====THIS FILE IS ARCHIVAL. See 'diary' for newest entries
Jun-30-07: Watching YouTube.com/watch?v=3tg8suvwS3o "'National Problematique: North American Nightmare This is a video response to CNN/DOBBS: W FULFILLS HIS DAD'S DREAM OFA NEW WORLD ORDER'"
Jun-30-07: MySpace.com/loanfunder writes:
> Personal sovernty and abstinence from "money" is my goal. I cannot change the mind of the masses because they don't even understand where money comes from. They are unaware that there exists a problem that needs fixing. There can be no large scale SOLUTION until there is large scale awareness. All I hope to do is to erraticate my personal dependancy on debt (money) and make the transition as comfotable upon my family as possible. I am on a 2 year plan to personal sovernty. We cannot address economic foundations without raising awareness that there is, in fact a HUGE problem with the current system. Remember that corporations only have the power that we give them. We cannot take the power back without awareness followed by support and determination.
Lord AGNUcius replies:
Thanks for replying, I was worried my wording was too abrupt.
I understand you wanting to inform others, as the situation is dire, and I was doing the same when I first began to awake...
Your assumption that we must inform many people is a common one, and I don't mean to belittle it, but it is not as set in stone as many believe.
The common held vision is that we must reform current corporations in some way. Some think we can convince them through protest or boycott, but since we don't have any realistic alternatives, that cannot work, since those attending the rallies must go to War*Mart on the way home to get toilet paper. Others think we should have government |force| them to "be nice", but that only swells the NWO power - especially as we are already headed this direction through UN and EU mandates, as well as North American Union (NAU), Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) as well as international fines imposed through Free Trade Agreements (CAFTA/NAFTA/*FTA) etc. such as the Codex Aliementarius which limit our freedom of choice over things as seemingly mundane as allowed concentration of Vitamin C in supplements - and requiring registration of plant and animal varieties that we can raise ourselves which would threaten corporate profit.
Ok, so that was a diversion, but the point I'm trying to make is that we can accomplish this in an incremental, bottom-up approach through a contract applied to private property that will cause a community that grows around those physical resources to outperform the current economy from within. This viral approach is already ruining Profit that is usually collected by Owners through artificial scarcity of Sources for my industry (software), while not harming the Wages paid to Workers for the value they add.
It is hard for me to describe what I mean, but it is actually quite simple.
Read Blog.P2PFoundation.net/political-economy-the-final-denial-of-humanity/2007/06/28
for my latest, and probably most lucent explanation.
Thanks,
Patrick
Jun-30-07: Watching Archive.org/details/EbenMoglenLectureEdinburghJune2007StreamingVideo384kbits
Jun-30-07: Idealist.org >>On Idealist, you can imagine a better world, connect with people who want to help build it, take action in your community, reach out to others, post and find nonprofit jobs, volunteer opportunities, events, and more, and donate to support all this.
Jun-30-07: Posted to Blog.P2PFoundation.net/political-economy-the-final-denial-of-humanity/2007/06/28
Private property syndication is the same pattern Richard Stallman used for Free Software. It is slow and small at first, but grows exponentially as the idea is understood and as it outperforms the current Model.
This private law can be applied to any business, but, just as with the current GPL, owner(s) must CHOOSE to apply it to their property, so at first it will only be used by small investors who understand it and want to apply it to a startup business that they intend to treat as a public utility.
An example small enough for initial investment by just one person is the physical assets required to begin hosting an online community intended to be a stable alternative to the Web 2.0 startups (Feedburner.*) that are otherwise suddenly aquired once they reach moderate size. By applying GPLv4 from the start, so that *real* ownership of the corporation is distributed just as fast as it grows through User investment (as measured by the amount that user pays above the costs they inflict upon the physical assets), then any such buyout attempt will only apply to the realistically divisible sub-set of user/owners that CHOOSE to allow it. All other users are sovereign to remain organized because of their real ownership. This should make it clear that the software used on those servers must be Free Software for such divisions to be painless. At that point, the only thing I can see that might get in the way because it is indivisible would be Trademark and Domain Name issues. I don't yet know what to do about that.
I have thought much about buying a small building in a commercial district which would start as a kind of multi-purpose internet-cafe surrounded by permaculture which would grow out of my control to include things such as clothes-washing machines, pizza ovens, even eventually (in separate buildings) auto mechanic and wood-working equipment, etc.
Owners never lose any more control than they are willing to put up for aquisition by the growth of others. So, if I didn't need help paying off the building, and wanted to retain full vote-control over it, then User growth would go toward the purchase of another building under the same corporation, but maybe even located far away if the investing Consumers happen to be traveling to use the facilities...
I sure hope this makes sense. The reason I have not already started such an endeavor is that I need help with the wording and finalization of the agreement itself. I am happy you appear to understand this approach, and hope you will write your own interpretation to help describe it to others.
Your peer,
Patrick
Jun-29-07: Posted to UseMod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?PermaCulture
Organisms (fungi, flora and fauna) that are useful to humans can be thought of as slow motion, self-replicating, solar powered factories for the raw materials of food, drugs, fiber and building materials.
People talk about desktop manufacturing and fancy technology as though it might solve our problems, but the Sources of the deepest (most inescapably important) issues of food, medicine, clothing and shelter have been available since before humans even existed, and things are only getting worse in that regard.
The United States Department of Agriculture USDA.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.txt World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates reports global wheat stocks the lowest in 30 years while the United States and other 1st World countries continue to use national tax dollars to *pay* farmers to *NOT* grow for the purpose of keeping price above cost (protecting profit).
This information may make you angry, and may make you desire to attack me as the messenger, but that will not help solve the issue. We must face this dark truth if we are to make headway against it. I am not blaming anyone, I am only trying to help us see that it is not an accident that abundance is suppressed, it is the current purpose of political economy.
PermaCulture as a term may be fairly new, but the concept is ancient. The emotionless reason it is not already in place (and why it is being removed even as we speak) everywhere in the world is because of how freedom and abundance conflict with profit.
Permanent Culture will be a natural and unavoidable side effect once profit is understood to be a measure of Consumer dependence and plea for growth and treated as an investment for that same Consumer.
FreedomHosting is my (still rough) attempt to connect those dots. -- PatrickAnderson
Jun-29-07: MySpace.com/grnxnm blogs: "Create your own religion..."
> If you created your own religion, what would it be like? One condition - it has to make sense to an alien visitor who knows nothing about human beings.
I respond as Lord AGNUcius with:
There's so much that could be tried... Let's see what has already been done:
Maybe hijacking our innate desire for physical salvation by pretending to see a vision of the CHI RHO (that's an X overlaid by a P ... hm, did you know the pre-release codename for Microsoft's XP was Cairo?) with the slogan "'In This Sign Conquer'" while staring into the SUN, and then re-running the ancient birth/death/rebirth Phoenix Fire Mystery Hero figure representing the Daily and Yearly cycles of the SUN - even dangerously placing the death at December 22 (Winter Solstice) and the rebirth 3 days later - when the SUN again begins to lengthen the day? Well that is already taken by Constantine and solidified during the Council of Nicea.
Or maybe you could start an offshoot of Masonry similar to that concocted by a gold digging, 14 year-old marrying, son-of-a-drunk, polygamist profiteer who bought Egyptian artifacts from a traveling salesman and then sloppily pretended to interpret them besides hiding under a blanket to get someone else to write the bulk of what he would then claim as his own revelations? DAMN! Note that when we concoct our lies they must be big Big BIG!
Of course you already know about the Thetans, Xenu and the DC-8s.
Or how about RAEL.org ~ hm, that is RA (the SUN) followed by EL (the shortened version of Elohim) - and also happens to be the last part of the word "Israel"...
Well, I'm not making much of a religion myself here, but probably the best thing I've found in all of my study is the worship of Molech and the Cremation of Dull Care by our world 'leaders' that occurs each July 15th in Bohemian Grove in Sonoma County California and is heavily documented, including some films at:
Watch this one for sure -> Video.Google.com/videoplay?docid=2500924140588760933
Archive.org/details/DSIBG
Archive.org/details/groveplaysofbohe02boherich
But there's also The Reverend Father Sun Myung Moon [Myung is literally translated SunMoon, so his full name reads SUN SUN MOON MOON]
RealJournalism.net/times.htm
And who can forget Masonry with the common catch-phrase "Masonry is not a religion; Masonry IS religion".
I'm giving you 2 kudos just because it doesn't appear to cost me anything.
Jun-29-07: Posted to DefectiveByDesign.org/blog/1044
RMS did not beg the software companies to Free the Sources to their products; he recognized that we could enforce an agreement between Object instance owners through private ownership.
Let's do the same for the physical world by writing a trade agreement that guarantees User Freedom by insuring the *physical* Sources of production incrementally come under the control of those Users whenever they pay any price above cost - so that what is usually called profit becomes an investment in their name.
This will distribute control in a dynamic manner based on the desire each User has for growth (for profit is a measure of User dependence).
A rough (and too long) version of this idea can be found at EcoComics.org/general%20public%20law.html
Jun-29-07: Posted to Blog.P2PFoundation.net/political-economy-the-final-denial-of-humanity/2007/06/28
Profit inverts our original goals of abundance to those of artificial scarcity through destruction and pollution of all competing suppliers. But this is only true (is only meaningful) when Object Consumers are not Source Owners.
When an Object Consumer (of say an apple) OWNS the physical Sources (the tree, land, water rights, tools) of it's production, then he might pay a Worker some Wage as a Cost of that production, but Profit is undefined.
For instance, if I OWN an apple orchard and sell you an apple, you will likely be willing to pay a Price above Cost since you are not "set up" or 'developed' enough in that you don't already OWN the Sources yourself.
Now, paying a Price above Cost is not something we should try to stop directly, as it is an accurate measure of your dependence, and therefore your desire to grow.
Since you are willing to pay that difference usually called Profit, the best thing we (Owners wishing to build community) could do with that value is to treat it as an investment for you (the Consumer) in more physical Sources, or to payoff Sources that have already been purchased if the current Owners have trees up for sale.
By doing this, the Consumers eventually become the Owners and therefore controllers of the Sources of Production, and therefore of the Objects of that production.
This GNU Mode of Production is a striking contrast to Marxism which would have the Workers be the Owners and controllers.
As Object Consumers become Source Owners, (this will never be 'perfect', as Consumer demand always changing, and hence Ownership will continually 'flow'), profit disappears except as a measure of Consumer Growth - as it makes no sense to pay more than Cost at that point unless you were to pay yourself!
Please tell me in what way this logic is flawed.
Jun-28-07: Response to MySpace.com/loanfunder Bulletin: IMPORTANT - TVNewsLies.org
Corporations control all Governments directly, corporations are driven by Profit, and Profit is against the community *BY DEFINITION*.
Corporate OWNers already know this, and non-OWNing workers have no authority even when they find out.
So what good does it do to help other non-OWNers know this information without addressing the economic foundations?
Jun-28-07: Unsent response to MySpace.com/grxnm
The first result from Google.com/search?q=Psychlo+kerbango is:
Reason.com/blog/show/119951.html
"'When asked his favorite novel in an interview shown yesterday on the Fox News Channel, Mitt Romney pointed to "Battlefield Earth," a novel by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. That book was turned into a film by John Travolta, a Scientologist.'"
Xenu (also Xemu), pronounced ['zi.nu:], was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions [1] of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft
This reminds me of some Nalley's(TM) pickles I bought the other day without checking for poisons. After giving one to my son I read on the ingredients "Yellow 5" which is:
"'Tartrazine (otherwise known as E102 or FD&C Yellow 5) is a synthetic lemon yellow azo dye used as a food coloring. It is derived from coal tar. It is water soluble[1] and has a max absorbance in an aqueous solution at 4272[2] nm
Tartrazine is a very commonly used color in the United Kingdom and the United States obviously used for yellow, but can also be used with E133 Brilliant Blue FCF or E142 Green S to produce various green shades. Use of tartrazine is banned in Norway and was banned in Austria and Germany, before European Parliament and Council Directive 94/36/EC lifted the ban.'" -- Wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine
The "European Parliament and Council of the European Union" mandates what shall and shall not enter our corpse. ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sfp/addit_flavor/flav08_en.pdf
WashingtonTimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/BUSINESS/106280027/1006 polluted chinese goods entering US
Jun-28-07: Mail to NB subject: Levers of War
Nate,
I've thinking about how I responded to your initial email, and am worried I was too pushy (as people tend to perceive me).
You asked me a few questions and I overwhelmed you with completely unrelated barrage. I do this because I stupidly assume everyone is interested in finding out what is wrong, while almost every attempt I've ever made to talk with others about this has proven the opposite.
So if this is boring for you please let me know by telling me directly, or even just by avoiding the subject (which is what you originally did in that your first email did not contain such material).
Anyway, I hope I'm wrong, but in either case, to relieve some tension and to help you understand my position I will explain how the first two (trick) questions can be answered by considering the special case that occurs when *Consumers* own the "Sources of Production":
Q1. Is employment a need in itself?
A1. Having robots pick fruit (a story I recently saw) can be a good thing, but only if we (the Consumers) OWN the farms - otherwise, we will be "put out of work" by solving the problem, but the output will not be ours after the production is complete.
Q2. Must price be held above cost (must profit be 'protected')?
A2. When Consumers OWN a plant (whether a factory or a tree), they may hire workers and pay Wages which are traditionally and rightfully understood to be a Cost of production, but could only pay a Price above Cost if they were investing. Profit needn't be 'protected', as it is UNDEFINED!
If this game (we could call it "Levers of War" - since profit is increased by 'churn', and War is one of the best examples of that) interests you, we should go to lunch sometime (my treat) so we can discuss it further.
Your friend,
Patrick
Jun-28-07: Mail to NB subject: Collapsing complexity
> squat on a myspace page but it's blank - I'm just holding it in case it's
I also opened a page on Rupert Murdoch's property at MySpace.com/patware and have even begun to use it a bit lately trying to plan a community with some of Cindy's siblings.
> As for question 3, I'm not sure how you would fairly gauge the *quality*
> of a process' usage of a resource, so quantity is the only thing I think
> you could reliably and fairly tax/penalize. But comparing processes to
> people may be a metaphorical stretch.
Ok, we'll forget the OS analogy and just treat this directly:
Pretend you are the leader of a nation, state or city (I've been trying to design a video game along these lines, but have only written a small amount about it) and assume your goal is to maximize citizen welfare.
Property tax (in fact almost every kind of tax) is currently structured to penalize improvements instead of being weighted against those who hold more than their "fair share" from the rest of the community.
But the concept of "fair share" is slippery at best, and in worst cases eliminates incentive by not allowing those that excel (as measured by the wage others are willing to pay) to advance above those that perform poorly - nevermind whether those differences are inherent or a matter of diligence.
The discussion of "fair share" might more easily be discussed if we just jump to the solution even before fully exploring the description of the problem itself.
Maybe the most surprising thing about the GNU Mode of Production (this is primarily the invention of RMS and HG; I have only remixed and generalized their work) is the simplicity that results as terms that were artificially separated (whether on purpose or by accident I cannot say) are rejoined.
For instance, "tax" is another way of talking about "rent".
And "collective private property" is another way to think of "public property". They both require a form of government - essentially a kind of law or agreement that determines how the resources are to be handled.
So let's say you and I and a handful of our friends decide to buy some physical resources together - whether land or capital or a combination of both. This will almost certainly be required to begin a community that has a chance of being different from what we currently suffer.
Imagine things are going well, and some of us decide it would be nice to have a pool in the clubhouse.
But what if you don't have any desire for a pool? Should you be required to invest in it? In a normal city you would likely have little choice, as you would have already paid taxes, and if most of the other wanted it, your vote would have little impact.
But what if we were to structure things differently - so that there was never anything called "tax", and such decisions were "opt in" simply because if you didn't want the pool, you would just choose to not join in trying to raise the funds to pay for the installation.
That's ok, but what if later you see everyone is having so much fun that you decide maybe it would be nice to take a dip?
Like any physical resource, a pool has real and recurring costs that must be covered even after the initial investment costs. So even one of the current joint owners that had originally invested would still pay "rent" to the group of owners each time he used the pool because of the impact he has against that resource. The advantage he would have in owning would be that his vote as to how the pool is handled would be weighted by his % of ownership, so in some matters he would have more control.
The rent a person pays is what I meant when I asked whether tax should be based on "the *amount* that is withheld from the community", and includes things like the time of day (pay more during high demand), pollution (jumping in dirty, screaming, smoking etc.), blocking others (swimming wildly or splashing that annoys)... I realize many of these things would be difficult to enforce, but that is the idea anyway.
When I asked if we should tax (weight rent against) "*how* the resource is used" I'm talking about things that do NOT interfere with other swimmers, so should not be penalized. The current tax structure generally attempts to penalize production, especially if the user is being compensated, so a good example of this would be to increase rent if you were teaching someone to swim or if you were building a slide (assuming the other owners had voted and approved such an installation).
Does this explanation at least show you why property tax (for instance) should be weighted against withholding instead of against the improvements you make to that land? The current system rewards those that keep junk cars in their yard and live in tents while penalizing those that keep things clean and build permanent structures.
Jun-28-07: Posted to Worknets.org/wiki.cgi?OpenSourceEcology/OpenSourceEconomicDevelopment
I have thought extensively about this, and have written so much that it has become almost intractable.
So, instead of trying to repeat it here, I would like to propose a distillate version, point to the primary document of my work, and ask for questions/corrections/concerns:
Users (whether consumers or workers) would become owners through automatic investment in physical sources of production (such as a fishing rod and rights to a stream) whenever they pay more than cost (including wages) for any object (such as a fish) that we would offer under restrictions analogous to those of the GNU GPL.
See General Public Law for the long, and I'm sorry to say probably confusing version. I don't mean to be strange, I just am. Thank you for your patience. -- PatrickAnderson
Jun-28-07: Mail to NB
I've been trying to think of another way to present this discovery about how to generalize the GNU Mode of Production into the physical world - where Users (consumers) are owners instead of an arbitrary group (as is now), and in contrast to Marxism (which would have the Workers be the owners), but I still cannot fit it all into a small space, so I will just ask a small part of it to get you thinking:
1. Is employment a need in itself? What if you are alone on an island? What happens as we add more humans?
2. Does price need to be held above cost (in other words, must profit be 'protected')? What if you are alone on an island? What happens as we add more humans?
3. If you were to create an Operating System that allowed individual process to allocate resources amongst themselves, do you think 'TAX' should be based on *how* those procs use those resources, or should it be based on the *amount* they withhold from others?
Jun-27-07: Ben responds at MySpace.com/patware
"'Well, the PROBLEM is too big to solve at this juncture but I've been mulling over what I can do or what I SHOULD do with the truth. I feel that I have a moral obligation to not continue living they way I did before. This is why the rest of the world hates us and I don't blame them. I blame our government. What I've decided I should do are as follows:
- Proclaim my freedom from the system
- Spread the word to more true American Patriots
- Purchase 60+ Acres of farmland in inconspicous area
- MORTGAGE = SLAVERY get out of slaveray ASAP
- Use solar and wind energy
- Work part-time just enough to pay property taxes.
- SELF SUSTAIN
Can you imagine standing in lines for breakfast and lunch.. Out here??? It would be worse than death.
I acknowledge that I can't do much to stop the machine but I can bail and make my life and my family's more comfortable when it all goes down. I'm voting for Ron Paul but you and I both know that elections are rigged and he won't be elected. Even if he became enormously popular, he'd be shot.'"
Jun-27-07: Posted to MySpace.com/mlehuss
I should have been more careful in my wording; when I wrote "our purposes" by 'our' I meant all of humanity, including the ~27,000 that die of starvation every day, and half of the planet that live on less than $2 per day - which would include many of the Africans mentioned in the linked article.
But I also made faulty assumptions about your intentions based on what you had previously said regarding buying a large piece of land. Ben has lately started talking about similar (from my perspective) plans, and Amanda has also mentioned such ideas - so I'm trying to understand in what way all of our goals overlap or conflict.
Jun-26-07: Max responds at MySpace.com/patware
> Hey there Pat, congratulations on the baby by the way! That is awesome, Cindy is getting pro at it, I heard she was only in labor for like 45 minutes or something like that...
> Anyway, to answer the first question, I don't know that corporate agriculture DOESN'T serve our purposes, I just think that, for me, I'd rather grow my own food, because I enjoy it, and it's cheaper. Why pay for something that could be free? For me, it's fun planting something and watching it grow. But maybe it's not for everyone. My whole thing is that I think the "grand design" is that the earth can provide everything we need. I think human greed throws off the balance.
> In my perfect society, everyone takes care of their family by providing food, water and shelter. What else do we need? The earth has enough water for everyone... we can grow our own food, and anyone can create something to keep the rain off your head at night. So, in my perfect world, things are a little simpler. I don't know about all that other stuff. I'll probably never get to live my dream, but I'm working on it... maybe someday.
> And about the African thing, I would just say if they don't want the aid, then hey, don't give 'em any...
Jun-26-07: Posted to MySpace.com/mlehuss
Max, being especially interested in plants, could you give me a summary of what you believe to be the reason corporate agriculture does not serve our purposes?
Is impossible to accomplish our goals through trade, or must every human resort to raising their own food, medicine and fiber?
What about other industries? What is wrong with the division of labor? Why can't the consumer really get what they want?
Along those lines, what do you make of this African economist pleading "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!".
Jun-26-07: Posted to MySpace.com/loanfunder
Dammit Ben, get that snake out of the way or change your font color - I can barely read the comments on your page.
So I hear you've been uncovering some truths and have decided to take action.
Could you tell me, what is it about the current system that it doesn't "work" for us, and how can we avoid the same problem(s) if we attempt to begin anew?
Jun-26-07: Posted to MySpace.com/ajpierre
Alice Kathryn is doing great.
About HG and Community Rent (Single Tax): HG was revolutionary in his thinking, but limits his focus to Land [defined as all finite natural resources], and claims Capital [any Land that has been modified by a human] should be forever exempt.
The book "Money; A Mirror Image Of The Economy" IED.info/books/money (which can be freely downloaded) extends this concept to Capital as I have been trying to explain: "'Applying Henry George's philosophy across the economic spectrum transposes monopoly rent values into equally-shared use-values.'".
This comes closer to the simplicity of voluntary AutarchoSyndicalism (self-rule built within the current system) patterned after the GNU GPL which eliminates the need for a central body to collect TAX by recognizing that regular private ownership is enough to enforce a contract that will causes all profit to become User (consumer) investment - so that what was once usury is now growth.
Jun-25-07: Posted to LinuxWorld.com/community/?q=node/707
Lord AGNUcius writes:
Saint IGNUcius has long cautioned against the term "Open Source" because it does not convey the importance of User Freedom that must persist for this GNU Mode of Production to outperform the exclusionary Capitalists.
It is somewhat confusing that "Free Software" and "Open Source" are nearly the same set, and it is also unfortunate that the word 'Free' is almost invariably confused with Freeware or with concern over price - sometimes even giving the impression that it cannot be 'Commercial'.
Maybe a better term for that set could be "Freedom Software".
The smaller set covered by Copyleft licenses (primarily the GPL) might better be described as "Sovereign Software" ... though copyright can apply to more than software, so how about "Sovereign Source" as the ultimate description of any virtual material protected by a license that ensures User Sovereignty (self rule).
Jun-24-07: Posted to Blogs.Salon.com/0002007 "how to save the world"
I hope you will listen.
I wish someone could hear.
I have discovered what is wrong with our economic Operating System, and (this is where you will turn away) have even found a straight-forward solution. Is that so unbelievable? If there is no solution, then why even try? If there is a solution, then won't it need to be found by someone?
Ok, if you are still reading, here is another attempt to describe the problem:
The photo for June 24, 2007 shows Melisa Christensen's poster which asks "Why don't our companies care?".
That question has a faulty assumption built into it that we consumers tend to overlook or maybe have given up on solving - an assumption that the companies are somehow 'ours'.
We (the consumers) do not OWN the corporations. Corporations run almost every government on earth, and yet WE do not OWN any of them.
This is a terrible problem because when the OWNership of productive resources is not held by those that will consume the outputs of those sources, then the disease of profit begins to cause those groups of OWNers to work against the rest of humanity to artificially increase scarcity through destruction and pollution of all sources that they do not OWN - so they may 'corner' the market, thereby further increasing profit.
Profit has nothing to do with work. Wages for work are rightly considered a cost of production, and are usually based on the performance of that laborer. But profit is the difference between Consumer_Price and Owner_Costs. It is a plea from the consumer - an admittance by that consumer that he is dependent on the source OWNers. Profit is an inverse measure of development and a direct measure of power over those that are vulnerable because of their lack of OWNership in productive sources.
A solution:
If we (the consumers) were to begin forming corporations where any price a consumer paid above cost (what is usually called profit) were to be an investment for that same consumer in more productive sources, then the OWNership of the corporations and hence the control of our earth would be disbursed in direct proportion to the amount each human is willing to invest (as profit is a perfect measure of a consumer's desire to grow).
These corporations would easily outperform all others as consumers would no longer pay the externality of profit to feudalist usurists, so price would eventually equal costs - a condition most corporations consider failure, and is the reason small farmers (and other, less important businesses) cannot 'compete'.
Consumer owned farms would hire talented farmers, and likely pay them more than they currently make while safely pushing price toward cost.
Jun-23-07: Received an email with the ANI exploit, so looked up and watched Video.Google.com/videoplay?docid=-7185841369679533904 about the Ruby Metasploit framework.
Jun-21-07: Reading "Free Software and Market Relations" by Raoul Victor at Oekonux.org/texts/marketrelations.html
zak.greant.com >>Polymorph
Thinking about a post to Vasilis-Thesis.BlogSpot.com
Jun-19-07: Posted to Collectivate.net/journalisms/2007/6/7/who-owns-our-content-what-are-the-exit-costs.html
I think I know how to fix this. Really.
We could create an inter-owner contract patterned after the FSF's GNU GPL, but for assets in the physical realm.
Once written, small-time investors could choose to apply it to some of their physical property in the same way owners already choose to apply the GNU GPL to information.
Modeled after the GPL, this contract must insure the Freedom of every new User, but since we are talking about physical Sources that have real and recurring costs, we must also talk about real money.
A minimal description of this structure is easier to understand when we realize that traditional 'Profit' is a measure of User dependence on Owners.
Profit is the difference between User_Price and Owner_Costs (where Worker_Wages are an Owner_Cost by the way), and may be offset or balanced by causing any such revenue to become an investment for that User toward more physical Sources needed to insure future production.
Through such a contract, Ownership (and hence control) would flow to those willing to invest - as indicated by their willingness to pay more than cost for the resources they consume.
For instance, by applying such a contract to the hardware needed to host the kinds of software that make up the services you mention, the community of Users that grows around those physical Sources would be guaranteed to remain in control no matter how large the organization grew.
The collective User/Owners would decide how to run things through vote weights based directly on their percentage of holding and otherwise split according to realistic divisibility of the physical Sources.
Anyone interested in syndicating User Freedom can choose to grow such a corporation by purchasing some physical Sources of Production and then applying a private law as describe above that insures any amount paid above cost (what would usually be called 'profit') be an investment for that User - since paying profit is admitting they are vulnerable - and hence should be interpreted as a cry for investment toward more physical Sources.
On a more complicated note, it seems to me a community currency should be issued and backed by those same physical Sources, but this is still fuzzy to me...
Jun-19-07: Posted to Blog.P2PFoundation.net/one-loaf-per-child/2007/06/14
Hamish MacEwan Says:
>June 18th, 2007 at 6:39 am
>The incremental cost of data is near zero, it can be extraordinarily costly to produce.
>Similarly, the incremental cost of storage and expression is nearly zero, whatever the initial cost of the computer and storage is.
Yes, but how does this differ from the incremental costs of owning the physical Sources required for bread production?
The costs to maintain any physical Source (whether a tractor or a computer) are usually much smaller than the initial investment while the costs to operate those Sources might be quite high - as they include wages for the Worker (to drive the tractor or program the computer) and energy (diesel or electricity).
It is the difficulty in organizing large collective investments that keeps Users (Consumers) from owning the physical Sources of Production that would allow us to then have "at cost" access and full control of the Objects of that production.
If a group of Users (Consumers) were to incorporate and purchase some physical Sources that they voluntarily put under a contract that required all profit at each transaction be targeted as an investment for that very user in more physical Sources, then that collective ownership would grow according to the interest of the participants until it would soon outperform large holders - whether they be Google or ConAgra.
I wonder how we could prove it is the Users (Consumers) who must OWN for optimum economic efficiency, and who will otherwise continue to beg and wonder why those that do OWN withhold access for the purposes of profit (usury).
I've thought to make an MMORPG that modeled a simple but realistic society centered around bread production which would include private property and the requirement to eat (say one loaf) each day.
Thanks for your comment. I hope my response can be taken with the sincerity I attempt to deliver it in.
Your peer,
Patrick Anderson
Jun-19-07: Posted to Burak-Arikan.com/blog/will-you-opt-out-of-allowing-google-to-service-your-feedburner-account
arikan Says:
>June 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
>@Patrick I think physical assets today also correspond to information as well. That's why owning information is problematic in your words.
Arikan,
Thanks for responding, but your stance is not clear to me, so I want to make sure you understand my claim.
Do you agree or disagree that the Users (or the more traditional term "Consumers") should be in control of the physical Sources of Production? This is, of course, in glaring contrast to the Marxist dream of Worker control.
This not just a stab-in-the-dark without purpose. User ownership of physical Sources creates an interesting dynamic where costs are 'internalized' (eliminating externalities); profit becomes meaningless except as User growth; abundance and low prices are never a threat; employment is understood as a cost to be minimized, not a need in itself.
When Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen speak of Freedom in the virtual realm, it is always "User Freedom" that they are concerned with. Free Software enables every User to gain control of that information, and is not restricted to the Authors (original investors) or to any other group such as qualified Workers or any withholder of intellect.
I hope we can work together to write an inter-owner trade agreement in the spirit of the GNU GPL that can be applied to some collectively owned physical Sources so that ownership (and hence control) will flow to each User as anything they pay above cost (what would usually be called profit) would become an investment for them in more physical Sources so the society that forms around that joint-ownership will be truly free.
Thanks for your time. I will continue to check back here for your reply, but email me directly if you prefer.
Your peer,
Patrick Anderson
FellowForce.com >>OPEN for participation
VirtualCogs.com >>Small Size, Huge Performance Our VC21 series (powered by the popular Freescale Semiconductor 266MHz ARM926EJ-S i.MX21 processor) is based on the stackable VCMX212 single board computer (shown below), less than half the size of a business card. This computer can be used as a standalone device or enhanced by any number of our daughter boards. Everything from cameras, touch screen LCDs, sound cards, solar panels, GPS, Bluetooth, FPGA, ethernet, USB, motor controllers and memory cards can be stacked together to quickly develop your application. Even designing your own custom daughter boards is made easy with our open documentation.
dotSUB.com free media
OpenP2PDesign.org >>Design for Complexity
CollaborationLoop.com
DistributedCreativity.org >>The research of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (iDC) focuses on collaboration in media art, technology, and theory with an emphasis on social contexts.
Reading about Joseph Schumpeter and his concept of "Creative Destruction".
From TheYesMen.com comes Vivoleum.com
CurrentBuzz.org
Open-Organizations.org >>The goal of this project is to explain how to set up and maintain transparent, accountable and truly participative communities.
CrowdSpirit.org >>Electronic Products Crowdsourcing
ALIPAC.us
FAS.USDA.gov/psdonline
USDA.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.txt >>World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates
>global wheat stocks the lowest in 30 years.
ImageEvent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies
Sunshine-Project.org >>Biological Weapons Agents; Biodefense; Freedom of Information; Collaborations to promote local laboratory oversight; Smallpox Virus Stocks; "Non-Lethal" Biological and Chemical Weapons; Preventing the Development and Use of Drugs as Weapons; Bioweapons Convention; Agent Green (mycoherbicides), Environmental Modification
Edmonds-Institute.org >>a non-profit, public interest organization dedicated to education about environment, technology, and intellectual property rights
TNI.org >>Transnational Institute
>Stop Water Privatisation! Alternatives to the PPIAF As the World Bank agency, the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) met in the Hague on 23-24 May, hundreds of civil society representatives called on donors to reject the Facility's role in promoting water privatisation and fund public alternatives instead.
RAFIUSA.org >>The Rural Advancement Foundation International USA
>Crafting the 2007 Farm Bill
TransContainer.wur.nl >>Developing efficient and stable biological containment systems for genetically modified plants.
ETCGroup.org >>Patenting Pandoras Bug: Goodbye, Dolly...Hello, Synthia! J. Craig Venter Institute Seeks Monopoly Patents on the Worlds First-Ever Human-Made Life Form
OpenTheFuture.com
BookAndSeedVault.org
Jun-17-07:
SilentSuperBug.com >>Series revealing video footage about a man made environmentally resistant and contagious human pathogen(start series: April 2006). The micro organism is a synthetic model organism and a product of proteomic and genomic research.
MorgellonsHope.com
CrossingLines.net >>As this a is new and emerging disorder, it has not been fully researched, therefore not properly named. I include the term morgellons as reference to national news broadcasts. There is no affiliation between the scientists and the material presented on this site, to any other organization or group working on this problem..
Jun-17-07: Alice Kathryn is born.
Jun-14-07: Posted to Blog.P2PFoundation.net
"'One Loaf Per Child'"
DailyRotation.com >>Quick Loading Tech Headlines
OgOg.org >>OgOg is a meritocracy that is all about your blog. You can rate articles from RSS-feeds and receive extra voting power when your own posts are rated well.
QAParadigm.sf.net >>The question-answer paradigm, or QAP, is a term used in psycho-linguistics to refer to a familiar mode of human discourse. The QAP is currently the subject of several lines of linguistics research.
LogiLogi.org >>Enabling and advancing insightful communication through virtual networks and making ideas, information and views accessible, clear and useful world wide. Developing, hosting, promoting and supporting open source software for these purposes. And doing all this in the spirit of the Free Software movement, the Open Media, and the European Tradition of the Republic of Letters.
Jun-13-07: Thinking about how to describe the deficiencies of private and public property for free utilities.
The difference of time, mass and energy display the sameness between bread and software.
Solidarity through joint ownership.
profit = price - cost
Virtual hosted by physical and Software as a Service (SaaS).
The relationship of object to sources across time and energy.
Jun-8-07: Email to Michel Bauwens and James Burke:
Michel and James,
Michel wrote:
> peer to peer dynamics create non-reciprocal production in the
> immaterial
> sphere of abundance and zero reproduction cost
I must most cautiously push against this very common misunderstanding. It is true that copying any information such as software, music, videos, text, DNA, has small costs, but they are certainly not zero.
By incorrectly calling the costs zero we have led ourselves to believe that hosting is unimportant, but that is clearly false when we begin to discuss why it is that Google, MySpace, etc. are not doing what we (the consumers) want. It is because we do not own the physical land, buildings and tools that those corporations need to Host and Express that information. This is the same problem for any and all business that *seem* to have nothing to do with virtual materials.
> - if the means of physical production can be distributed under the
> control
> of producers (slicing them up for low treshold access) then the p2p
> dynamics
> can lead to open designs but the physical production can still be based on
> exchange or reciprocity, for example in a cooperative mode of production
>
"Producers" sometimes means "Owners" and sometimes means "Workers".
If you mean "Owners" then of course they are already in control.
If you mean "Workers" then you create the Mode that Marx dreamt of, and which might be temporarily slightly better than what we experience now.
If you mean "Consumers" (you probably don't) then you create the Mode that RMS invented through the GPL, and is the most correct arrangement.
As an example, when you pay for the costs of copying an apple, which would you say is better:
1. An arbitrary, non-working group of Owners control the care (they may spray the orchard with dangerous chemicals) of those Sources, and can charge a price above cost to Profit limited only by other competing Owners.
2. Marxism - where the Owners are the Workers that plant, water, maintain and harvest the fruit. They control the Sources similarly to the Owners in (1), but at least they can pay themselves a higher Wage. The consumer still has little control, is not allowed to do any of the work himself, and is still at the mercy of those who Own.
3. The perfect* Mode where the collective Owners are the Consumers themselves. They can make the copies themselves (tend their portion of the orchard in the manner they see fit - and within the constraint of realistic divisibility), or they may hire others to work for them, but either way we (the users/consumers) are in complete control. Such a mode also causes Price to be the same as Cost, as Profit has no meaning when the consumer Owns the Sources - or in other words, if the Consumer did pay profit it, he would be paying himself.
*(3) is not achievable in a perfect or static manner (especially during the initial growth period) because the consumer may not yet Own the Sources that were used during the round of production that created that exact object, but this Mode can always be "approached" by Owners who choose to apply an inter-owner contract that requires any profit paid by consumers be an investment in more sources, or toward paying-off some current investments, and that that those shares become the semi-divisible property of that very same consumer.
... deleted redundant text
Thanks for your time and patience,
Patrick
Jun-8-07: Posted to Progress.org/2007/metals02.htm:
As reSources are consumed or destroyed, Owner Profit increases, so this is great for those who believe Profit (Usury) is our goal.
If we (the Consumers) could awake from this lie to understand Abundance to be the goal (which is bad for Profit by the way), we could become Owners ourselves, which - in that special case - would cause profit to be undefined, and therefore no longer be an incentive to destroy and delete our inheritance.
These consuming producers or "Conducers" would strive to internalize costs at every step, as the goal would be production and abundance, never the filthy goal of usurous profit.
Some Georgists say "Keep all that you make, pay for all that you take", but somehow still think Profit - which is NOT Wages of course - is OK, even though it is an accumulation of wealth by non-working Owners through leverage against those that are not already "set up".
Profit is a measure of Consumer dependence, and increases as those Consumers have less options for direct access the Sources of Production themselves.
Profit should be an investment for those Consumers in the Ownership of more Sources of that same kind. In this way a group of humans can create a stable economy that internalizes costs while laughing at those that 'dump' product on their shores, as the goal is always abundance, since profit is meaningless when the Object Consumers are the Source Owners.
Jun-8-07: Posted to Progress.org/2007/boll_2007.htm:
How long will we (the Consumers) beg the Owners of the Sources of Production to do the right thing instead of becoming the Owners ourselves?
Why are we so frightened to OWN?
Let's write a contract that new Owners can begin to apply to the Sources of Production - a kind of inter-owner trade agreement that causes real Ownership to be distributed at each purchase to any Consumer that pays a price above cost.
This will internalize costs and stop the parasitic profit (which is an externality BY DEFINITION) which otherwise rewards the opposite of abundance.
Profit is the disease that is increased as Consumers are subjucated. Profit is inversely related to the development of a people.
If a profiteer were selling water, do you think he would want the Consumers to have "at cost" access to water otherwise?
It is in the best interest of corporations - that define their success by keeping price above cost - to deny the advancement of the humans they exploit, as that freedom is bad for their 'market'.
This is not a moral issue, it is one of reSource allocation which - in it's current form - causes control to NOT flow to those that deserve it most.
Until we fix this fundamental trouble with our system by writing a contract that new Owners can choose to apply to Sources of Production which causes shares of ownership to be transfered to each consumer at each trade, the destruction of our planet will continue to accelerate - as destruction of all other alternative Sources rewards those that would sell us the Objects of that production while withholding the Sources so they may exact Usury which is defined as any price paid above cost.
Profit is not good. It is not even neutral. It is evil because it rewards the opposite of abundance.
Remember, Wages are not Profit. If we (the consumers) Owned the Sources of Production, we could then pay the Workers even more than they currently receive, yet our price "at the pump" would be reduced dramatically since the concept of Profit becomes meaningless.
I know you will think this is a worthless idea. Everyone I tell it too thinks it has no merit. Oh well. I suppose you (everyone) will continue to beg the Owners, and otherwise fatten government and lose sovereignty to the NWO as we play into their hands.
I wish I could communicate this message. Why can nobody hear?
GWEI.org >>Google Will Eat Itself
Jun-7-07: Posted to Burak-Arikan.com/blog/will-you-opt-out-of-allowing-google-to-service-your-feedburner-account:
We consumers must OWN physical assets or we will BE OWNED by those who do.
Let us organize and begin to purchase some physical Sources of Production which we can hold between ourselves under a special contract that requires each and any new user to become a partial controlling shareholder in those Sources (or in new investment of similar Sources) each and any time that consumer pays a price above cost for those goods or services.
This will cause ownership, and therefore control to flow according to the amount each consumers is willing to invest (as what is usually called 'profit' at that transaction would be an investment in that consumer's name toward more physical Sources of that kind).
Why will that not work?
Wouldn't it be great if we (the consumers) OWNED a cell-phone network? Price would approach cost and control would already be in the proper hands.
It could be thought of as PropertyLeft, as it is a generalization of the GPL from our prophet Sn. IGNUcius into the physical realm.
Jun-7-07: Posted to Burak-Arikan.com/blog/open-service-provider:
This problem is identical for any and every business.
We (the users/consumers) do not control the composition or price of ANYTHING we purchase.
The owners have fooled us into believing we can 'demand', but in the end it is only the OWNERS that decide.
Why can't we have simple hybrid vehicles such as Henry Ford's experiment with the model A? Why can't we buy food or medicine that is safe and natural while paying only the costs (including the workers' wages) for it's production? What if WE owned the petrol fields, drills, tankers, trucks, etc.? We could pay the workers far more than they currently receive while the price at the pump would be far less since the externality of profit becomes meaningless when the consumer (say of an apple) is the OWNER of the physical Sources for that object (the land, trees, tractors, water rights, tools, etc.).
Do you realize Forbes magazine called water "The Next Oil" in terms of profitability? Who owns your water supply? How much do you pay? How close is that price to cost? Does it matter? What about toothpaste, burgers, taxis, television, cell-phones, socks?
We (the users/consumers) will continue to cry and beg from the owners until we finally awake from this dream and become OWNERS of the physical Sources of Production ourselves under an agreement/contract/treaty/constitution that causes control to flow to new users in a manner similar to what the FSF's GNU GPL already does for information.
Jun-6-07: Tried without success to post the following to Blog.P2PFoundation.net/the-vision-behind-the-ponoko-personal-manufacturing-platform/2007/05/23
Hello fellow peers.
I've been thinking about the personal manufacturing idea for a while, but Derek's last comment has given me yet another reason to post. I hope these points can be taken with the spirit of kindness I attempt to deliver them in.
1. What is it about capitalism that makes it so consumers are not already in control? Even when a well-meaning entrepreneur begins yet another business to address this issue, why is it that once that business grows to even moderate size that our (the users') voice seems to lose impact? If you claim that isn't the case, and there is no problem, then why do we see such efforts as Ponoko.com? If it IS the case, is there really nothing we (the users) could ever do to prevent it? What if the users happened to also be the initial investors, and therefore the owners and controllers of the Sources of Production? Certainly there would be nobody in the way then right? But consumer desire changes, so control - and therefore ownership should probably change too. Could we write a contract that owners could choose to apply between themselves so that ownership would 'flow' to new users according to the amount those new users choose to invest, and ownership would be slowly taken from old users that fail to pay the recurring costs of maintaining those sources?
2. Useful living organisms are tiny factories. Notice how the word 'plant' is also used to indicate the physical sources of manufacturing. Fungi, flora and fauna are slow-motion, solar powered matter replicators producing the raw materials of food, medicine, soap, clothing, shelter and fuel.
3. Workers can contract to trade the labor and skill needed to create new free designs - whether mechanical layouts, software, music, GMOs, etc. *before* performing that work, but trying to earn money through the old practice of copy restriction will be less and less viable as culture becomes more free.
Jun-5-07:
RubyVote.RubyForge.org >>Election Methods Library in Ruby
# Plurality or "winner-take-all"
# Approval
# Borda
# Simple Condorcet
# Condorcet with Cloneproof SSD
# Instant Runnoff Voting
Selectricity.Media.MIT.edu >>Voting Machinery for the Masses
Jun-4-07: Finally wrote Michel Bauwens at P2PFoundation.net:
Michel,
Hello. My name is Patrick Anderson.
I have been following the P2P blog for some time now hoping to find the right time or place to present the result of about 7 years of study attempting to generalize the Mode of Production created between owners through the GNU General Public License into the physical world.
My results align well with the goals and even the words chosen by RMS to describe how society should act.
The message is [with physical-world analogy in parenthesis]:
Freedom for object-code users (product consumers) is determined by access to the sources (Means of Production) for those objects, and can be syndicated and enforced between authors (owners) who choose to apply a license (contract or private law) to those objects so each user becomes a competitor (owner) anytime such an object is shared (traded).
The physical world is different from the virtual, but they actually cannot be separated. The physical world is a 'host' for the virtual. No information can exist without mass and energy required to store and express it.
Of course you know the physical world is rivalrous, so this goal is far beyond the scope of a copyright license. Originally I thought we might fix this with a rental contract I called the General Public Lease, but after a while I realized the GPL is an agreement between owners for the purpose of protecting users, but it is not an EULA because it imposes no restrictions during private use, only at the point of trade.
My claim is that the Freedoms to Use(0), Modify(1), Copy(2) and Share(3) physical objects can be guaranteed by owners willing to put some property under a contract which requires what would usually be called 'profit' be re-directed as an investment for that very consumer in the physical Sources of Production needed for future objects.
As consumers become owners of the land, buildings, tools, factories, oil fields, satellites, networks, etc., the price of those services approach cost.
I hope this intro makes sense.
Please see EcoComics.org for a more thorough analysis and to read the current contract (based on GPLv3 discussion draft #2) at EcoComics.org/general%20public%20law.html
Jun-4-07: Gears.Google.com >> Google Gears (BETA) is an open source browser extension that enables web applications to provide offline functionality
Jun-2-07: Listening to >>>Grateful Dead Live at Fillmore East (Early and Late Shows) on 1970-01-02 (January 2, 1970):
$ wget Archive.org/download/gd70-01-02.early-late.sbd.cotsman.18120.sbeok.shnf/gd70-01-02.early-late.sbd.cotsman.18120.sbeok.shnf_vbr.m3u
$ wget -i gd70-01-02.early-late.sbd.cotsman.18120.sbeok.shnf_vbr.m3u
May-31-07: The price of agriculture products fell sharply just before the great depression. This caused farmers to go bankrupt which then caused prices to increase and employment to decrease.
May-30-07: Scratch.MIT.edu
Found some serverless chat clients.
reboot.dk >>reboot is a community event for the practical visionaries who are at the intersection of digital technology and change all around us...
==Hardware Failure
While rebooting my computer the other day 'fsck' was forced to check the drive (I think it said "because you have rebooted 30 times" or somthing like that). But the process died at about 60% and dropped me into single-user mode with a borked disk. Now I'm trying to recover with PhotoRec and planning to start using something to make automatic external backups...
Yoick.com >>Welcome to Yoick. We are a social media company. Our focus is on enabling our network of users to maximise their ability to Connect, Interact, Create and Share - what we call CICS.
>Project Outback provides an easy, free way to have fun with friends while creating 3D virtual worlds together. It combines a fun social environment like MySpace and Cyworld, a peer to peer communication network like Skype and a user-generated service like YouTube into a seamless 3D platform, that is infinitely scalable.
Ponoko.com >>A creative place where you can make your ideas real ...
>and sell them to the world
Vasilis-Thesis.BlogSpot.com >>Laser Theory and Peer to Peer
>REDEFINITION OF THE SOCIETY IN THE INFORMATION AGE : TOWARDS THE CREATION OF AN OPEN CODE SOCIAL MANIFESTO
FT.com/cms/s/6e4d7c84-cc17-11db-a661-000b5df10621.html >>China has issued restrictions on the use of "virtual money" from internet games, warning such currencies could threaten real-world financial stability.
May-16-07: Saw an exmormon aquaintance at the Sustainability Living Fair so I searched and found one of his blogs at NeonDerbyCars.BlogSpot.com and am working on a response entitled "FreeUTAh".
Apr-27-07: More thoughts on the great work:
User owned incorporation is the purpose of governance.
Commerce serves users as they become competing owners.
Information is locked open by owner who retain copyright. No real ownership needs to flow because virtual sources are not rivalrous.
Physical sources are different because they are rivalrous, finite and they decay.
Owners employing the GNU General Public Law agree to:
1. Incorporate to hold the physical sources (such as land and tools) and for the issuance of the GNUrho currency.
2. All profit at each object purchase is invested for that consumer as shares of real, maximally-divisible ownership in that GPL business.
3. The default target of that investment is in physical sources used to create more of that kind of object.
Apr-25-07: engineer.info job listings
Mar-12-07:
Video at Archive.org/details/BrianMichelsTAKEBACK911 "'A remix-o-mentary consisting of interviews, news footage, and shocking facts surrounding 911 with an alarming conclusion.'"
Before PNAC was the "Defense Planning Guidance" or [Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine] which was designd to help the US "'establish and protect a new order'". This reminds me of the book "The Grand Chessboard" by Wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
"'China creating company to invest US$1 trillion reserves'" -- iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/09/business/AS-FIN-China-Foreign-Reserves.php
FreedomTown.org
911Scholars.org "'Scholars for 9/11 Truth Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths'"
STJ911.org "'Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice'"
AirApparent.ca "'Concerned citizens investigating jet engine effluent trails, geoengineering, weather manipulation'"
Holmestead.ca/index-ct.html "'Chemtrails - spraying in our sky'"
Holmestead.ca/chemtrails/rosalind.html "'Rosalind Peterson on the weather modification bill.'"
Mar-11-07: Anarchopedia.org, CreativeCommons.at/water looking at CoForum.de again and wishing for a per-word client-side German to English translator - probably as a Firefox plugin.
CaptainSherlock.com "'CAPTAIN SHERLOCK, I.e. Lt. Col. Field McCOnnell Solves ALL the MYSTERIES of 9/11/2001'"
DebianLinux.net/empire and 911.wikicompany.org :: Fascist Empire Planet.
Mar-10-07: Compiled GNU.org/software/gnash, but can't get it to work.
Video.Google.com/videoplay?docid=7661663613180520595 Lessig.org on control vs innovation.
Mar-9-07: "'China has presented its parliament with a controversial law that would protect private ownership in a country where the concept was once virtually stamped out.'" -- English.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2470FE9A-B7DF-444E-8E1F-1A51099EFD5C.htmRelated: free, Free Source, hard, source
Free Hardware is like Free Software, but for physical things.
General Public Law is designed to help owners syndicate Free Hardware.
DIYParts.org "'This site is an online inventory of parts for you to exchange with people in your own home town or around the world.'"
Mar-5-07: Once again looking for a better light-weight distro to run on my low-end machines. Considering: PuppyLinux.org, LuitLinux.sarovar.org, FeatherLinux.berlios.de, DamnSmallLinux.org, LinuxMint.com, KateOS.org, dyne.org, SaxenOS.de
Mar-4-07: Who owns the pins in Free Software development? The authors retain copyright, but since intellect is not rivalrous there is no meaningfully 'proper' owner once it has been made public.
Mar-4-07: Answering http://GPLv3.FSF.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:Main_Page "'Who really is the YOU in the GPL?'"
Mar-2-07: CouchSurfing.com and nxhx.org
"'The road to hardware free from restrictions: How hardware vendors can help the free software community'" -- FSF.org/resources/hw/how_hardware_vendors_can_help.html
Revived MySpace.com/patware page.
Older entries: diary-2006