiding paying tribute to others.
Dis-Tribute == Without-Tribute
> Anyway, because of the framework envisioned for its ownership and
> governance, it offers the potential to establish a Commons-owned
> counter-balance to the private forces which may come to depend on it.
This sounds very interesting, and I know I've been to your site before.
Could you give a brief summary of the approach you envision?
Thanks,
Patrick