Slashdot Mirror

I hate to interupt the bigots, trolls, and everyone else convinced that every African is a starving disease ridden child, with something usefull, but here's a little info on the state of the telecomunications network in Africa.

Internet Connectivity for Africa

Connectivity Data for Africa's Information Infrastructure

Resourcery's African Telecom Links

The Acacia Initiative

Eric Henry

"When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him whose."- Don Marquis

Thanks for proving my point about the cause-and-effect relationship between excessive government power and kleptocratic corruption.
/.

.anom

.anom

Without criticizing Geekcorp's intent or integrity, I want to point out organisations who have been doing this and more to assist not-for-profit NGOs and humanitarian groups for years. Most people know the story - this technology represents to many groups in developing or strife-torn countries the cheapest (and sometimes the safest) way of communicating to the outside world.

The APC has been assisting communication, networking and training in developing countries for well over 10 years.

Especially in Africa, people such as Karen Banks (amongst many others) from GreenNet have been working with African groups with internetworking (or UUCP/Fidonet when the comms infra has not been available or appropriate) for many years.

Also, ISOC (Internet Society) have a sustainable education/training project open to all in developing countries.

There is little sign on the Geekcorps' site that they are aware of these and many other efforts (except for AOL), but I would hope that communication with these groups would further their goals through coordination of efforts (or at least of being aware of what others have been doing for many years before them).

shine brightly

.anom (ex peg.apc.org, ex ISOC chapter director)

Without criticizing Geekcorp's intent or integrity, I want to point out organisations who have been doing this and more to assist not-for-profit NGOs and humanitarian groups for years. Most people know the story - this technology represents to many groups in developing or strife-torn countries the cheapest (and sometimes the safest) way of communicating to the outside world.

The APC has been assisting communication, networking and training in developing countries for well over 10 years.

Especially in Africa, people such as Karen Banks (amongst many others) from GreenNet have been working with African groups with internetworking (or UUCP/Fidonet when the comms infra has not been available or appropriate) for many years.

Also, ISOC (Internet Society) have a sustainable education/training project open to all in developing countries.

There is little sign on the Geekcorps' site that they are aware of these and many other efforts (except for AOL), but I would hope that communication with these groups would further their goals through coordination of efforts (or at least of being aware of what others have been doing for many years before them).

shine brightly

.anom (ex peg.apc.org, ex ISOC chapter director)

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Turns out they're not. For example, the excellent cartoonist Martin Rowson produced an excellent, inventive parody of T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land. It was published in full in the US. In the UK, the estate of T. S. Eliot threatened to sue the pants off the publishers unless they removed *every* direct reference -- even including lines which were merely quoted from other sources by Eliot! Needless to say the publishers complied.

Protection of parodies? We don't even have a written constitution. And if the govt keeps introducing legislation like the R.I.P. bill this place could be a police state within a decade...

Sure it is. I'm boycotting Nestle.

Boycotts are also somewhat repugnant to the free-market philosophy many individualists hold.

Only if they are enforced by law or violence

1....We need family farming

Why? We used to have family farming, and most family farmers were dirt poor. Today, we have economies of scale and division of labor. Should we have family

• iron foundries?
• car makers?
• drug companies?

From an economic standpoint, the reason that we don't have family farmers any more is that they aren't competitive. Why should I pay higher grocery bills to support someone else's vision of family farming?

2....corporate entities should also embrace moral and ideological values -- of their own choosing --apart from pleasing stockholders.

AAAIIIEEEE!!!!!

The need to return a profit to shareholders is one of the few effective constraints on corporate power. Lifting this constraint creates major problems of corporate governance.

As a practical matter, the values that corporate entities choose--apart from pleasing stockholders--are protecting the jobs, perks, and compensation of their own top management.

After that, it only gets worse. Do you really want people like Ross Perot and Bill Gates using their $Billions to advance their own personal moral and ideological values in a corporate--rather than political--arena?

3....Workers are entitled to safe, creative and secure work environments, to freedom from continuous downsizings, re-structurings, layoffs and "re-engineerings."

I have a safe, creative and secure work environment. This has a lot to do with the fact that my labor has high value, which in turn has at least something to do with the fact that corporations are free to lay off workers, so that labor moves to its best and highest use. (I've been laid off, and in a considerably worse job market than the current one.)

A report that shows infant mortality dropping by half in the vicinity of nuclear reactors after their shutdown has just been released. See the story here. Again, in light of the historical activities of corporations when it comes to safety & profits, this is not surprising.

Basically, companies in a capitalist system will always place profit ahead of worker's health. Go read your history books. The only way to prevent this and insure worker safety involves two things: goverment regulation and oversight, and worker organization. Coal mining, making steel, railroads, have all been through this before. Go look up the mortality rates for railroad workers in the early 1900's before they started striking en masse for reform.

Reform for worker's health will only come at the initiative of organized workers. Capitalism just plain doesn't give a shit because the capital-owning class doesn't put their bodies at risk. If you want a starting place for the history of this sort of thing, try Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States .

Whether or not that's true, powdered milk can be lethal, and, because of poor water supplies and poor education, is a leading cause of death for babies and infants in poor countries. Moreover, lactose intolerance affects a large proportion of the world's population. See:

http://www.gn.apc.org/babymilk/

and find out just how evil Nestle et al really are. Boycott Nestle!

How exactly would a large satellite "clean up the junk?" Would it eat the dead satellites? You can't just clean them up. They have mass, they take up space. The only way you can get rid of them is to push them into the atmosphere. However, do you want to be the president of a company that starts pushing 17-ton satellites into the atmosphere hoping that they burn up on reentry or land in an ocean?

Why does everyone insist that Nature exists only on Earth? Does it not bother anyone that the 10,000 pieces of man-made debris surrounding the earth looks like this? That the University of Chicago and NASA launched a satellite in January 1999 to monitor the debris? That an international committee(the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, of which NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Chinese Space Agency are a part) has been formed in order to manage the garbage? That each piece of debris, moving at tens of thousands of km/h, poses a threat to future satellites? I'm sure people would care if we started trashing the moon, but that's even farther away. Just because it's vacuum doesn't mean it's not worth taking care of.

enmity.

http://www.gn.apc.org/duncan/stoa.htm

Chris Pugrud
chris@pugrud.net
--Not anonymous, not a coward

I am not living in Montana, but I am from there and knew him to be a fair and reasonable person who was also at the time putting up a good fight against encryption restrictions.

I did receive a response from Senator Burns that indicated that he had read it and considered it interesting. I have no idea how far he went with it.

The point is that if you are reasonable congress is willing to listen. They may not act, but you can at least put the seed into their head, and get them to at least consider your point of view.

Chris Pugrud
chris@pugrud.net
-- not anonymous, not a coward

Alternate link!! http://www.gn.apc.org/duncan/stoa.htm

See also the "Interception Capabilities 2000" report at http://www.cyber-rights.org/interception/stoa/inte rception_capabilities_2000.htm and http://www.gn.apc.org/duncan/ic2kreport.htm.
--
Brad Knowles

Warning: If you are of anything even remotely resembling a "fundamentalist" mindset, you will probably find this post flame-ish at best. You will probably also want to scroll down, because there is probably very little I could do to show you just HOW you are being led about (even to the point of showing you examples of how your own leaders have outright lied to you). I can only say, in this case, that I feel very sorry for you and that I hope that whatever god or gods may exist may take pity on you--especially since the actions of those who lead you are probably against everything the founders of your religions stood for.

I will also forewarn that I am in a generally pissy mood to begin with tonight, and many of my statements may come out more harshly than I meant them to. My apologies. I've had a bad day, and a bad temper to go along with it (I had to deal with Hellsouth about a problem which has been going on for well-nigh over three years). If things sting too bad, I suggest you take heed of Yshua's example and turn the other cheek and forgive me my tresspasses.

Now that THAT disclaimer has been taken care of...

Some anonymous coward dun said:

That's not true, what they want is to protect their families from harmful things. Beleive it or not pornography really is harmful to people, it helps increase rape and child abuse among other things. Porn addiction can occur and it causes real problems with families. This is not something that people need nor is the obsessive viewing of it in public at all healthful.

Assuming that you aren't an outright shill that is astroturfing Slashdot in support of fundy viewpoints--something which I cannot discount, unfortunately, because it is a fairly well-known tactic that is used by Religious Right groups on occasion--allow me to correct some misguidings and rip a few new holes in your argument.

First off:

That's not true, what they want is to protect their families from harmful things.

Well, for starters, I hate to tell you, but the major pusher of censorware in the debates nationally are not "concerned families" but rather multi-million-dollar funded PACs and pressure groups that have as an explicit goal the establishment of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in the United States.

Let me repeat that for you: The vast majority of groups that are pushing censorware in libraries and whatnot are multi-million-dollar PACs and pressure groups that have, as an explicit goal, the establishment of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in the United States .

Yes, you heard that right. They want to set up a fundamentalist Christian version of Taliban Afghanistan, up to and including bringing back Old Testament punishments for such things as homosexuality, sex outside of church-sanctioned marriages, and even "being fresh" to one's parents.

If you want to learn for yourself just how well funded these groups are and just how MANY of them are interlinked, go here and read up all about the Coalition for National Policy (basically the "think-tank" of the Religious Right in the United States; it is invitation-only, and contains many "fortune 500" individuals and state and national legislators). Then go here for some hard info on many of the Religious Right groups and their real agenda...or here or here (or here for a special page for those who've seen how destructive and utterly un-Christian the Religious Right is--I'll get to that in a sec).

For your info, by the way, the major folks pushing it in Holland are a little group called the Family Research Council. They were set up specifically as the "lobbying" wing of a group called Focus on the Family after the IRS threatened to yank FoF's tax-exempt status (it was set up under the same exemption as a church, and thus they aren't supposed to be doing political lobbying). One of the names you might recognise from them is Gary Bauer, their head; he recently did a failed run for the presidency. One of their favourite tactics, by the way, is stuff with stealth candidates who don't reveal links to the Religious Right till they're elected; they are also far, far from being merely a "concerned parent's group" (they are extremely homophobic, push very, very heavily for the entire Religious Right agenda, and incidentially the head of FoF is a "Christian reconstructionist" who thinks the US should be a theocracy complete with religious tests for government office). You can find out more info here or find a big ol' archive of their writing to their membership here.

If you want to know more about the Religious Right's agenda in general, I've put a much longer post here that even goes on about some groups that folks don't traditionally associate with the Religious Right (like, oh, Home Shopping Network's links with the Religious Right, or NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon's links, or the many links the PMRC has with the Religious Right).

Oh, and while we're on the subject of "protecting their families from harmful things"...you'd think if they were really interested in that, they'd be pushing for the Convention on the Rights of the Child to be ratified...but no...they're one of many fundy groups across the US that have lobbied specifically to KEEP it from being ratified, because they think it'll take away their right to force their ways on their kids, forcibly "exorcise" their kids, beat them, etc. (By the way, the US is one of two nations that still hasn't ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The other nation, Somalia, has a reasonable excuse for not ratifying it as it has no working government right now.)

For THAT matter, you'd think they'd work extra hard to protect their families from such destructive things as Bible-based cults (which do everything to isolate their members from birth, use outright deception to recruit members and keep them, and which are every bit as destructive as Scientology is--I've actually put up a post here comparing practices between the two if you odn't believe me, so you can look at the hard evidence for yourself). But no, they don't do that--they actively promote many of the Bible-based cults, because half the Religious Right groups could well be considered coercive in and of themselves and most of their hard-core membership is gotten from people in Bible-based cults (often people who have been members for generations and literally isolated and indoctrinated since birth--there's a college that has been set up for "Christian" homeschooled youths to train them to be politicians for the Religious Right), and their entire mindset shows just HOW cultic the whole mess is.

And before you tell me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about...I do. All too well. I just happen to be a walkaway from a Bible-based cult my family has been involved in for several generations; I was raised up into the whole spiel, and found out quite accidentially at age 12 that I had pretty much been fed lies...I found out later (partly from info regarding Scientology that included "is your group coercive?" checklists) that the group I was formerly involved in WOULD count as a Bible-based cult. The group I walked away from also happens to be one of the largest fundamentalist churches in Kentucky, and is the de facto center of the Religious Right in that state...trust me when I know all too well what I'm talking about here, and I still suffer after-effects from it. I would move heaven and earth if it meant some kid didn't have to go through the absolute hell I went through as a kid, being abused in the name of God. I'd love them not to wince whenever discussions of Christianity were brought up because it makes you flashback to just how fragging twisted some of the things that were done to you were. I'd love for them not to be scared shitless that the very groups you walked away from were working hard to put the entire nation under the same hell you walked away from--complete with force of arms, if they were to get power.

And yes, I can say that as a direct result of that I've been hurt by the Religious Right and it's just a wee bit personal to me. Then again, I think any kid who's been abused by another has the right to be pissed, and more to the point, to work to make sure that abuser can't ever hurt another kid ever again.

Beleive it or not pornography really is harmful to people, it helps increase rape and child abuse among other things

There has been only two studies that have ever shown a negative effect regarding pornography in general--the Meese report, which Edwin Meese III literally bullied through and had to have rewritten after the scientists he hired reached exactly the opposite conclusion, and the Surgeon-General's report on pornography in 1987 (by Dr. C.E. Koop--a Surgeon-General who was also appointed by Reagan, who pandered to the Religious Right on many issues). (As a minor aside--Edwin Meese III is a raving fundy, and is heavily involved with the Religious Right [see here for more info]. In fact, he's SO much in with the Religious Right that he's a member of the very secretive Coalition for National Policy [here's his info from the membership list here], and is involved in a Religious Right group known as the Heritage Foundation [more info on the Heritage Foundation here and here [the last article also contains info on another Religious Right group Meese is involved in]; as a minor aside, "Heritage" is a very common "code word" for fundamentalist/Religious Right interests, along with "family" and "Christian Life Center"]. In fact, he was put in specifically by Ronald Reagan, who was largely elected due to the Religious Right and who started the not-so-great Republican tradition of pandering to the Religious Right...needless to say, Edwin Meese isn't impartial, wasn't impartial, and was looking specifically for evidence he wanted to have "scientific proof" for a very specific agenda of the Religious Right in the US. Even worse, there is a fair amount of evidence from his own public speeches to indicate Edwin Meese may be a "Christian Reconstructionist" [Christian Reconstructionism is the canard that the Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a fundamentalist Christian theocracy and that it is the duty of Reconstructionists to "re-establish" this theocracy]; info here. In other words, he flatly had an agenda and bent the evidence towards it.)

Most scientists who have studied human sexuality, and specifically stuff relating to porn and to sex crimes, see so many holes in the Meese Report that it's not funny. There are no less than five studies which indicate that pornography isn't harmful (at least to normal people); more to the point, many of the statistics which have been argued to show that porn is harmful could also be argued to indicate that people into certain categories of porn are likely to be pathological in and of themselves.

A rather informal example is with the Japanese, and in particular, hentai comics (which feature sex and adult situations). Hentai is pretty popular and readily available in Japan, even to under-18's; some of it goes farther than most US porn does (Playboy just shows naked women, for example). The Japanese percentage of sex crimes is actually somewhat below that of the US, even considering that the Japanese are generally a somewhat more repressed society than the US is.

As a minor aside--rape and child abuse (except for very, very exceptional circumstances in the latter, and even often there) aren't so much crimes of sex as of power--in other words, the main component of these crimes and the motivation for them isn't so much sex as, well, power and domination over another by degrading them in the lowest way possible. Rapists are often found to be hostile against women period, and so rape them as a dominance thing; same thing with the vast majority of child abuse (the major exception may be child abuse in which there has been found actual pedophilia--a sexual paraphilia in which the person is actually sexually attracted to children--but even then, there is a definite dominance streak to this). Also, it's been found that treatments to try to stop rapists and child-molesters from having sex by attempting to curb the sex-drive don't work very well (again, the major exception to this is child molestation in which it's been found actual pedophilia exists)--they simply will rape their victims with objects or will find other ways to "get it up". This is because they're using their gonads as weapons--it's like trying to castrate someone to cure them of beating hell out of someone else.

There is a known correlation between rape (and to an extent, child molestation as well--most notably incest) and other violent behaviours--such as torture of animals when young, assault, etc. Most of these folks seek out violent porn and violent entertainment in general because they're generally prone to violence to begin with; there is some evidence that in extreme cases there may be an actual defect in brain chemistry to account for this. Needless to say, castrating a rapist or child molester isn't going to fix them, and neither is depriving them of pornography.

Another interesting statistic--there are some reports to suggest that there is actually a higher rate of child abuse (including incest) in households in which most of the family are members of coercive groups such as Bible-based cults or Scientology. This, again, probably has a lot to do with the whole dominance thing; coercive groups, which rely VERY much on a "master/servant" relationship to begin with, can't help things much. (In Bible-based cults especially, the whole "spare the rod and spoil the child" bit can't help either.) Based on my own experience (which fortunately did not include sexual abuse, but did include physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual abuse) I'm inclined to agree with this, if only because of all the other kinds of abuse which are the norm in such families.

Porn addiction can occur and it causes real problems with families.

First, a primer about "addiction". Addiction, in the purest sense (and the medical sense) of the word, is where the body chemistry changes to require the use of a drug to maintain normal body function; this tends to occur with narcotics, cocaine, nicotine, most of your "downer" drugs (including alcohol, benzodiazepines [Valium, etc.] and phenobarbital and friends), amphetamines, and (to a lesser degree) caffeine. (The "nicotine cravings" you get if you don't get your smoke, or the "coffee migraines" longtime coffee drinkers get if they don't get their caffeine, are actually withdrawal symptoms resulting from the fact your body has become dependent on that substance to maintain normal function.)

"Psychic addiction" as commonly described (where no actual physical addiction occurs) is a misnomer, and denotes a state where people feel they "need" something to "function". There is no real biological need for it, merely a "craving"; hence the proper term is "psychic dependence" since the effect is more of a "crutch".

Now, in some cases, this does occur; however, "addiction" has been used to describe "psychic dependence" for so many things (from overeating to sex to the Internet) that it's patently ridiculous. Better to say "obsession" because this is closer to what is happening.

I'm certain there have been a few cases where someone has become obsessed with porn to the exclusion of family. This has also happened, by the way, with TV...with the Internet...with religion (no, I'm not making this up--people in coercive religious groups WILL participate to the exclusion of all else including their family)...with food...with jogging...with dieting...and with literally anything else that makes humans "feel good". Does this mean we ban everything that humans find pleasurable? No.

As a minor aside--there is some evidence that people who do develop "obsessions" like this do have a genetic tendency to do so; it's basically a minor brain-chemical defect, much like a milder version of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Turns out that in a lot of cases, they can be treated with the same drugs used for OCD too (this has been especially useful in overeaters and in folks with anorexia and bulimia). It also turns out that most folks who do develop "obsessions" that could be termed "psychic dependence" can, again, develop "psychic dependence" on literally anything that makes them feel good (to an extent, this is why people tend to gain weight when quitting cigarettes; there is a measure of psychic dependence in cigarette smoking (along with the physical dependence), largely related to the rituals of lighting up, etc. when smoking, and many people tend to overeat to compensate with "crutches")...this is related to very, very primal instincts and emotional triggers in humans relating to comfort. One could literally say that small kids can develop psychic dependence on their "woobies" or other comfort-toys ;)

This is not something that people need nor is the obsessive viewing of it in public at all healthful.

Well, people don't need the Internet or Slashdot, either, and obsessive use of the Internet can certainly be non-healthful and harmful (ask any student who has ever flunked out of a semester in college because of excessive IRCing/MUDding/Everquest/MP3-scarfing/etc.). Doesn't mean we need to ban Slashdot or the Internet, though.

In fact, sometimes porn can actually be helpful to a relationship--such as when a couple gets ideas from a bit of pornography to try in their own bedrooms. Such things have actually saved marriages in past, and an increasing number of marriage counselors will actually suggest to couples who have lost lustre in their love-lives to *gasp!* rent porn movies or read articles in Penthouse (or alt.sex.*) to get ideas.

No, we aren't suggesting Junior be made to watch porn. For starters, he's probably not going to be terribly interested and will go "ooh, ickie"--exactly the same way even most adults will go "ooh, ickie" when they see porn that doesn't match their own particular sexual preference (most straight girls gross out at lesbian porn; same with guys and man-on-man pics; I think most of us not into boinking goats go "ooh, ickie" at http://www.goatse.cx, or those of us not into fisting go "ooh, ickie" at sites featuring fisting...I could go on). It doesn't scar us for life--neither kids nor adults.

I honestly expect most kids who even accidentially hit a porn site (which is unlikely if Mommy or Daddy is actually bothering to parent the little monster instead of using the Internet as an electronic babysitter the same way they used tapes of Barney the Insipid Purple Demon From Hell when the little monster was a tyke of 3 or the same way they use Teletubbies tapes with his sister of 2...and even more unlikely unless the little monster is precocious enough to be searching out warez or cracks, in which case you've got a wee bit more to worry about than little Junior maybe being exposed to nekkid women ;) are going to either be grossed out or very, very confused...in which case (assuming Mommy and Daddy are doing their job, and not using the Internet as an electronic babysitter the same way they use Barney tapes and Teletubbies and the entire collected works of Disney [both pre-Eisner and in the Dark Ages]) Mommy and Daddy explain that this is something not meant for Junior to see, and they distract him and steer him to something a bit more appropriate like YaHooligans or the like.

Just like what Mommy and Daddy do (if they're being good parents) if Junior accidentially picks up Madonna's "Sex" in the library. Or if Junior is riding in the car with Mommy in downtown and passes the Show-world Dance Emporium which features "Topless And Bottomless Men And Women". Or if Junior (Cthulhu forbid) sees two doggies Doing The Nasty in front of Goddess and everyone.

If you're doing your job as a parent, it's not going to permanently warp Junior's mind. If he grows up at age 16 and starts raping cattle despite your best job, you can safely assume he was probably bent to begin with (and if you do your job as a parent and actually parent the kids instead of using electronic babysitters or keeping your face buried in stuff while the kids are being babysat by the entire cast of Donkey Kong and each and every one of the characters in each and every game Squaresoft has ever released, you will probably notice the initial signs that the child is Seriously Bent and you will hopefully get help for that kid before he hurts someone).

Unfortunately, a lot of people are too bloody lazy to parent their kids, and are all too content to let folks with horrible, destructive agendas (like the FRC) parent their kids because they get fed the line "It's for the good of the children" (and these people are too busy with the grownup equivalent of electronic babysitters they don't even bother to research that these people are very, very, very good at lying or covering up their bad parts when they have to). No offense, but those kids would honestly be better off being raised by wolves IMNSHO--at least the kids would learn how to get along in a structured society, and have loving parents that gave a damn for them. (Yeah, they'd have a hell of a time getting along if/when they returned to human society...but half the kids now have a hell of a time, period.) And don't even get me started on those parents who look at their kids not so much as humans but as pawns or tools or (worse yet) all-so-much-more cannon-fodder for the Army of Gawd...if anything, those are as bad if not worse than those who just use TV and the net as a babysitter, because those kids get warped into more Borg just like their folks if they aren't lucky enough to have just enough of a factor that leads them to walk away from it all...

--

I would have to look at their stands on the issues that are important to me and vote for the candidate who was the best match. Currently, that tends to be Republican candidates.

To answer your question, I would vote for the candidate that opposed censorship. I am a strong supporter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the second, ninth and tenth amendments.

The "religious right" is not a major voting block in my area. The local Democrats are falling over themselves in their attempts to "protect the children". Unfortunately the Democrats have a lock on most of the elected offices in my area, so a vote for a Republican is usually a protest vote.

It could be worse, I used to live near the "Peoples Republic of Takoma Park", which banned the production, storage and use of nuclear weapons within the city.

The NOW sued the Pro-Life Action Leagu under RICO, and won. At stake was not peacful sit-in or picket line; at stake were rather "physical obstruction, intimidation, harassment, crowding, grabbing, and screaming". Damages amounted to $86,000, tripled under RICO.

• They tried to buy Ingram Book Company, a wholesale book retailer. This would mean that thousands of independent book stores (the kind I like) would be dependent on B&N (their competitor) for books.
• The American Booksellers Association and two dozen independent booksellers have filed suit against B&N, contending that B&N "engaged in a pattern and practice of soliciting, inducing, and receiving secret, discriminatory, and illegal terms from publishers and distributors."
• B&N open up huge stores in strip malls, which are institutions I cannot support. Amazon.com doesn't do this.

• US Companies selling defective products overseas
• Mobil Oil involved in Indonesian massacres
• 4,000 babies die every day due to being bottle-fed, thanks to companies like Nestle

• 08.00 USA & Canada (Pacific time), 30th November
• 16.00 Greenwich Mean Time (UK/Ireland)
• 17.00 Central Europe
• 18.00 Eastern Europe
• 21.30 Indian subcontinent
• 00.00 Honk Kong/Singapore/Western Australia, December 1st
• 02.00 Eastern Australia
• 04.00 New Zealand

To take part in the action all you need is an Internet connection, and a web browser. What people have to do is access the special web pages written for the action and then stay on line as long as they possible can. For those with 'dial-up' access to the 'Net that means staying on line as long as you can afford, as often as possible, for the four days. If you cannot afford to spend much time online then concentrate on November 30th (or Dec. 1st for those in the East). But we would like people to aim to go online from 12.00 Pacific time on December 3rd (add 4 hours to the above timetable for your local time) until the end of December 4th.

For those of you with constant connections to the Internet - such as universities or corporations - the cost of being online isn't that significant. Therefore we'd urge you to stay on longer with more connections open. For those people with high speed dial-up connections or those with constant connections a 'special' version of the action web page is provided.

NOTE: THERE IS ALSO A SPECIAL EMAIL BASED ACTION BEGINNING AT MIDDAY, YOUR LOCAL TIME, DECEMBER 3RD, AND CARRYING ON TILL DECEMBER 4TH. FOR MORE INFORMATION POP BACK TOT HE E-HIPPIES SITE ON DECEMBER 3RD.

What is a 'virtual sit-in'
--------------------------

A sit-in is where a group of people place themselves in front of some sort of entry way, or inside a building, and remain there as a form of peaceful protest. That's not easy to achieve where the Internet is involved. Therefore we have to find a way of occupying 'space' in cyberspace.
This page has been developed from a similar facility - The Zapatista Tactical FloodNet. This page is a less flashy but equally functional alternative. The purpose of this page is simple. By accessing the WTO's websites using the Javascript-based pages you are in effect accessing repeatedly - as if you were pressing the 'reload' button on your browser every few seconds. The ability of a server to handle these requests depends on its bandwidth - that's the physical capacity to move data in and out. For most servers bandwidth is split, and there is only a small proportion of the bandwidth devoted to data coming into the site compared to data going out (this is because much more data flows out of web servers than flows in). So, constantly requesting information puts pressure on it's weakest point - it's incoming bandwidth. Using these pages to send multiple requests queues up requests to the web server. Ordinarily this is not a problem. But, if the server is busy, or there are many people across the world using this same site to do the same thing, it starts to eat up the server's bandwidth. If enough people were to do the same thing, it would prevent the server from being accessed. Eventually, if maintained for a longer period of time, it would temporarily crash the server. So, you get the idea. If enough people use this page at the same time, going for the same target, they'll gum up the server and prevent other 'ordinary' users getting access. What this page is then is a form of remote cyber sit-in or cyber-picket - we occupy space in cyberspace!

Follow-up actions
-----------------

The WTO action is the first electrohippies action. Others will follow on different themes and with different tactics. Mostly these will be based in the UK, and possibly Europe. If you would like to be put on a email list to receive notices of when actions are due to take place then send an email to mobbsey@gn.apc.org, marked "FAO ehippies" in the subject line.
END
================================================== ==

from the electrohippies - ehippies@tesco.net

visit the Electronic Activism and Civil Disobedience website:
http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/

================================================== ========

• 08.00 USA & Canada (Pacific time), 30th November
• 16.00 Greenwich Mean Time (UK/Ireland)
• 17.00 Central Europe
• 18.00 Eastern Europe
• 21.30 Indian subcontinent
• 00.00 Honk Kong/Singapore/Western Australia, December 1st
• 02.00 Eastern Australia
• 04.00 New Zealand

To take part in the action all you need is an Internet connection, and a web browser. What people have to do is access the special web pages written for the action and then stay on line as long as they possible can. For those with 'dial-up' access to the 'Net that means staying on line as long as you can afford, as often as possible, for the four days. If you cannot afford to spend much time online then concentrate on November 30th (or Dec. 1st for those in the East). But we would like people to aim to go online from 12.00 Pacific time on December 3rd (add 4 hours to the above timetable for your local time) until the end of December 4th.

For those of you with constant connections to the Internet - such as universities or corporations - the cost of being online isn't that significant. Therefore we'd urge you to stay on longer with more connections open. For those people with high speed dial-up connections or those with constant connections a 'special' version of the action web page is provided.

NOTE: THERE IS ALSO A SPECIAL EMAIL BASED ACTION BEGINNING AT MIDDAY, YOUR LOCAL TIME, DECEMBER 3RD, AND CARRYING ON TILL DECEMBER 4TH. FOR MORE INFORMATION POP BACK TOT HE E-HIPPIES SITE ON DECEMBER 3RD.

What is a 'virtual sit-in'
--------------------------

A sit-in is where a group of people place themselves in front of some sort of entry way, or inside a building, and remain there as a form of peaceful protest. That's not easy to achieve where the Internet is involved. Therefore we have to find a way of occupying 'space' in cyberspace.
This page has been developed from a similar facility - The Zapatista Tactical FloodNet. This page is a less flashy but equally functional alternative. The purpose of this page is simple. By accessing the WTO's websites using the Javascript-based pages you are in effect accessing repeatedly - as if you were pressing the 'reload' button on your browser every few seconds. The ability of a server to handle these requests depends on its bandwidth - that's the physical capacity to move data in and out. For most servers bandwidth is split, and there is only a small proportion of the bandwidth devoted to data coming into the site compared to data going out (this is because much more data flows out of web servers than flows in). So, constantly requesting information puts pressure on it's weakest point - it's incoming bandwidth. Using these pages to send multiple requests queues up requests to the web server. Ordinarily this is not a problem. But, if the server is busy, or there are many people across the world using this same site to do the same thing, it starts to eat up the server's bandwidth. If enough people were to do the same thing, it would prevent the server from being accessed. Eventually, if maintained for a longer period of time, it would temporarily crash the server. So, you get the idea. If enough people use this page at the same time, going for the same target, they'll gum up the server and prevent other 'ordinary' users getting access. What this page is then is a form of remote cyber sit-in or cyber-picket - we occupy space in cyberspace!

Follow-up actions
-----------------

The WTO action is the first electrohippies action. Others will follow on different themes and with different tactics. Mostly these will be based in the UK, and possibly Europe. If you would like to be put on a email list to receive notices of when actions are due to take place then send an email to mobbsey@gn.apc.org, marked "FAO ehippies" in the subject line.
END
================================================== ==

from the electrohippies - ehippies@tesco.net

visit the Electronic Activism and Civil Disobedience website:
http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/

================================================== ========

• 08.00 USA & Canada (Pacific time), 30th November
• 16.00 Greenwich Mean Time (UK/Ireland)
• 17.00 Central Europe
• 18.00 Eastern Europe
• 21.30 Indian subcontinent
• 00.00 Honk Kong/Singapore/Western Australia, December 1st
• 02.00 Eastern Australia
• 04.00 New Zealand

To take part in the action all you need is an Internet connection, and a web browser. What people have to do is access the special web pages written for the action and then stay on line as long as they possible can. For those with 'dial-up' access to the 'Net that means staying on line as long as you can afford, as often as possible, for the four days. If you cannot afford to spend much time online then concentrate on November 30th (or Dec. 1st for those in the East). But we would like people to aim to go online from 12.00 Pacific time on December 3rd (add 4 hours to the above timetable for your local time) until the end of December 4th.

For those of you with constant connections to the Internet - such as universities or corporations - the cost of being online isn't that significant. Therefore we'd urge you to stay on longer with more connections open. For those people with high speed dial-up connections or those with constant connections a 'special' version of the action web page is provided.

NOTE: THERE IS ALSO A SPECIAL EMAIL BASED ACTION BEGINNING AT MIDDAY, YOUR LOCAL TIME, DECEMBER 3RD, AND CARRYING ON TILL DECEMBER 4TH. FOR MORE INFORMATION POP BACK TOT HE E-HIPPIES SITE ON DECEMBER 3RD.

What is a 'virtual sit-in'
--------------------------

A sit-in is where a group of people place themselves in front of some sort of entry way, or inside a building, and remain there as a form of peaceful protest. That's not easy to achieve where the Internet is involved. Therefore we have to find a way of occupying 'space' in cyberspace.
This page has been developed from a similar facility - The Zapatista Tactical FloodNet. This page is a less flashy but equally functional alternative. The purpose of this page is simple. By accessing the WTO's websites using the Javascript-based pages you are in effect accessing repeatedly - as if you were pressing the 'reload' button on your browser every few seconds. The ability of a server to handle these requests depends on its bandwidth - that's the physical capacity to move data in and out. For most servers bandwidth is split, and there is only a small proportion of the bandwidth devoted to data coming into the site compared to data going out (this is because much more data flows out of web servers than flows in). So, constantly requesting information puts pressure on it's weakest point - it's incoming bandwidth. Using these pages to send multiple requests queues up requests to the web server. Ordinarily this is not a problem. But, if the server is busy, or there are many people across the world using this same site to do the same thing, it starts to eat up the server's bandwidth. If enough people were to do the same thing, it would prevent the server from being accessed. Eventually, if maintained for a longer period of time, it would temporarily crash the server. So, you get the idea. If enough people use this page at the same time, going for the same target, they'll gum up the server and prevent other 'ordinary' users getting access. What this page is then is a form of remote cyber sit-in or cyber-picket - we occupy space in cyberspace!

Follow-up actions
-----------------

The WTO action is the first electrohippies action. Others will follow on different themes and with different tactics. Mostly these will be based in the UK, and possibly Europe. If you would like to be put on a email list to receive notices of when actions are due to take place then send an email to mobbsey@gn.apc.org, marked "FAO ehippies" in the subject line.
END
================================================== ==

from the electrohippies - ehippies@tesco.net

visit the Electronic Activism and Civil Disobedience website:
http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/

================================================== ========

"The name comes from a discussion within the group where as a joke someone said that we'd be called a 'load of electrical hippies' by the media - and the name stuck. (http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ ehippies/action/prelease.htm)"

I just wanted to point out that discussions regarding the name are fairly inane on closer inspection.

http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/

http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/

Folks:

Two years ago reasonable and informed people could (and did) doubt Echelon's existence. But today if you doubt Echelon's existence, then clearly you haven't been paying attention. Duncan Campbell is the man who blew the lid off Echelon, and his report in all of its detailed and independently substantiated glory is available for free on his web page.

The EchelonWatch page by the ACLU is another good source with current news.

Regards,
Zooko

I would like to mention here that developing countries often are disadvantaged both in relative and absolute terms in comparison with the West. This is relevant in that infrastructure is often lacking when considering Third World concerns. I believe that while using free software in this manner is no doubt A Good Thing, you often have to presume a great deal for this method of intellectual diffusion to work.

Having suitably-equipped machines with access to the Net is one. Cheap unmetered Net usage is another. And of course these two conditions predicate a whole slew of others, such as telephone infrastructure, electricity and water access, and so forth.

From what little I remember of my polisci courses, most of the disparity with regards to industrialised countries vs their developing neighbours has historically resulted from the siphoning-off of natural and human resources from the South to the North, under the rubric of imperialism, colonisation, and decolonisation. While the argument has been made in recent decades that 'leapfrogging' intermediate stages of development should be possible by southern nations, it has only been with further integration into the Western-dominated system that some countries have been able to prosper. This argument was perhaps most cogent with the Asian Tigers' hypothesis of ten to fifteen years ago. OK, so far so good.

But, [and you know there has to be a 'but'] this thesis of leapfrogging has a problem. I would argue that as worthy as giving away open source stuff is, it just simply is not enough. Too many things are taken for granted for the statement of 'Giving away software outside of the West is no question a great idea' to be effective. Take everyone's favourite OS. It's not quite there for normal desktop use. Still. In order to get it to normal usage one still has to spend a lot of time figuring out how to use it. What was that quote from the Unix-Haters' Handbook? 'Linux is only free if your spare time is worthless.'

I think this statement is probably even more applicable to other countries than it is to the West.

I would be interested to see what the Association for Progressive Communications would make of all this. They comprise a network of ISPs dedicated to spread and enhance Net-enabled communications between NGOs, ordinary citizens and the UN. They were responsible for handling telecom services during the Rio Summit and other international conferences.

In outline, your argument is made by lots of people--it used to be called "consciousness raising." And in many ways it's right: lowering the technical barrier to entry to activism (e.g., by downplaying the details) definitely encourages broader awareness and participation. But the two approches aren't mutually exclusive: the "hacktivists" *could* provide pointers to accurate info. But the main people who've associated themselves with these efforts *don't* do that - and have *repeatedly* ignored very articulate discussions of the flaws in their methods.

As for your argument that this discussion proves that their methods are successful, one could just as easily - and more correctly, imo - argue that "hacktivism" is a vindication of the tremendous work others have put into understanding how surveillance systems really work. It's a chicken-and-egg question. But the main point is that effective opposition to Echelon hasn't come from bouncing half-baked emails around - it's coming from the diligent work of people like Nicky Hager, whose research has brought about intense opposition to Echelon from, for example, the EU and Duncan Campbell's report. These results have played a big part in European liberalizations of (or active governmental support for) crypto. Now that there's much more accurate info about how these systems work available, promoting misunderstandings of these systems is just perverse.

The conversation about surveillance regimes should be smarted up, not dumbed down. If these "hacktivists" would smart it up, I'd support their efforts wholeheartedly, but that's not what they're doing.

"I guess we are about 15-20 years (maybe sooner) away from having a few problems with machines making unauthorized (by any human) decisions that could go against humans in general. At the rate things are changing, I would feel that in 30-40 years time things will be out of our hands."

kinda scary if, in fact, "war is quickly becoming a game only machines can play". Then again, if "artificial" intelligence is a belittling name for it, and we find ourselves blocking its progress, then maybe it'll subjugate us and serve its real host with a favor in kind. Here we haggle over our "intellect" as "property", while we actually manage our "property" (as in coastal real estate) with so little intelligence*. Or maybe trading more ideas we'll dump less industrial filth, and we'll get smart enough to leapfrog over the *pending antarctic melt down. Who the hell knows?

It is very difficulty to classify the intelligence of Deep Blue. Its main advantage appeared to be that it could process information at a much faster rate than Kasparov. Also, unlike Kasparov, it did not whine and grumble when it lost.

My beef with the in-awed worship of "machine intelligence" (as in the age of"spiritual machines") is that the two bits gurus rarely refer to "emotional intelligence", (which may represent a healthy portion of the 90% of our "brain" we don't use. Other human cultural traditions, such as the Tibetan Buddhist, have copious libraries full of recorded learning about states of feeling, compassion, awareness and consciousness which the analytic Western tradition seems to ignore if not repress. Will "intelligence" outsmart us in a few short years with simple yes or no answers? Maybe or maybe not:)

On that note, apparently Deep Dark Blue is still kinda dumb when playing more binary and ancient human bored games like Korean shogi or Chinese go. "Deep Blue beat Kasparov by plotting 14 moves ahead, but a good shogi program would require a computer to read at least 20 moves ahead - professional shogi players can think 30 - 40 moves ahead.. Another lure for programmers is the ancient Chinese game of go, which is even harder for computers than shogi.." - latimes 990819A ..

Sure, just a couple more exponential steps up mount moore's law, but until we let eugenetic engineers hardwire quantum wetware into our loved ones, how will digital decisionmakers get *meaningful* information from human feelings, intuitions, subtle verbal and subtler non-verbal communications, etc.?

The real problem is that most people don't care enough to change the way they vote as a result of this stuff.

2 key problems to solve:

• Stopping this sound like a James Bond film - an urbam myth to be ignored.
• Getting people to realize the potential dangers of a government that act outside the law.

The current safety may be only because although the NSA/GCHQ/etc act in a way that is above the law, the people that make governing decisions are not to the same extent.

So which is more likely - Clinton/Blair etc finding a way to act illegally without a Starr report, or making the NSA act in a sensible/lawful manner?

Echelon Links, And More, And More

Check out ipac ( http://www.comlink.apc.org/~moritz/ipa c.html) which can create text-based and gif/html graphs based on data from ip accounting/ipchains.

---Vitaliy.

Throughout the third world, Nestle would give away about a month's supply of dry infant formula to new mothers, particularly in free or government-run maternity wards, which target the poorest and least educated segment of society. All sounds very altruistic, no?

Of course, after a month without breast feeding, women STOP LACTATING, which means that they HAVE to buy infant formula to feed their children.

Really makes being "trapped" in cycles of upgrades seem a little less chilling, doesn't it?

Anyway, due to intense international pressure, many of the worst of Nestle's practices have stopped, but there continue to be some problems, including very clear health dangers associated with infant formula. See The Baby Milk Action web site for more details.

The question is really this: if you expect people to listen to you about OS', do you listen to them when it comes to other products? Do you boycott McDonalds, Monsanto, Exxon and the like? Are you even a fraction as conscientious about your other consuming habits as you are about your computing ones? If not, how could you possibly expect anyone who isn't monomaniacally absorbed in computing to even listen?