-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
diary-feb-2008.htm
732 lines (729 loc) · 92.5 KB
/
diary-feb-2008.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>diary-feb-2008 </title>
<link href=".code/preferred.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/>
</head>
<body>
<p class='header'>
<a href="_home.htm">Home</a> | <a href="_faq.htm">FAQ</a> | <a href="_thesis.htm">Thesis</a> | <a href="_diary.htm">Diary</a> | <a href="_projects.htm">Projects</a> | <a href="resume.htm">Resume</a> | <a href="_todo.htm">Todo</a> | <a href="_index.htm">Index</a> |<p>
<p class='main'><span class="h4">====THIS <a href="file.htm">FILE</a> IS ARCHIVAL. See '<a href="diary.htm">Diary</a>' for <a href="new.htm">new</a>est entries</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-28-2008:</span> <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ing on <a class="ext" href="http://OpenFarmTech.org/index.php?title=Talk:User_Owner_Project">http://OpenFarmTech.org/index.php?title=Talk:User_Owner_Project</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-27-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://GreenInventor.org">GreenInventor.org</a> <span class="quot2">>>The StrawJet harvests straw in the field before it has been crushed or damaged, orients the stems so they are all parallel, adds a clay based binding material, compresses the bundle and binds it into a continuous length of 2 inch cable using a polyester yarn. Once the clay has dried, the cable becomes a rigid cylinder.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-27-2008:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://Selfsufficientish.com">Selfsufficientish.com</a> <span class="quot2">>>Self sufficient 'ish'.com - The urban <a href="gui.htm">gui</a>de to almost self sufficiency.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-27-2008:</span> Created <a class="ext" href="http://OpenMoney.ning.com/profile/AGNUcius">OpenMoney.ning.com/profile/AGNUcius</a><br/>
Peace and abundance result when <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is treated as an investment from the <a href="user.htm">user</a> who paid it.<br/>
War and poverty result when <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is taken by <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers acting as accidentally parasitic usurists.<br/>
War and poverty increase the potential for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, while peace and abundance decrease that potential.<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is an inverse measure of progress.<br/>
As the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect consumers become <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e approaches <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> as <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> approaches zero and control becomes direct.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-27-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://CiteSeer.IST.PSU.edu/tatar01new.html">CiteSeer.IST.PSU.edu/tatar01new.html</a> <span class="quot2">>>"A <a href="new.htm">New</a> Algorithm For Word Sense Disambiguation <small>(2001)</small>" Abstract: The task of disambiguation is to determine which of the senses of an ambiguous word is invoked in a <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular <a href="use.htm">use</a> of the word <small>[3]</small>. <a href="start.htm">Start</a>ing from the algorithm of Yarowsky <small>[5, 4]</small> and the Naive Bayes Classi er <small>(NBC)</small> algorithm , in this paper we <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose an original algorithm which combines their elements. This algorithm preserve the advantage of principles of Yarowsky <small>( one sense per discourse and one sense per collocation)</small> with the <a href="know.htm">know</a>n high performance of the NBC algorithm. Moreover, an agent... <small>(Update)</small></span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-27-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://CiteSeer.IST.PSU.edu/molina02hidden.html">CiteSeer.IST.PSU.edu/molina02hidden.html</a> <span class="quot2">>>"A Hidden Markov <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>el Approach to Word Sense Disambiguation <small>(2002)</small>" Abstract: In this <a href="work.htm">work</a>, we <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose a supervised approach to Word Sense Disambiguation which is based on Specialized Hidden Markov <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>els and the <a href="use.htm">use</a> of WordNet. Our approach formulates the disambiguation process as a tagging problem. The specialization process allows for the incorporation of additional <a href="know.htm">know</a>ledge into the <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>els. We evaluated our system on the English all-words task of the Senseval-2 competition. The performance of our system is in line with the best approaches for this task.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-27-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://PublicAndPrivateEnterprise.org">PublicAndPrivateEnterprise.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-27-2008:</span> Reading "Nishanth Sastry, Karen Sollins, Jon Crowcroft: Architecting Citywide Ubiquitous Wi-Fi Access. The Sixth <a href="work.htm">Work</a>shop on Hot Topics in <a href="net.htm">Net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>s <small>(HotNets-VI)</small>." <a class="ext" href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~nrs32/pubs/hotnets6.pdf">http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~nrs32/pubs/hotnets6.pdf</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-27-2008:</span> Listening to Eben Moglen on Software Patents: <a class="ext" href="http://cmdln.evenflow.nl/mp3/cmdln.net_2008-02-20.mp3">http://cmdln.evenflow.nl/mp3/cmdln.net_2008-02-20.mp3</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-27-2008:</span> Reading "There Are <a href="real.htm">Real</a>istic Alternatives" <small>(maybe a play on TINA?)</small> <a class="ext" href="http://AEinstein.org/organizations/org/TARA.pdf">AEinstein.org/organizations/org/TARA.pdf</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-26-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/one-loaf-per-child/2007/06/14">Blog.P2PFoundation.net/one-loaf-per-child/2007/06/14</a><br/>
Marcin,<br/>
<br/>
Are you saying that we cannot organize to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> a large factory or farm?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'What are you doing to organize the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion to a smaller organizational scale of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers? ... I <a href="know.htm">know</a> my answer. Fab labs. Open repository of digital design.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I think the reason for the excessive interest in magical fabbers and "desktop manufacturing" is an attempt at avoiding the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult issue of <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
People want the advantage of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion so they can have control, but want to avoid the sticky issue of <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
Individual <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of Personal <a href="compu.htm">Compu</a>ters <small>(PCs)</small> is a big <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the success in the P2P paradigm and of <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software and 'online' <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Culture. These Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es are cheap enough that many people can afford one in their <a href="own.htm">own</a> home and ISP charges are just quietly disregarded.<br/>
<br/>
Collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult, but obviously is "worth it" for many kinds of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion - for that is the role that Capitalist corporations <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently fill.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, a person could choose to individually <a href="own.htm">own</a> a milk cow so they could get "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" milk, but they couldn't afford the better tools like a fancy milking <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine, so would likely have to the <a href="work.htm">work</a> themselves since hiring someone to come for that little bit of time would <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ly be worth it unless you overpaid them. And it probably wouldn't be worth it to grow their <a href="own.htm">own</a> alfalfa, or to purchase expensive medical/vet tools, so would be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" to feed and provide medical care for the animal, and so on, recursively for the entire chain <small>(actually tree)</small> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. There is great savings in eventually <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es for every step required for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, and that is one of the savings in the "efficiency of scale".<br/>
<br/>
Most people do not INDIVIDUALLY <a href="own.htm">own</a> a milk cow even though there are great advantages of controlling exactly what the cow is fed and whether or not it is injected with <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial hor<a href="mone.htm">mone</a>s, and is treated humanely, etc. because it is just not <a href="real.htm">real</a>istic to INDIVIDUALLY <a href="own.htm">own</a> - it is too much trouble.<br/>
<br/>
But it WOULD be "worth it" for 10 or 100 or 1000 neighbors to COLLECTIVELY <a href="own.htm">own</a> a small dairy. Each consumer would have as much vote control as they have percentage of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, and when the majority wanted to do something that caused a division, the minority should be able to 'fork' from the rest of the group to avoid the excessive granularity of typical 'democracy'.<br/>
<br/>
So the problem I am <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on is in describing how to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership self perpetuating.<br/>
<br/>
The primary secret I have discovered that has been purposefully hidden or accidentally lost is that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <small>(<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small> is a measure of a consumer's dependence on the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, and is 'balanced' by treating that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment as an investment from the consumer that paid it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-26-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> reply to Marcin<br/>
<span class="quot">> Ok, I think i <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> with the logic. But what is the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive capacity of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> these Organizations that will help people see the value of joining? Is there</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> something like a value portfolio that is displayed? Is the value <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>tary or</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in-kind <small>(<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts and services)</small>?</span><br/>
<br/>
Just for clarity I will reiterate that treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as an investment from the consumer who paid it automates the incremental growth of the organization, but that comes AFTER we overcome the initial investments required to begin.<br/>
<br/>
So the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>iculty is in the intial <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing.<br/>
<br/>
Since the originating inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s can never expect to collect <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for themselves, the motivation must come from somewhere else.<br/>
<br/>
1. At-<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t<small>(*)</small>: A paritial <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <small>(controlling shareholder)</small> will receive as much of the outputs of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion as he has percentage of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership. If you <a href="own.htm">own</a> 15% of an apple tree, and enough of the "supporting <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es" required to deal with your percentage of that tree <small>{such as the <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water rights, tractor, tools, etc.}</small>, then you will automatically <a href="own.htm">own</a> 15% of the harvest of that tree at the end of that round of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. Notice you will still need to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s - including any wages, but <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is not even possible unless you were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to yourself. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is undefined in this case.<br/>
<br/>
1a. You may choose to sell or give away any or all of your apples, but your association with the other <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers under the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>aw means those <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects are also under that contract.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
2. Consumer Control: By investing early, you have immediat vote-weight over that establishment. Let's say you <small>(an investing consumer)</small> want a restaurant that serves good food at a reasonable <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s it's <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers well. Since we are <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s <small>(including wages)</small> + <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, we can easily <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s alone while increasing wages since <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will only be paid by those that do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
3. <a href="work.htm">Work</a> Sharing: Creating such establishments allows us to finally maximize the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e of labor. You can then go "out to eat" for every meal because it will never be more expensive than cooking a meal at home. Sure you must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, but your time is valuable too right? The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence from a Capitalist restaurant is that you no longer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a><small>(*)</small>, so we no longer need to avoid the value that specialization brings.<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects are usually perfectly "At-<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>" only for brief periods of time because consumers are dynamic in many <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> ways, so a change in a consumer's desire <small>(say from apples to pears)</small> will not be available "At-<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>" until the "<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>" <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> that they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t has been invested for them, and those <a href="new.htm">new</a> Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es have become <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive for them.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> that people will want to join,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> because they get great value in return - and the point is to explain to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> people clearly how they will benefit. What are your comments on that?</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine you need some <a href="work.htm">work</a> done on your house or your car.<br/>
<br/>
1. If you are lucky enough to have the needed <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s, you might try to buy cheap versions of some of the tools you will need, but must avoid the more expensive things because it will not be "worth it" for the small a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> you will utilize them.<br/>
<br/>
2. You can contact a typical Capitalist business with non-<a href="work.htm">work</a>ing <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers and non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers who will have both <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s and the better tools, but you must then <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> without ever earning <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in that organization.<br/>
<br/>
3. You can contact a smaller Capitalist business where all the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers and all the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers are <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. They will also have <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s and better tools, but will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> themselves much more than the non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers in <small>(2.)</small> The <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> you usually paid now appears to be wage, but it is actually hidden <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as proved by the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers disallowing other non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers to bid to access the tools. In other words, competition between all possible <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers is not maximized. The non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers described in <small>(2.)</small> would not be allowed to <a href="work.htm">work</a> with these tools at the wage they <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>d upon before.<br/>
<br/>
4. You could get together with 100 neighbors and buy the expensive tools that you will a percentage of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in. You can then hire non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers at a wage above <small>(2.)</small> while still <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing less than either <small>(2. or 3.)</small>. You can also choose to do the <a href="work.htm">work</a> yourself if you have those <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s, and can do all variety of things that other corporations arbitrarily don't allow.<br/>
<br/>
Hope this helps.<br/>
<br/>
I'm happy that this stuff is finally getting some attention, but I want to be very clear that I seek no glory for myself.<br/>
<br/>
The things that I am talking about could not have been 'invented' by anybody, they are simply truths that were waiting to be discovered - maybe like gravity. It was Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> that discovered the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s must gain Control. We are helping to generalize that discovery.<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-26-2008:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://ArielRubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/poe.pdf">ArielRubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/poe.pdf</a> <span class="quot2">>>Edgar Allan Poe’s Riddle: Do Guessers Outperform Misleaders in a Repeated Matching Pennies <a href="game.htm">Game</a>?</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-26-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> reply to Stan<br/>
<span class="quot">> I have not done a formal critique of Patrick's <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>aw yet. If</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I did, it would be based on it not being feasibly implementable.</span><br/>
<br/>
Stan,<br/>
<br/>
I was thinking about your concern that we would need to track all <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects <small>(<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts)</small> that are purchased as <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>ed and then resold as not. I think the problem is small for these reasons:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span> The trouble you point out only occurs when an <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect is illegally <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ed <small>(breaking contract law)</small> by removing the notice that the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect is under that contract, and even then the damage is isolated to the <a href="new.htm">new</a> consumer in that the <a href="new.htm">new</a> consumer is simply unaware of their rights becuase the information is hidden from them. It doesn't <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly help the middle-man seller.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span> The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of an <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ective <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ed by <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="general public law.htm">General Public Law</a> <small>(such as an apple)</small> will sell that <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect at a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(whatever the market will bear)</small>, so there is not a great incentive for the buying middle-man to resell the item - as he could only do so for approximately the same <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e, <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ly covering his <a href="own.htm">own</a> wage for the trouble.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span> The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>aw minimizes the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e of <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects while maximizing the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e of labor because, as <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect Consumers become <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers, the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects <small>(<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t)</small> is in the correct hands <small>(<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the final consumer)</small> even before it is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-25-2008:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://ScienceStudies.fi/filestore2/download/1592/Guest_editorial.pdf">ScienceStudies.fi/filestore2/download/1592/Guest_editorial.pdf</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-25-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> reply to Marcin<br/>
<span class="quot">> Are you interested in any <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular circuits? What is your interest in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> electronics?</span><br/>
<br/>
Well, I targeted OLPC mainly because I thought their minds might be open to such an <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a. But the strategy I have in mind to solve our <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic woes applies equally well to any industry.<br/>
<br/>
I wrote a paper with a <a href="title.htm">title</a> that spoofs the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a of giving laptops to the poor when so many don't even have food/cloth/shelter/<a href="soap.htm">soap</a>. The name of the paper is "One Loaf Per Child" which you can read at <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/one-loaf-per-child/2007/06/14">http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/one-loaf-per-child/2007/06/14</a><br/>
<br/>
We <small>(the consumers)</small> need to control the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of all the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts we <a href="use.htm">use</a>. Regular <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is the most direct and complete form of control, so why not utilize it to achieve that goal?<br/>
<br/>
For instance, the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for simple, low quality communication is pitiful.<br/>
<br/>
We need to be able to send each other text, audio and video on portable <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters over non-dangerous <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
If the consumers were the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the farms, factories and <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>s, we would have the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts of those physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es AT <a href="cost.htm">COST</a>, and could arbitrarily add all the features we want AT <a href="cost.htm">COST</a>. When consumer is <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> has no meaning except maybe as an investment in more <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es for future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. For instance, if you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an apple tree, you may <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> someone to tend and harvest the apples, but you cannot <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> unless you were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to yourself. When an <a href="own.htm">own</a>er is the consumer, <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e and <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> are the same thing!<br/>
<br/>
Why <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> so much for a text message? Why <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> so much just to transmit a bit of data <small>(access the internet)</small>? Does it <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="cost.htm">COST</a> these <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary cell-phone 'service' companies $40/month? That question is easy to answer. Just look at the numbers they call '<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>'.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is explicitly and plainly "<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> and Wage are somewhat 'mixed' when <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers are the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers because the division is arbitrary. The <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers may overpay themselves and the consumers can do nothing about it, but when the Consumers are the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers, Wage is a clearly defined <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> because competition is then between all qualified <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers instead of between the few that happen to also be <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers in that corporation.<br/>
<br/>
When Consumers are <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers <small>(when an organization is "<a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>ed")</small>, <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> tends toward zero and <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e tends toward <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>. I say "tends toward" instead of "is" because Consumers are dynamic in many ways - they are born, they die, they "move in", the "move out", they want something this year, and not the next, etc. So, since they will rarely have 'perfect' <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts they need, they will usually be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" as an investment toward perfect <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es so <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e approaches <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> approaches zero.<br/>
<br/>
Why can nobody on the planet hear me?<br/>
<br/>
exasperated,<br/>
Patrick Anderson <small>(Lord <small>(as in bread guard)</small> <a href="agnu.htm">AGNU</a>cius)</small><br/>
President, Personal Sovereignty Foundation<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-22-2008:</span> Reply to <a class="ext" href="http://Blogs.The451Group.com/opensource/2007/11/21/closing-open-source-loopholes">Blogs.The451Group.com/opensource/2007/11/21/closing-open-source-loopholes</a><br/>
<br/>
A copyright holder may CHOOSE any license for that <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Talking about code that corporations such as Google CHOOSE not to release is meaningless.<br/>
<br/>
The point with the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> which is only sharpened with <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gplv3.htm">GPLv3</a> and <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="agpl.htm">AGPL</a>, is:<br/>
<br/>
IF the copyright holder CHOOSES to "<a href="free.htm">Free</a>" <small>(Open)</small> their <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e, then using a <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> license guarantees that code cannot be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d *against* them by <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary competitors.<br/>
<br/>
This defense mechanism is only strengthened by later <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>s, so to "stay with the <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> and enjoying <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary SaaS business <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>els" for instance, is only applicable to those that are <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding on the code of others WITHOUT releasing.<br/>
<br/>
IF a copyright holder CHOOSES to defend their <a href="work.htm">work</a>, the <a href="gplv3.htm">GPLv3</a> and <a href="agpl.htm">AGPL</a> are a stronger defense. This has nothing to do with people that are not CHOOSING to release code.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-22-2008:</span> Listening to more on <a class="ext" href="http://StreetFrog.org">StreetFrog.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-22-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/drew-endy-on-the-need-to-open-source-synthetic-biology/2008/02/22">Blog.P2PFoundation.net/drew-endy-on-the-need-to-open-source-synthetic-biology/2008/02/22</a><br/>
<br/>
The parasitic actions of genetic <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>eers such as Monsanto, Nestlé, Sime Darby, ConAgra, etc. have been LOCKING life's potential CLOSED for a long time now.<br/>
<br/>
Terminator<small>(TM)</small> technology, and more recently with <a class="ext" href="http://www.TransContainer.wur.nl">http://www.TransContainer.wur.nl</a> described as <span class="quot">"'Developing efficient and stable biological containment systems for genetically <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ified plants.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Grain.org/hybridrice/?lid=198">http://Grain.org/hybridrice/?lid=198</a><br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> requires dependence. The consumer must be dependent upon the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. Wage has no such requirement.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'if you’re trying to invent a language for programming DNA, having a <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary language seems stupid.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
Stupid? You think <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>eers are stupid to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e something <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary? Clever; vicious; insideous; dangerous; yes, but not stupid.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'If Oxford University had supported privatization of the English language hundreds of years ago, the dictionary they made wouldn’t have been so <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>eering corporations don't want <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts to be <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful. <a href="use.htm">Use</a>fulness is bad for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> because the consumer becomes more "set up". A <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>eer wants a consumer to believe the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful so it will be purchased, but after that the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t should be "self destructing" or limited by time or in other ways so the dependence remains.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'there are wonderful companies that have locked up most of the relevant intellectual <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty around how to engineer proteins to bind DNA. The <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts that they can deliver are going to be measured in small positive integer numbers, a few diseases.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
All the better to subjugate you with, my dear.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'But, the <a href="real.htm">real</a> value associated with being able to engineer proteins that bind DNA are in the uncountable applications people could <a href="use.htm">use</a> the proteins for.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
Value? BWA-HA-HA-ha-ha! You think abundance is value? Abundance is WORTHLESS to a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>eer. In fact, it is worse than that, abundance is *INVERSELY* related to <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. As abundance increases, the potential for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> decreases. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> for some measures the poverty of others.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'It’s like a programming language where it would be a big downstream <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> if you <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed "if/then" and you were the only person who could <a href="use.htm">use</a> it.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
Sure it is a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> for everyone 'except' the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>eering <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. That proves <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is an externality for the consumers that suffer it. It is a measure of their dependence; a plea for growth.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is not needed by a society, it shows how far we are from having the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion fully distributed. This is easily solved by treating all <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> as an investment from the consumer that paid it.<br/>
<br/>
Until we organize in a manner that respects a consumer's pleading, the ignorantly divisive <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>eers will continue to murder/<a href="delet.htm">delet</a>e all <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful species while replacing them with those that will guarantee dependence to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> remains.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-19-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> response to Amanda<br/>
<span class="quot">> Hi Pat,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> How's it going? Lately, I have <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly been wanting to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> get away from our society and move to the country. I</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> would like to <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e in a small group and grow food and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> have some <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e<a href="stock.htm">stock</a>. I <a href="know.htm">know</a> it is not <a href="real.htm">real</a>istic to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> think that we can be totally weaned off the system,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> but I would like to be as self sufficient as possible.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I also like the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a of solar heating and alternative</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> energy <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es. I am going to look into the links you</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> sent.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Amanda</span><br/>
<br/>
I hear you.<br/>
<br/>
I worry we are running out of time.<br/>
<br/>
We need to buy <a href="land.htm">land</a> and bees and fruit/nut bushes/trees NOW, before it is obvious that we must.<br/>
<br/>
If we wait until it is clear to the general <a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ulation, it will probably be too late and we will have no alternative than to beg our federal government to house and <a href="employ.htm">employ</a> us in the facilities they have already constructed for that purpose...<br/>
<br/>
I am on-board with your goals; it only sounds like I'm not because I'm attempting to address the <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amental issue of re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e misallocation that got us here in the first place.<br/>
<br/>
In other words, if we <a href="start.htm">start</a> a <a href="new.htm">new</a> 'group', how will we <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e it doesn't turn sour in the same way our <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent 'society' has? Why has nobody ever been able to organize in such a way that they are able to overgrow the situation we see now?<br/>
<br/>
Is Capitalism optimally efficient? I don't see how anyone could claim that, but if it is not, then why does that '<a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el' always tend to 'win' as any <a href="new.htm">new</a> group tries to scale?<br/>
<br/>
Why, as the size of a well-meaning group grows, does Capitalism almost inevitably rear it's head within that group and destroy the original goals of abundance and peace?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-18-2008:</span> Listening to "Mermen <a href="liv.htm">Liv</a>e at Old Princeton <a href="land.htm">Land</a>ing on 2007-02-23 <small>(February 23, 2007)</small>" at <a class="ext" href="http://Archive.org/details/mermen2007-02-23.flac16">Archive.org/details/mermen2007-02-23.flac16</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-18-2008:</span> Marcin Jakubowski called me on my warbly cell phone. We spoke for about an hour about his <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion Commons.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-18-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> to Marcin Jakubowski<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is essentially an organized</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> effort for open engineering and <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t R&D for the public interest, and it</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> is applicable to any <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t within the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent industrial system.</span><br/>
<br/>
The words 'engineering' and 'industrial' without mention of "naturally <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive" <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es me think something as simple as an <small>(non-GMO)</small> apple tree or a chicken will not be handled <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ly <small>(from capitalism)</small> within a <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion Commons. If that is true, then the sentence is fine, otherwise you might want to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it more inlusive.<br/>
<br/>
On a similar <a href="note.htm">note</a>, will industrial capital that a <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion Commons cannot yet create <small>(such as the drill-press I saw Brittany operating)</small> be under the 'rule' of the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion Commons, or is that not within the scope of this project?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> 1. People volunteer time and re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es to develop <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts</span><br/>
<br/>
By 'develop' do you mostly mean the 'design' of <a href="new.htm">new</a> industrial <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines, or are you including the 'development' of something as mundane and ancient as another instance of an apple tree which may require unglamorous ditch digging? Are you morally or strictly opposed to the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment of wages or other compensation for the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing of specialized labor?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> 2. <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion facilities are <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t and donated into the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion commons</span><br/>
<br/>
Does the word 'facilities' include both <a href="land.htm">land</a> <small>(surface area)</small> and capital <small>(such as a tractor)</small>?<br/>
<br/>
Are you interested in discussing how to <a href="recover.htm">recover</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s and/or the scheduling required for sharing those physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es among many people?<br/>
<br/>
Should we save such details for a later discussion, or do you view them as fully unimportant - that we will just "get along" without a need to outline such nit-<a href="pic.htm">pic</a>king?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> 3. A <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is made available at the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion</span><br/>
<br/>
I understand this stance, and have thought the same thing in the past, but think it is slightly wrong now that I understand <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> to be a plea for growth from the consumer who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s it.<br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> that we should <a href="work.htm">work</a> *toward* <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t available "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>", but I think it should be a final *result* of our actions. We should approach that goal somewhat indirectly by treating all "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> as an INVESTMENT from the consumer that paid it.<br/>
<br/>
By charging whatever the "market will bear", we will also have a steady supply of <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing from people <small>(consumers)</small> who want <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, but do not expect to receive <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for themselves.<br/>
<br/>
Again, to summarize, instead of holding the consumer_<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e down at <a href="own.htm">own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, I think it best to charge whatever the consumer is willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>, and then treat that overpayment as an investment from that very same consumer. I'm still not sure how or when the control of that investment should 'vest' to that consumer, but as consumers gain <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e naturally tends toward <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> toward zero)</small> since the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of an apple tree who is also the consumer of those apples cannot <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - it becomes essentially undefined <small>[unless he were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to himself toward future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion - again, as his <a href="own.htm">own</a> investment toward future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion...]</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> We are simply eliminating the development, intellectual <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> capitalization, overhead, competitive waste, and other <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s- to create a</span><br/>
<br/>
I think I understand what you mean by "competitive waste" but you may need to be more clear because I also think maximizing competition between <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers is actually a good thing. I will try to write more about how and why this is the case.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> novel way to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e physical goods. This is <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntical to the open <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> software <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el in terms of sharing development <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, except we added</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> physical <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion into the mix.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="ide.htm">Ide</a>ntical? What do you mean by "sharing development <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s"?<br/>
<br/>
One of the big problems with <a href="free.htm">Free</a> <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e software is how the consumers have not found a good way to connect with the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed <a href="work.htm">work</a>er to incent him to <a href="work.htm">work</a> on things he isn't just incidentally interested in.<br/>
<br/>
Sincerly,<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-14-2008:</span> Reading Axel Bruns' reply at Re-public.gr/en/?p=277<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-14-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/DNA">P2PFoundation.net/DNA</a><br/>
Similar to copy-<a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ion schemes <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ed by some software companies, <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary genetics are often designed to remove abundance by disabling the otherwise natural quality of self-copying - or <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>agation.<br/>
<br/>
Monsanto does this with Terminator<small>(TM)</small> technology, and more recently with <a class="ext" href="http://www.TransContainer.wur.nl">http://www.TransContainer.wur.nl</a> described as "Developing efficient and stable biological containment systems for genetically <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ified plants."<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> increases as consumer control decreases.<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://www.grain.org/hybridrice/?lid=197">http://www.grain.org/hybridrice/?lid=197</a> <span class="quot">"' "Why are farmers again being compelled to go for cultivation dependent on fertilizer-pesticide-irrigation?" UBINIG and Nayakrishi Andolon ask in a <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ement released at the conference. "The fact is that the government is going to offer subsidy on fertilizer, pesticide, electricity and pump <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine, etc. to introduce hybrid seeds in the interest of the company. It is <a href="know.htm">know</a>n to every one that the farmers will not be able to save and <a href="use.htm">use</a> hybrid seeds for next year. They will be again bound to buy seeds from the market with higher <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e. This sort of decision is a sheer neglect of the <a href="real.htm">real</a> needs of the farmers. Bangladeshi farmers have enough of their <a href="own.htm">own</a> high yielding varieties of aman and boro rice, which needs to be <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ed and promoted.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'since monopoly seed business can not be established with the local varieties of rice, so the efforts are there to destroy the local seed system in order to create market for seed from the companies.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> abhors nature. Nature must learn that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is a measure of Poverty if it is to survive the drive to eliminate all natural genetic lines. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is perpetuated for power and to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
We are toying with the future of our planet and the <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>elyhood of all <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing organisms. Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward for <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers is DANGEROUS because it INVERTS our natural goals of Abundance and Peace.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>eers consider abundance Worthless because keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> requires poverty.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-14-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/?p=156">OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/?p=156</a><br/>
Your <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>ture of the duck reminds me of this <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>ture: <a class="ext" href="http://grain.org/front_files/west-bengal-bird-flu-woman-ducks-crying-1.jpg">http://grain.org/front_files/west-bengal-bird-flu-woman-ducks-crying-1.jpg</a><br/>
<br/>
and the related <a href="art.htm">art</a>icle: <a class="ext" href="http://grain.org/articles/?id=35">http://grain.org/articles/?id=35</a><br/>
<br/>
Large corporate agriculture will enjoy increased <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s as the competition of these small farmers is eliminated.<br/>
<br/>
The future of our earth hang in the balance while keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> is labeld 'earnings', and choices are influenced by those who intend to perpetuate that usury.<br/>
<br/>
I hope we can <a href="work.htm">work</a> together to grow a <a href="new.htm">new</a> tomorrow.<br/>
<br/>
I cry for the Permaculture that Capitalism fears <small>(as plenty for all would mean <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for none)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Your peer,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
President, Personal Sovereignty Foundation<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://EcoComics.org">http://EcoComics.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-14-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://BusinessOfOpenness.org/?p=6">BusinessOfOpenness.org/?p=6</a><br/>
When you say 'open' are you talking about opening the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion?<br/>
<br/>
If you are opening the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, do you have plans to <a href="recover.htm">recover</a> the <a href="real.htm">real</a> and re<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of those physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, including wages?<br/>
<br/>
If you are planning to <a href="recover.htm">recover</a> those <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, do plan to also collect the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> that <a href="user.htm">user</a>s will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> depending upon what the market will bear?<br/>
<br/>
If you collect <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will it be distributed to the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers and/or <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers of your business as is almost universally the case?<br/>
<br/>
Why do <a href="user.htm">user</a>s <small>(consumers)</small> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>? Remember, wages are a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, and consumers <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s - but why or how are they "tricked into" <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing MORE than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>? What does <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> even mean? Isn't <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> a measure of the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>iculty that <a href="user.htm">user</a> would have in purchasing and organizing the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion? Isn't <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> a plea for growth from the consumer that paid it?<br/>
<br/>
If a <a href="user.htm">user</a> had sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, he would still have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, including the wage of those <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed enough to <a href="install.htm">install</a>, maintain and operate those physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, but he wouldn't have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than that - he could get the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" because to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> would be meaningless unless he were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to himself. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is 'undefined' when the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are <a href="free.htm">free</a> to control the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
If you read what Saint IGNUcius <small>(Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a>)</small> writes about <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom you will see it is "<a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom". He says "<a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom for evey <a href="user.htm">user</a>".<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> is a copyright license that only covers intangible, immaterial, '<a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual' <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es. If you <small>(or we)</small> intend to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a business that is 'Open', it seems prudent to observe that '<a href="free.htm">Free</a>' as in <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom means it must be the <a href="user.htm">USER</a>S that gain control of the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, even <small>(and most importantly)</small> when they do not happen to have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate <small>(or program)</small> those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es themselves. This maximizes competition and minimizes <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> while causing <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion to be focused on "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" instead of "exchange value".<br/>
<br/>
If <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is treated as an investment from the <a href="user.htm">user</a> who paid it, a business can become and remain open even as it scales to outcompete the dinosaurs who continue with raw capitalism.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-13-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/Talk:Open_Source_Ecology">http://P2PFoundation.net/Talk:Open_Source_Ecology</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/?p=155">OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/?p=155</a><br/>
Hello Marcin,<br/>
<br/>
I have been aware of your <a href="work.htm">work</a> since you had <a class="ext" href="http://SourceOpen.org">SourceOpen.org</a> and am very impressed that you have been able to actually begin physical <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. I hope this will grow out of control <small>(out of the control of the originators)</small>...<br/>
<br/>
I have some criticism directed at your claim that you intend to <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el the business after Open <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e, and I hope it can be considered by you with care.<br/>
<br/>
I am a religious follower of the <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>het Saint IGNUcius. His wisdom enforced through the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>ment has made <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software a competitor that <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary corporations can no longer ignore.<br/>
<br/>
If we are to <a href="emu.htm">emu</a>late this social movement, it is important to understand what <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom is and what it means for <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es to be open.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="h2">== Developers Vs. <a href="user.htm">User</a>s or <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers Vs. Consumers ==</span><br/>
<br/>
OSE/Neocommercialization appears to be taking the stance of most any other <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>e Of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion intending to overtake Capitalism when it assumes the organization/business must be <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
But I am convinced this is not nearly optimal.<br/>
<br/>
Some interesting things occur when Consumers <small>(or <a href="user.htm">User</a>s)</small> are <a href="own.htm">own</a> the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, even when they are not <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed enough to operate them that don't occur through <a href="work.htm">work</a>er <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> The consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t even before it is <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>ed. This causes <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e to be minimized.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Wages are separated from <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>: A <a href="work.htm">work</a>er-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er may otherwise overpay himself and disallow competing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers from accessing the <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital <small>(Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es needed for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion)</small>, thereby keeping <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Abundance and <a href="real.htm">real</a> solutions are goal and never thought 'destructive'.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Scarcity is not sought and those physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es are <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Un<a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment is not a problem, it is the s<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>d goal.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <a href="work.htm">Work</a> is to be eliminated as a hurdle on the road to riches.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Low <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es are always good and tend toward <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is meaningless except as consumer growth.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Entire <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion chains are finally localized.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Development is solved instead of being sustained.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
In the world of Software, it is the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s <small>(consumers)</small> that are guaranteed access to the <a href="virt.htm">Virt</a>ual <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es. Access is not confined to developers who happen to possess the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s needed to operate <small>(program)</small> those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
When the consumers <small>(<a href="user.htm">user</a>s)</small> have control, they are always able to "go around" any <a href="own.htm">own</a>er/developer that is attempting to overcharge them while claiming those charges are merely wage. Competition is maximized when mere consumers are in charge. <a href="mak.htm">Mak</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers does not solve this problem.<br/>
<br/>
Here are some quotes to support my claim:<br/>
<br/>
"Three Minutes with Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a>" ''With <a href="free.htm">free</a> software, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are in control. Most of the time, <a href="user.htm">user</a>s want interoperability, and when the software is <a href="free.htm">free</a>, they get what they want. With non-<a href="free.htm">free</a> software, the developer controls the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s. The developer permits interoperability when that suits the developer; what the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s want is beside the point.'' -- <a class="ext" href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137098-c,freeware/article.html">http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137098-c,freeware/article.html</a><br/>
<br/>
"When we talk about <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter <a href="user.htm">user</a>s' <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom, we mean <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter <a href="user.htm">user</a>s -- not <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter programmers, not the most powerful people in society," -- Peter Brown at <a class="ext" href="http://ITManagement.EarthWeb.com/article.php/31771_3683791_3">http://ITManagement.EarthWeb.com/article.php/31771_3683791_3</a><br/>
<br/>
And a short video supporting the opposite view = the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that developers <small>(<a href="work.htm">work</a>ers)</small> are the most important: <a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4</a><br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-12-2008:</span> fscking <a href="spray.htm">spray</a>ers are <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing me sick today<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pathfinder_research.html">http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pathfinder_research.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/aac">http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/aac</a> <span class="quot2">>>European Conference on Aviation, Atmosphere and Climate <small>(AAC-Conference)</small> The AAC conference provided a platform for an international information exchange and a discussion forum on the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>us of our <a href="know.htm">know</a>ledge of the impact of aviation on the composition of the atmosphere and the climate. <a class="ext" href="http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/aac/proceedings/AAC-proceedings-complete.pdf">http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/aac/proceedings/AAC-proceedings-complete.pdf</a></span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-12-2008:</span> AGAIN I'm reading through <a class="ext" href="http://FAX.libs.UGA.edu/HD3271xG453/1f/consumers_coop_societies.txt">FAX.libs.UGA.edu/HD3271xG453/1f/consumers_coop_societies.txt</a> trying to find a way to explain why control must be in the hands of <a href="user.htm">user</a>s instead of the developers.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-11-2008:</span> Mulling a response to Re-public.gr/en/?p=201<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-10-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://Solidarius.com.br/mance/index.php?lng=en">Solidarius.com.br/mance/index.php?lng=en</a> with papers that discuss the importance of investing in prodution chains.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-10-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/wikipedia-governance-the-power-of-admins/2008/02/06">Blog.P2PFoundation.net/wikipedia-governance-the-power-of-admins/2008/02/06</a><br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers may lock gates closed for exclusive private <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
Or they may open them a bit for access that is <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary.<br/>
<br/>
Even <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers that want a perfectly inclusive public utility,<br/>
must be able to exclude those that would destroy the community.<br/>
<br/>
So how do we <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d the perfect restaurant,<br/>
that helps hungry eat while keeping dirty hands out?<br/>
<br/>
Who is it that determines when something is good or bad?<br/>
It's the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers that decide, but how did get that badge?<br/>
<br/>
They organized first. They invested and took risk.<br/>
They are the <a href="own.htm">OWN</a>ERS dammit! To exclude is their right!<br/>
<br/>
But again, just what if. What if we <a href="start.htm">start</a>ed again?<br/>
Could we figure this out? Could it ever be right<small>[eous]</small>?<br/>
<br/>
What about the Johnny-Come-Late? The non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>er?<br/>
Can he ever progress, or will he be forever a serf?<br/>
<br/>
If he cannot gain <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership himself,<br/>
he will never have say; he will never have vote.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osal I have is that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is good.<br/>
But only if <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a>s can somehow gain ground.<br/>
<br/>
In the '<a href="real.htm">real</a> world' an investment is made<br/>
when a consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s more than it <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> to create.<br/>
<br/>
Wages are a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, so don't worry about that.<br/>
But <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> should be treated as a plea for more growth.<br/>
<br/>
This is more <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult 'online', where <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s are still <a href="real.htm">real</a>,<br/>
but so small that collecting from each <a href="user.htm">user</a> is too annoying.<br/>
<br/>
WE <small>(the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s)</small> need a way to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s<br/>
to the collective others that will organize with US.<br/>
<br/>
WE also need a way to bid against each other,<br/>
and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> when the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty WE <a href="own.htm">own</a> is not yet enough.<br/>
<br/>
WE will treat the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment of <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> as a <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty retainer,<br/>
and any a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> above as that same <a href="user.htm">user</a>'s investment.<br/>
<br/>
This way joint <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty can finally be <a href="free.htm">free</a>.<br/>
<a href="free.htm">Free</a> as in <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom, though never 0.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-09-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> reply to BS<br/>
Don't blame the <small>[poli]</small>ce, they're are just doing their <a href="job.htm">job</a>s.<br/>
Don't blame the <small>[poli]</small>ticians, that is all just theatre.<br/>
Don't blame the <small>[poli]</small>cy, set by corporate <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers who write law.<br/>
<br/>
Blame our mistake of mistreating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as earnings.<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is an inverse measure of our overall progress.<br/>
<br/>
It is USURY to take this "<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>" as reward,<br/>
For the <a href="user.htm">user</a> who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s it is ADMITTING he needs growth.<br/>
<br/>
Usury stunts progress, it REQUIRES poverty.<br/>
If each <a href="user own.htm">user own</a>ed enough physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es himself,<br/>
<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e would meet <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> would have no meaning.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers cry "Cops, Cops we need more Cops"<br/>
To convince us the pain must be sustained.<br/>
<br/>
Usurists are the terrorist, and "Terrorist Hate <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom"*<br/>
For <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom would allow peace and plenty to reign.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> "Terrorist Hate <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom" is <a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>emark/Copyright AmericA's <span class="quot">"'War Of Terror'"</span> Inc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-08-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/umair-hacque-when-data-are-valueless-open-beats-closed-and-good-beats-evil/2008/02/07">Blog.P2PFoundation.net/umair-hacque-when-data-are-valueless-open-beats-closed-and-good-beats-evil/2008/02/07</a><br/>
You say <span class="quot">"'consider the commercial'"</span> as though <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e must remain above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, yet then go on to say the opposite. Could you tell me more specifically what you mean by that phrase?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'using investment for improved service.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I guess you are talking about treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as investment?<br/>
<br/>
This is fine *only* if those investments finally become the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of the humans that paid them.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'or <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing it <a href="back.htm">back</a> to the trustees <small>(customers of the service they’re providing)</small>'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I don't think we can just hand the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <a href="back.htm">back</a> to those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s either. We, the originators understand the importance of growing the cooperative which requires the purchase of *MORE* <a href="land.htm">land</a> and capital.<br/>
<br/>
Customers <small>(<a href="user.htm">user</a>s)</small> generally don't <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="know.htm">know</a> how or what to invest in <small>(otherwise we wouldn't have this problem)</small>, and are unlikely to do so anyway because the corporate media has taught them poor judgement and desire for immediate satisfaction <small>(<a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y in the pocket)</small> over sound planning <small>(investing in their <a href="own.htm">own</a> future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'These do sort of already exist, in the form of cooperatives.'"</span><br/>
Unfortunately, almost every 'cooperative' on earth subscribes to the faulty notion that the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership must be in the hands of those that happen to have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate it instead of being <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by those that need the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts thereof. <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e will never meet <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will remain mixed with wages as long as the act of <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing determines the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <small>(and therefore control)</small> of the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'Farmer’s markets are certainly staging a come<a href="back.htm">back</a> in <a href="part.htm">part</a>s of the US as the food supply becomes–and is recognized as–more industrialized.'"</span><br/>
These are better than the filth from ConAgra, Nestle, etc., but still are not optimum because it is almost universally taken as apriori that the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers must be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, instead of understanding that control must be in the hands of the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s that need the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t even though they may not happen to have those exact <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
Farm <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers <small>(and all small businesses)</small> have a terribly <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult time because they must hold the entire debt themselves, while the collective consumers could do this so much easier that they might even have a chance of actually <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing off the <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-07-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/umair-hacque-when-data-are-valueless-open-beats-closed-and-good-beats-evil/2008/02/07">Blog.P2PFoundation.net/umair-hacque-when-data-are-valueless-open-beats-closed-and-good-beats-evil/2008/02/07</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2008/01/data-is-commodity-redux.cfm">http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2008/01/data-is-commodity-redux.cfm</a><br/>
<br/>
Using the word 'value' to represent '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>' is tremendously confusing. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is nothing more than "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>". Why would we <small>(anyone seeking to solve the <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic troubles we face)</small> want to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>? Must we perpetuate poverty to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>?<br/>
<br/>
If everyone in world had "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to bread, would you say bread has no value? I'll bet the starving Hatians wouldn't <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>. Isn't "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" worth considering?<br/>
<br/>
Of course things lose "exchange value" as we approach abundance, but that only proves that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is an inverse measure of development.<br/>
<br/>
We don't NEED to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> when the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s and the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are the same set. Wage is also a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, and <a href="work.htm">work</a> is paid before <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is even <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulated.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="user.htm">User</a>s are willing to invest in "for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for the purpose of "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" alone.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="user.htm">User</a>s already <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s anyway, and they ALSO <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> whenever they do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <small>(the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es)</small> required to meet those <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives.<br/>
<br/>
You say <span class="quot">"'how can we, as separate entities, capture value.'"</span>, but what <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es you think the founders of an enterprise MUST remain divided from the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s it was supposedly created for? Don't we want to create true public utilities?<br/>
<br/>
Governments at all levels and every non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> corporation and/or organization keep control away from the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s they claim to serve by not understanding the "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> should be considered an INVESTMENT from the very <a href="user.htm">user</a> that paid it - for the only reason a <a href="user.htm">user</a> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s the portion called <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is because the do not yet have enough control to achieve those goals "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-05-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://BBF.OpenWetWare.org">BBF.OpenWetWare.org</a> <span class="quot2">>>Using BioBrick™ standard biological <a href="part.htm">part</a>s, a synthetic biologist or biological engineer can already, to some extent, program <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing organisms in the same way a <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter scientist can program a <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter. The DNA sequence information and other characteristics of BioBrick™ standard biological <a href="part.htm">part</a>s are made available to the public <a href="free.htm">free</a> of charge <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently via MIT's Registry of Standard Biological <a href="part.htm">Part</a>s.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-05-2008:</span> Posted to Re-public.gr/en/?p=277 and <a class="ext" href="http://snurb.info/comment/reply/772">snurb.info/comment/reply/772</a> "Axel Bruns - Who controls the means of produsage?"<br/>
<br/>
Axel,<br/>
<br/>
You say:<br/>
"This requires us to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> attention no longer mainly to who <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but to ask a <a href="new.htm">new</a> question: who controls the means of produsage?"<br/>
<br/>
But you haven’t shown <small>(and I doubt that it could be shown)</small> that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers do not control.<br/>
<br/>
The answer to your question of "who controls?" is, in fact, "the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers".<br/>
<br/>
Maybe you meant to ask a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> question?<br/>
<br/>
In what way, or when are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the *physical* means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion not the controllers? Is that ever true?<br/>
<br/>
Maybe you are suggesting that a 'commons' <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el would be designed so that the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would somehow not be in control, but I don’t see that happening. When push comes to shove, it is ALWAYS the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers that have the final say.<br/>
<br/>
This may seem like a bad situation, as <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers generally tend to eventually turn against the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s they claim to be 'serving', but I have an <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a about how we could <a href="use.htm">use</a> regular <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty rights to <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d a commons through a more careful form of sharing <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t upon the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>als of the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>. I won't outline that <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osal here, as this post is probably already considered too long.<br/>
<br/>
I am very interested in your thoughts on this, and will check <a href="back.htm">back</a> here for your reply. Please e<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> me directly if you like.<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-03-2008:</span> Response to <a class="ext" href="http://MySpace.com/grnxnm">MySpace.com/grnxnm</a> blog entry "Create your <a href="own.htm">own</a> religion"<br/>
<br/>
Your requirement "it has to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sense to an alien visitor" may be a problem for a more discerning race because Kurt Godel's first "incompleteness theorem" <a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems</a> appears to require any system to be either inconsistent or incomplete.<br/>
<br/>
So, <small>(if my interpretation is correct)</small>, religion can be EITHER consistent <small>(does not con<a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ict itself)</small>, or it can be complete <small>(can be proven from data wholly from within itself)</small>, but it can't be simultaneously both.<br/>
<br/>
Since most adhe<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>s would want to claim their religion doesn't con<a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ict itself, then that religion must be incomplete, and therefore would require proof OUTSIDE of itself to prove or disprove it's validity.<br/>
<br/>
Notice Godel's theorem can't be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to prove or disprove the validity of the system itself, it is only <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to prove or disprove the *decidability* of that system. In other words, if an adhe<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> claims his system <small>(religion)</small> is consistent, but is only willing to consider data <small>(scripture)</small> from within that system, then the system cannot be decided - it can be neither proven nor disproven until external information <small>(such as physical evidence)</small> is presented.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-03-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://HenryFlynt.org">HenryFlynt.org</a> <span class="quot2">>>Henry Flynt was born in 1940 in Greensboro, NC. He is a philosopher, musician, anti-<a href="art.htm">art</a> activist and exhibited <a href="art.htm">art</a>ist.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-03-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://pzwart.wdka.hro.nl/mdr/research/fcramer/wordsmadeflesh">http://pzwart.wdka.hro.nl/mdr/research/fcramer/wordsmadeflesh</a> <span class="quot2">>>A b s t r a c t: Executable code existed centuries before the invention of the <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter in magic, Kabbalah, musical composition and experimental poetry. These practices are often neglected as a hi<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ical pretext of contemporary software culture and electronic <a href="art.htm">art</a>s. Above all, they link <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>tations to a vast speculative <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ination that encom<a href="pass.htm">pass</a>es <a href="art.htm">art</a>, language, technology, philosophy and religion. These speculations in turn inscribe themselves into the technology. Since even the most simple formalism requires symbols with which it can be expressed, and symbols have cultural connotations, any code is loaded with meaning. This booklet writes a small cultural hi<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>y of <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>inative <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>tation, r<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>structing both the obsessive persistence and con<a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ictory mutations of the phantasm that symbols turn physical, and words are made flesh.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-02-2008:</span><br/>
Hello Ned, Michel and all researchers,<br/>
<br/>
On Feb 2, 2008 9:35 PM, Ned Rossiter <...> wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> ... there are always going to be those dysfunctional dimensions that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> you refer to vis-a-vis platform <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers vs. <a href="user.htm">user</a>s. I don't think</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> those tensions can ever be 'solved'.</span><br/>
<br/>
I'd like to ask a question that may seem too stupid to be worth answering, but I wonder if the reason it hasn't occured to us is because it is just too obvious to consider.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
First, a claim about <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership:<br/>
1. == When <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, tension is 'fair'<br/>
In some <small>(usually very small)</small> cases, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s and the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are actually the same set of people. If each of those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s has as much vote-control <small>(as measured by the percentage of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership they hold)</small> needed to accomplish the goals they desire, then conflicts could only be structured as: <small>[a subset of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers vs. another subset of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers]</small>.<br/>
<br/>
This levels the playing field, and avoids the uneven case we are usually fighting: <small>[a subset of non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="user.htm">user</a>s vs. a subset of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers]</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
S<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>d, a claim about scale:<br/>
2. == <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> should be treated as an investment from the <a href="user.htm">user</a> who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s it<br/>
<a href="user.htm">User</a>s <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(even if just through excessive exposure to unwanted advertising and lack of <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom)</small> when they don't have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, so <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> should be understood as a plea for growth, and may be 'balanced' by treating it as an investment from the specific <a href="user.htm">user</a> that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s it. By doing this, <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership flows continuously to those who are willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for it - thereby holding the first claim <small>(#1)</small> "in place" in a sort of self-correcting dynamic.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Third, a question about implementation:<br/>
3. == While Copy<a href="left.htm">left</a> jujitsu requires Copyright, <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty<a href="left.htm">left</a> will require <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty rights<br/>
Could we write a contract similar in spirit to the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> that describes #2 in legal language, and then apply that contract to some of our <a href="own.htm">OWN</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty - maybe as a kind of corporate "Terms of Operation" so that <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom is guaranteed for all <a href="user.htm">user</a>s by causing each and every <a href="user.htm">user</a> to incrementally become <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers <small>(and simultaneously be growing the organization)</small> whenever they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> As I <a href="note.htm">note</a> in my response to Daren's review, another challenge for</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> governance is scale.</span><br/>
<br/>
If some of us were to <a href="start.htm">start</a> a small business or organization and become <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers ourselves, we could choose to steer the power we might be otherwise tempted to hold against <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a>s so the system would scale as control is contiuously distributed.<br/>
<br/>
Allowing every <a href="user.htm">user</a> *<a href="real.htm">real</a>* <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership over the investments they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for <small>(as measured by the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> above <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion)</small> would enable <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing subgroups to 'fork' whenever they thought they were large enough to survive on their <a href="own.htm">own</a>, and would also <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e the whole organization couldn't suddenly be aquired by a big-fish, since each <a href="user.htm">user</a> would have <a href="real.htm">real</a> and divisible <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <small>(<a href="note.htm">note</a>: <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership would NOT be equal, because some <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are very active and willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <small>(invest)</small> alot, while others may be willing to spend very little time, energy or <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The very existence of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers/sysops indicates the non-<a href="part.htm">part</a>icipatory</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <small>(or at least closed circle)</small> dimension of <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>s.</span><br/>
<br/>
Maybe <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership isn't the problem per-se; maybe the problem is more about WHO the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are. Notice, that while Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> dislikes how Copyright is usually <a href="use.htm">use</a>d, he didn't abandon it. Instead, he <a href="use.htm">use</a>d it in a subversive manner to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e every <a href="user.htm">user</a> would have control of the '<a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual' means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. Maybe we could do something similar with <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e every <a href="user.htm">user</a> gains control over the 'physical' means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> There is</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> frequently very little communication/<a href="part.htm">part</a>icipation between <a href="admin.htm">admin</a>s and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="user.htm">user</a>s. And most are fine with this relation. Who wants to clear our</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> spam every day on a <a href="mail.htm">mail</a>ing list for example, or attend to the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> numerous <a href="admin.htm">admin</a> requests to process postings from non-subscribers</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <small>(which this list still has a strangely high a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of)</small>?</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We would still need to hire <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed personell whenever we couldn't do it ourselves, but at least we would have the reins, and could fire them if they ever tried to act against us.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The other obvious thing to <a href="note.htm">note</a> is that the culture of governance</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> varies considerably across widely adopted applications. Geert Lovink</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> documents this well in his analysis of <a href="mail.htm">mail</a>ing list cultures. This</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> points to the fact that a universal <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el of <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> governance will</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> never exist.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, there will always be individual and group idio<a href="sync.htm">sync</a>racies, but those conflicts will be more 'fair' when each <a href="user.htm">user</a> is gaining <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Hoping for thoughtful critique,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
President, Personal Sovereignty Foundation<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://EcoComics.org">http://EcoComics.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-02-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> reply to Todd and Max<br/>
<br/>
Todd wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> That's interesting! Patrick had a quote from somewhere: "<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> must be</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> treated as an investment fromthe consumer who paid it so that <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> approaches <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> approaches zero in a safe manner." Do you <a href="know.htm">know</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> where that comes from? It is something I have not heard before and my</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> first impression is a representation of the middle ground between</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> capitalism and communism, but of course communism <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntifies with the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="work.htm">work</a>er, not the consumer. I need to ponder this one a bit and am</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> wondering of its references to expand the discussion. It reminds me that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> humans often walk a fine line between greed and benevolency, and I say</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> that in not only a <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>tary sense, but also in a spiritual sense. Also,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> if you want to read some "heady" stuff about spirituality and religion of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the human psyche try some Joseph <a href="cam.htm">Cam</a>pbell, if you have not already. You</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> may remember him from the Bill Moyers series with him, but one of my</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> favorites is The Inner Reaches of Outer <a href="spac.htm">Spac</a>e - Metaphor As Myth and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Religion.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Hello Todd and Max,<br/>
<br/>
I'm happy to hear someone willing to consider the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a enough to think it through.<br/>
<br/>
I am not quoting anyone here, this is my <a href="own.htm">own</a> claim based on research I've been <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on since late 1999.<br/>
<br/>
Of course I didn't *invent* the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a, it is simply truth that was in need of discovery - like gravity or friction.<br/>
<br/>
I don't <a href="know.htm">know</a> if this information was purposefully hidden from us, or if we accidentally lost it, but it is unfortunate that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is now treated as 'earnings' when it is much more clear to understand it as a plea from growth from the consumer who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s it.<br/>
<br/>
A consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s a high <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e for nuts and berries not because those things are 'inhe<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ly' expensive, but because they do not yet have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es <small>(<a href="land.htm">land</a>, plants, water rights)</small> of those things. If you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an almond tree, you might <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> someone to tend it and to bring in the harvest <small>(and treat those wages as a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small>, but it would be impossible to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> unless you were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to yourself. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is UNDEFINED in the special case where the consumer has <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <small>(physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es)</small> required for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion - even if that consumer does not possess the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s required to operate those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Corporations already <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulate <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between Consumer_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s, while <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er_Wages are one of those <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
Consumers ALREADY <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s <small>(including wages)</small>, and they ALSO <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> because of the 'pressure' created by their lack of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es required for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> depends upon rivalry for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t initially, and rivalry of physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es finally, and can only be "held in place" for as long as the consumer is not able to figure out how to have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the physical means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion required for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
We <small>(the consumers)</small> suffer this because we have not yet figured out a way to organize amongst ourselves, so let the corporations take advantage of our lack of development. Whenever one of us decides to <a href="start.htm">start</a> a business intending to solve this problem, we are not able to do so because we hold the pre-concieved notion that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is a reward to be won instead of understanding it to be an inverse measure of competition, and therefore a direct measure of <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial monopoly.<br/>
<br/>
Competition is maximized and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> minimized when consumers gain control through <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> happens to measure how far we are from reaching that goal.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I write alot about this stuff, but my <a href="own.htm">own</a> psychological issues <small>(we all have them)</small> <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e them <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to digest.<br/>
<br/>
You probably already noticed my <a href="web.htm">web</a>site in my signature. Read the FAQ and Thesis there for an overview.<br/>
<br/>
Other readings include:<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://MySpace.com/patware">http://MySpace.com/patware</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net">http://P2PFoundation.net</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net">http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net</a><br/>
<br/>
A recent post of mine: <a class="ext" href="http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04278.html">http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04278.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
President, Personal Sovereignty Foundation<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://EcoComics.org">http://EcoComics.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
PS: About religion: I'm not just being cranky, I've given this plenty of thought, and have recently <small>(because of the exchange with Max)</small> found there may be a way of PROVING that no religion is meaningful without physical evidence according to Kurt Godel's "Theory of Incompleteness" can be summarized as: No description of a system can be simultaneously consistent and complete.<br/>
<br/>
Older entries: <a href="diary-jan-2008.htm">diary-jan-2008</a><br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-feb-2008">diary-feb-2008</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>