Slashdot Mirror

... I can't help but notice that the map not only uses the "north = up, therefore north = good" ideology but also places Europe square in the middle of the map. ...

This map is one of the "conventional" projections of a sphere onto a plane. When you want to see global effects, projections like this have to distort some of the globe. Better to either:

  - Use an actual globe, could be shown as "the view from the moon" with several circles centered on different continents.

  - Use a Dymaxion projection (icosahedral) which does a good job of preserving distance and area,
  http://www.bfi.org/about-bucky/buckys-big-ideas/dymaxion-world/dymaxion-map
For example, with this projection, long great circle routes (over the Poles) would be straight lines.

Near space?

We're already in space... On Spaceship Earth .. Please take the time to RTFM :-)

Another version of basic income was proposed by Bucky Fuller, long ago. Here's a scan of a page from "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth", http://universalresearchanddevelopmentfellowships.org/

"To take advantage of the fabulous magnitudes of real wealth waiting to be employed intelligently by humans and unblock automation’s postponement by organized labor we must give each human who is or becomes unemployed a life fellowship in research and development or in just simple thinking. Man must be able to dare to think truthfully and to act accordingly without fear of losing his franchise to live."

    http://bfi.org/about-bucky/resources/books/operating-manual-spaceship-earth/chapter-8-regenerative-landscape

Thanks. Well, I guess, as you predicted, others don't agree, and the first item has been modded down to (0, Troll).
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571756&cid=31365414
So has another gone down as offtopic:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571756&cid=31365538
And another market Troll:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571756&cid=31366202
How citing a book by acknowledged experts on the interrelation of child development and violent media and toys is off-topic and trolling in the context of discussing banning violent videogames and toys, well, I guess that happens sometimes. :-) Some people don't want to know (granted I say other stuff people may not like, too).

As a stay-at-home Dad (to some extent, and homeschooling) and also technology person, I've spent a lot of time thinking on this stuff, reading about it, and writing on it, (as in, years), so I have all the links etc. ready to go.

More by me on options for social progress (or regression) could be found here:
"Jobless Recovery"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless_recovery
"[p2p-research] Rebutting Communiqué from an Absent Future (was Re: Information on student protests)"
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html
"Post-Scarcity Princeton"
http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html
"Achieving a Star Trek Society"
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/AchievingAStarTrekSociety.html
"A brickfilm movie idea about preventing a Caprican future"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/cac4e38a9b68d083

As I say elsewhere, I don't think censorship is the answer to this sort of problem. Actually, I also think Chavez has the problem wrong. Violence and addictive-seeming consumption of social media happens in large part due to social stress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
The key is to reduce the stress, and to direct people to more positive activities.

As Bucky Fuller said:
http://challenge.bfi.org/movie
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

That's really what Chavez is doing wrong with this, and some other things. It's sad. Venezuela could repeal the Berne convention on copyrights, institute a basic income, expand the public library system instead of the public school system, grind up rock for fertilizer, promote cooperative games, and a variety of other more essential and effective things to create prosperity for all there. Banning the violent video games does not address any of these core issues.

Twenty years from now, when renewables replace oil (a major revenue for Venezuela) through exponential growth, and AI and robotics and better design (a better RepRap) can produce really cheap products in any industrialized country (and so they will flood in from abroad), Venezuela will be in bad shape unless it has transitioned beyond capitalist economics entirely

A friends mom escaped the wreck of a 90ft Fish Packer as it hit the rocks at night in a passage with strong currents due to a problem caused by relying on GPS. It was due to something like how it derived the heading vs the direction of travel or some-such.

Moral of the story was that using static ground stations like LORAN, this would not have occurred. Anyhow, now ground stations have been dismantled and vessel's receivers scrapped and there is nothing groundbased to replace GPS with should GPS fail. High altitude communications aircraft seem viable; however, there again is a reliance on something that is not physically bolted down and easily fixable.

An interesting footnote is mentioned by Buckminster Fuller in his 50 year summation masterwork "Critical Path": on pages 186-7. The Americans started their radio-accurate mapping from Compass Island in Penobscot Bay in Maine, and proceeded by radio triangulation to work their way down to South America, across the Atlantic and up Africa to Europe. This was needed for accurately guiding bombers above the clouds, as the ground survey maps were often 10's of miles incorrect.

The Germans had done this as well for Europe and perhaps Russia, so when Berlin fell, the Russians went in early and took the German mapping data. Russia had radio-accurate maps of all of Europe and published data from the US, while the US did not have maps of Russia. This lead to the importance in the cold war of US spy planes and satellites for basic mapping for targeting ICBM's, including as suggested by Fuller a US presence in Iran and Afghanistan as radio triangulation bases. Russia performed massive deceptions of fake cities and so on to perpetuate this information gradient.

So yes it looks similar on Google maps, but it looks completely different on Google Earth.

Try Bucky Fuller's Dymaxion map for an interesting view of the world...

...but you need to put the machines in charge instead of the bureaucrats...

You've been reading my link, haven't you?

But Mr. Fuller came up with a pretty good answer over 30 years ago. His timing might be a bit off, but the basic premise is sound. And if you want to make a serious attempt to find a solution, you need to go much deeper into the real basics. Ignore his advice and you will pay the price.

http://www.bfi.org/node/809

In an individualist way, Paul Graham is ignoring the bigger picture, and just advising individuals on how to have a better life in a failing society. There is nothing wrong with that kind of good advice by itself, and it is good advice, but it lacks social context, lacks long term planning, and lacks a way to make things permanently better for people without a lot of social advantages needed to follow that advice (let alone have time to read it).

From:
http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolitio n.html
"Liberals say we should end employment discrimination. I say we should end employment. Conservatives support right-to-work laws. Following Karl Marx's wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue I support the right to be lazy. Leftists favor full employment. Like the surrealists--except that I'm not kidding--I favor full unemployment. Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution. I agitate for permanent revelry. But if all the ideologues (as they do) advocate work--and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs--they are strangely reluctant to say so. They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, exploitation, productivity, profitability. They'll gladly talk about anything but work itself. These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work, for all its saliency in the lives of all of us. Among themselves they quibble over the details. Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don't care which form bossing takes so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working."

Bob Black then goes on to say most work is unneeded, most of the rest can be made into fun, and the small remaining amount no one wants to do can be automated.

We have the system of "work" we do as a holdover from an agricultural feudal mindset coupled with a scarcity driven ideology (where dollars are really "ration units"). Compare this with, for example the better parts of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, see: "The Original Affluent Society -- by Marshall Sahlins"
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html
for a description of life in a world where there is abundance for all with only a limited need for other-directed "work", where the productivity of the surrounding (living) system far exceeds that of collective human needs.

I don't see we have much of a good alternative to a post-work "utopia" for all;
"Utopia or Oblivian -- by Buckminster Fuller"
http://www.bfi.org/node/17
we either build the world Bob Black envisions (or something like it, whether Bucky Fuller's ideas, or see James P. Hogan's _Voyage from Yesteryear_ novel for a related perspective,
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/voyage/baen99/tit lepage.shtml )
with abundance for all people, or, alternatively, by following the status quo off the cliffs of either pollution or warfare, humanity (though probably neither life nor intelligence nor humans) will perish in a world driven to destruction by putting abstractions like profits or nationalism ahead of basic human needs (including the basic human need not to be bored or demeaned eight hours a day). Does it all have to change in one day? No. You can build a better world bit by bit -- and that's one thi

This is the basis for the argument for CATs (Cheap Access to Space) and
http://www.space-frontier.org/Projects/CatsPrize/
various legislative pushes and at least a couple of billionaires (including Jeff Bezos of
Amazon.com) putting a lot of money into this (perhaps as businesses, but
essentially still billionaire hobbies). While I wish them well, I think
this approach towards space settlement is misguided. Let's work the
numbers.

The USA has about two million millionaires. There are many more elsewhere.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/07 11_030711_money.html
"In total, there are an estimated 7.3 million people in the world whose
assets--excluding their home--amount to U.S. $1 million or more. Behind
Europe, North America has the second highest concentration of
millionaires at 2.2 million. The Asia Pacific region accounts for 1.8
million. Latin America and the Middle East account for 300,000 each, and
Africa accounts for 100,000."

At current launch costs of $10000 per pound, to put a 150 pound adult
(me on a starvation diet for a couple months!) would be about
$1,500,000, or $6,000,000 for a family of four. Now that amount of money
being paid is well within the reach of hundreds of thousands of people
if they liquidate all their assets -- homes, stocks, retirement
accounts, and so forth. Now if you could guarantee that they and their
children would have a better life living in cities in space, then some
percentage of them might well do that. The problem as I see it is, we
can't guarantee that right now. The other problem is of course, there is
no place to live right now for hundreds of thousands of people showing
up in their underwear and starving with no shelter or clothes or food or
air or water or other goods for them.

One solution is to pursue the 1980s NASA vision
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/AASM5A.html#5a
of first putting
automated factories on the moon (or at asteroids) and using robotics
(and teleoperation) make space settlements complete with food, water,
clothes, etc. for when these people show up. It would in theory only
take one Apollo-type launch to the Moon or an asteroid
with the seed of an automated
factory instead of a LEM to start the process rolling, and that would
have an up front cost of a few billion dollars or so -- far less than
the total launch costs for all the people. The factory could also carry
out putting up mass drivers etc. to realize Gerry O'Neill's or
J.D. Bernal's vision of building
near earth habitats from lunar or asteroidal resources.

So, as I see it, launch costs are not a bottleneck.
So while lowering launch costs may be useful, by itself
it ultimately has no value without someplace to live in space.
And all the innovative studies on space settlement say that space colonies will not be
built from materials launched from earth, but rather will be built mainly from
materials found in space.

So, what is a bottleneck
is that we do not know how to make that seed self-replicating factory,
or have plans for what it should create once it is landed on the moon or
on a near-earth asteroid. We don't have (to use Bucky Fuller's terminology)
a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science
http://www.bfi.org/node/387
that lets us make sense of all the various manufacturing knowledge
which is woven throughout our complex economy (and in practice,
despite patents, is essentially horded and hidden and made proprietary whenever possible)
in order to synthesize it to build elegant and flexible infrastructure
for sustaining human life in style in s

For further reading, here are some links:

A quick write up about it: http://www.bfi.org/Trimtab/spring00/longnow.htm

A wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now

An interview aobut it: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/brand/brand_p2.htm l

A Discovery Article: http://www.discover.com/issues/nov-05/cover/

A book about the clock: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465 007805/002-9433271-9089642?v=glance

I agree with some of your points. However, Nuclear Energy is the absolute very least feasible on a global scale. That's all we need to do, is allow every third world country in the world to play around with nuclear material.

The quote fails to mention something. It says how many people the waste could kill. It doesn't mention how many would die if a bomb or meltdown went off, how many generations it would affect, how long the land would remain sterile, etc. It also doesn't mention how many people can be killed if the government of the plants in question use the material to make nuclear warheads. Last I checked, arsenic couldn't kill as many people as a nuclear warhead.

I don't fear nuclear material. I fear nuclear material in the hands of suicide bombers. Maybe chlorine is just as dangerous. That doesn't give any justification to nuclear material, though.

I've heard that argument before on other topics: "Well, sure X can happen to you, but so can Y, so why worry about X?" Either way, you are still left with X.

Besides, nuclear energy is a dead end. It's enough that we destroyed the climate, now we want to irradiate mountains with waste?

I don't have an immediate solution. I wish I did. I think we all wish we did. But, I believe solar energy is the only way to go, whether you are harnessing it from the wind, water, directly, or from fossil fuels, which are a long decended solar power. We have to realize that we have only real reliable power source is the sun. We just have to learn how to harness it better.

We will run out of space to put waste, or run out of raw nuclear material. Sure, it may look like we have plenty. Many thought the same about oil, and now even the oil companies will publically admit that we'll run out fairly soon. If nuclear power provided cheap energy to everyone, then energy usage, like car usage, would skyrocket, and what seemed like so much would become so little.

We have to think at least several hundred years into the future. Short sightedness is the cause of most of our current energy problems. And, we have no choice but to rely on the sun. Should it burn out, I think powering our cities will be the least of our worries.

A smarter man than me had some great ideas about society, economics, energy, etc. http://www.bfi.org/operating_manual.htm I just hope he was also right that man can't sabotage himself faster than he naturally advances.

I actually figured the whole thing out after visiting both a Planetarium and a Bucky-Dome.

The first clue came at the planetarium. At the top of the dome was a small circle. If you visually estimated the size of the circle, you would assume it is 1-2 feet across. However, according to the planetarium guy, it is actually 6 feet across.

The second clue came at the Cinerama Dome. The dome, like all geodesics, is made up of identical hexagonal pieces. However, inside the dome, all the pieces look distorted and irregularly shaped.

The key here is that while both domes are semi-spherical, when you are in them, they both look like they are much wider than they are tall (sort of a squashed sphere shape). Your brain, for some reason, assumes that things directly above you are closer, and that things near the horizon are further, so the dome looks misshapen. With an improper mental image of distance, the tiles look distorted due to perspective, and the circle looks smaller because it is further than it appears.

Basically, what this means is that the moon is the correct size on the horizon, and this "bug" causes it to look too small when it is high in the sky.

And, if you think about it, this bug makes perfect sense. Most things your brain would see (think primitive man on the savanah here) that are straight ahead are going to be far away, or at least 10 meters or so away, so your brain adjusts accordingly. Similarly, most things you see when looking down are close, on the scale of a couple of meters, so your brain also adjusts from that. Most things you see looking up are the sky, and with no frame of reference, your brain assumes that looking up is just like looking down (after all, looking forwards is the same as looking backwards). Therefore, your brain associated things on the horizon as far, and therefore bigger than they appear, and things up or down as close, and smaller than they appear.

From this article:

Janet Ginsberg: how many camps and average size? How long do they last?

Larry Thompson: 10,000 people is an average size. Some have up to 600,000 people. Some camps exist for around 15-20 years. In Palestine some have been there 40-50 years. We tend to put people in camps and forget about them. In Kosovo--UNHCR had plans on orderly return--the refugees all went home in a number of days. The thought is that many Afghans will go home this spring. But, unless there are demonstrated economic incentives to go home, they won't leave.

Better yet, does anybody know how he folded those things? They're amazing! It reminds me of the works of Buckminster Fuller, Kenneth Snelson, and Chuck Hoberman in that they have an underlying mathematical model that also exhibits "elegance and simplicity". I love this kind of art.

Actually, Mr. Fuller had domes. The balls referred to above have his name in honor of the domes.

Actually it is willful neglect and widespread ignorance that prevent the poor masses from being fed. Politicians (and the corporations they represent) institute policies that thwart efficient distribution of food and sublimely encourage overpopulation. Poor countries have exploding populations because having more children increases the likelihood that some of their offspring will survive the harsh conditions. Adequate medical access is a severe problem for 95% of the global population.

There is enough life support on the planet to support the entire population. The problem is we mismanage resources and stultify the education system. I agree that overpopulation is a serious problem but I think can be dealt with effectively through thoughtful analysis and widespread education.

the lesson learned is that whenever you produce n amount of goods, humanity produces n+1 people wanting those goods and squabling (ocassionally going to war) over how to obtain those goods

This is absurd on its face. Wars are not fought by people clamoring for goods. They are fought by well-moneyed interests pursuing oil, or defense contracts, or interest from massive loans, or reconstructionists. Armies do not mobilize over a deficit of PalmPilots or a lack of pr0n (well . . .maybe around here :p )

Educated Earthlings need not hoard. It is our responsibility to use our fortunate positions to develop saner solutions. War, in light of our considerable technological prowess, is insane.

We should use our knowledge for livingry, not weaponry

LifeBits? That's nothing!
Buckminster Fuller archived everything from 1920-1983. His mass storage was a warehouse :-)

His Dymaxion Chronofile was one of his many human guinea pig experiments. For those of the /. generation who've never heard of the guy, he's one of the 20th century's great thinkers--probably most famous for the Geodesic dome. Read Operating Manual for SpaceShip Earth once in a while for a wake up call on priorities. :-)

LifeBits? That's nothing!
Buckminster Fuller archived everything from 1920-1983. His mass storage was a warehouse :-)

His Dymaxion Chronofile was one of his many human guinea pig experiments. For those of the /. generation who've never heard of the guy, he's one of the 20th century's great thinkers--probably most famous for the Geodesic dome. Read Operating Manual for SpaceShip Earth once in a while for a wake up call on priorities. :-)

R. Buckminster Fuller would have loved to see his dream mature. Bucky wanted to give a metal lathe to every other person...with the agreement that the first thing they would make would be another lathe for the remaining half of the population.

This one is for you, R.B. Thanks!

Rats! Beat me to it. :-)

Actually, Bucky had more than one reconfigurable housing idea. In addition to the Dymaxion house, which used suspension instead of compression for structure, he also invented a variety of
domes including one, the Fly Eye dome, designed to be assembled in sections that could be lifted with one hand (so the other could fasten the bolts.)

Check out the
Buckminster Fuller Institute for all things Bucky.

Rats! Beat me to it. :-)

Actually, Bucky had more than one reconfigurable housing idea. In addition to the Dymaxion house, which used suspension instead of compression for structure, he also invented a variety of
domes including one, the Fly Eye dome, designed to be assembled in sections that could be lifted with one hand (so the other could fasten the bolts.)

Check out the
Buckminster Fuller Institute for all things Bucky.

Agriculture is an ~8,000 year old undertaking. Most of the changes in agriculture have occured in the last hundred years. In that time much of the arable land has been developed or paved over. We have increasing food production demands and a decreasing quantity of land with which to produce food on. Hence the need for food science.

Brief segue: I read an article online [maybe here?] about research for food/air/water/waste systems for a mission to Mars. The major requirement is that the systems on the spaceship must use the waste from the other systems to minimize resources used and to keep the human cargo alive for the entire trip. Planet earth can be thought of as a space ship--and it has--and that puts everthing into a more clear perspective.

Will our spaceship be able to sustain its human cargo? Our current system of chemo-geneto-monoculture guarantees high yields for now, but has problems of its own. For example, monoculture requires high levels of fertilizers. Most chemical fertilizers have a chloride content in the teens percentagewise--eventually the salt content in the soil will become high enough to render the soil infertile. The lack of rotting organic matter in the soil causes the soil to hold very little water, which calls for additives to increase water holding. Other posters have pointed out the production costs which are borne by the rest of society--such as fertilizer runoff and cross breeding by GM crops--so I won't elaborate on that. There is also the practice of using Roundup-ready GM crops which can survive high doses of that product. What happens to that soil once the GM crops are banned or if Monsanto pulls the plug on that product? The soil becomes poisonous and incapable of growing any crops.

There is only one system of agriculture that employs sustainability in the heart of its philosophy: organic. Yes, it is labor intensive. Yes, it is expensive. However it does appear to be the only way to travel. Call me a hippy or engage in whatever ad hominem attack that your threatened sensibilities deem necessary, but don't raid my crops when your farming methods fail.

I don't know if you have such a position (or if one would call it exactly a "Fellow"), but I'd like to be a sort-of Soros Fellow based around New York City who is also an Information Technology staff member. Essentially, I'd like to wander around the Open Society Institute (as well as the larger Soros Foundations Network) and create and deploy "open source" technology for knowledge management and digital libraries (including open content) to help other Soros Foundations Network staff do their jobs better, while at the same time make available that technology outside the Soros Foundations Network under open source licenses (and integrate back in community generated improvements as well). I'd naturally be happy to instead be a more conventional Soros Fellow who just works on some Digital Library projects of my own design (I have a couple in mind) but I think helping with Soros Foundations Network's immediate knowledge management needs (or at least the subset shared by others) would serve as inspiration to create all sorts of wonderful things over the long term, which other foundations and other individuals might find of great usefulness -- and the hope is perhaps they might even improve on them a little in the process and share those improvements back to us.

While I know any foundation would not match private sector pay, what would interest me most in working with the Soros Foundations Network and get my full-time (plus some) devotion to it is if my employment agreement ensured all software I developed for the foundation could be released under an open source license of my choice or into the public domain. Also, I'd want to talk about open content licensing issues in regards to any large work undertaken in the digital library space. That would help me weave together various threads of my life into a whole cloth. Currently I work for six to eighteen months at a time doing proprietary work for clients, and then take some time to work on my own projects. In both cases I end up a little too isolated for being the most productive I could be.

Here is my perspective on the issues of our day and what I think I can help with at the foundation. You may find this of interest even if we do not work together in the future.

Due to continuing exponential growth of computer chip manufacturing capability (predicted by Moore's law), computers are predicted to be a million times bigger in capacity, faster in speed, or smaller in size (pick one at a time for a constant price) within the next couple of decades. However, exponential growth in technological capacity is also occurring in a variety of fields besides computing. Technologies for power generation, CAD/CAM, materials, nanotechnology, communications, positioning, robotics, artificial intelligence, transportation, biotechnology, and collaboration are all increasing on their own exponential curves. That growth is also interacting with the exponential changes in computing and the other fields in a synergetic way. Cars that drive themselves are just one example of a technology around the corner that will change the face of society -- something only made possible by several of these trends coming together. We are heading for an age of abundance (although the future is still far from assured given continuing risks from arms races in part driven also by technological imperatives). Raymond Kurzweil's latest web site makes the issues clear: http://www.kurzweilai.net/ And it also makes clear how there are both opportunities and dangers: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=2

When I audited a course in Soviet Politics [snipped] around 1984, one idea bounced around was that because the Soviet Union was highly centralized, if they did decide to switch to a democratic capitalist model, they could do it overnight. Yet, nothing was further from the truth when Gorbachev actually started Perestroika a few years later -- because old ways of doing things, old habits, old customs, old relationships, and old world views were slow to change. Now, fifteen years after the initiation of Perestroika, that area and its economy is still in disarray, and the people living there as well as their environment have suffered greatly as a result.

The same may well be true of Western society as we transition into this age of abundance made possible by all this technological advancement. In the age of the internet, many of the old competitive ways of doing things such as obtaining local benefits while passing on external costs no longer make much sense (if they ever did), yet the new ways are still forming, like the chaordic vision of organization advocated by Dee Hock. http://www.chaordic.org/ As we move into this age, "gift" economies may take center stage, such as the gift economy behind Linux and much of the interesting content on the internet. http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_12/barbroo k/ The realization is still slow to dawn that we as a society now know enough and have enough potential wealth to have plenty of each of nature, technology and society for everyone. Perhaps that was always true and we had just forgotten it.

Buckminster Fuller http://www.bfi.org/ brought this issue up decades ago as "Design Science", but such ideas are at odds with a lifetime of conditioning to believe in an economy of scarcity, and so they move very slowly. People are still caught in thinking we must choose between countryside, gadgetry, or humanity. We can have all of these things -- if we use the knowledge we already possess in a collaborative way to reconcile issues of self interest with the greater good through innovative practices. Perhaps not all conflicts can be resolved, but many of the basic life-support ones about adequate water, minimal food, clean air, decent shelter, livable communities, conserved biodiversity, and innovative education can. To do so requires that we include this upcoming transition to an age of abundance in our thinking about economic policy, foreign affairs, and domestic political issues. It also requires preserving the digital commons in terms of free access to basic information about the essentials of life (and how to make them). The OSCOMAK project http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak was a step in that direction, but I have not had enough time to develop it. I would hope I could continue to pursue it in some way in conjunction with the Soros Foundations Network, since for example such information might help developing nations bootstrap their economies.

What excites me about working with the Soros Foundations Network is that I would be involved with people who care about such things, and we could all be working to make similar things happen together, all made possible by far-sighted gifts from George Soros.

As the Soros Foundations Network moves forward, I would like to play a role helping articulate a vision and strategy that balances these three aspects (nature, technology, society) amidst the upcoming potential of prosperity made possible by advanced information systems and other products of the exponential growth of technology. I would also like to help create the information systems that the foundations network itself uses for internal communications, internal education, and external communications. These systems could be built using an open source collaborative model allowing the Soros Foundations Network's own needs for knowledge management to create another gift for humanity in terms of freely available tools for collaboration and knowledge management, leveraging the work of existing collaborative communities where possible, and adding to them where there are special needs.

For example, why shouldn't each on-the-go Soros Foundations Network staffer have (if they desire) a belt-worn wearable computer and tri-band cell phone to keep them in touch with the network's digital library from anywhere in the world? The hardware exists pretty much off-the-shelf for this http://www.xybernaut.com/ and will only continue to get better. The software is still something to be wrestled with though, and that is a challenge I would relish. Similarly, why shouldn't the Soros Foundations Network have a situation room with hundreds of display screens monitoring world issues, the progress of grants, and the initiatives of other foundations? Again, the relatively affordable hardware for such a room exists now off-the-shelf -- the software is the main issue. http://www.unigraf.fi/PAGES/multiscr/videowall.htm These are the sorts of things I would like to create for the Soros Foundations Network and, if done primarily as open source, for the world.

The internet also makes possible a fine grained sort of collaboration which was never practical before (such as through using threaded email lists or discussion sites like http://www.slashdot.org/ ). Such collaborations might help in advancing the Open Society Institute's mission. Yet such collaborations produce new legal issues (or, more correctly, put new twists on old ones). There is a related paper my wife and I wrote that talks about clear licensing as a way to promote collaboration which I will be presenting for the SSI Conference on Space Manufacturing in Princeton the beginning of next week. I'd be happy to send a copy after the conference is over if it is of any interest. It touches on some of the broader non-technical issues that directly effect how IT can be used for the common good.

Unfortunately, it seems many non-profits (including schools) see the internet as a potential profit center for selling information (whether that is realistic is a different issue). To that end they prevent others from making derived works from their materials (as a byproduct of restricting copying to create artificial scarcity), which in turn limits fine-grained collaboration to improve technical artifacts. So, there is much to be worked through here in terms of the bigger picture.

While large corporations can play a role in developing such technology (just wave money in front of them), they aren't exactly going to be out front cheer leading and inventing the open source information tools an open society needs (since there are many other short-term profitable things they can focus on, typically involving financing by people with proprietary interests in information management). Yet, as individuals, many of the people in such organizations would love to work on such projects and could make convincing pitches to management if given half a chance and a shred of economic justification. And many other individuals outside such organizations will give freely of their spare time to help make such efforts happen.

Leading by example is almost always a good idea. As Alan Kay said, "the best way to predict the future is to invent it". If we are to have an open society, we need to invent open technology to go with it. Somebody has to make that technology. This is an area the Soros Foundations Network can play a leadership role while at the same time helping achieve its other goals through open source efforts.

These molecules were named right (fullerenes) doubly: first for their resemblance to Bucky's famous dome structures, and second for their persistent versatility -- who expected non-metallic magnetism? or superconductivity?

Long live Bucky's spirit!

Buckminster Fuller obtained a patent for paperboard domes in 1959. These domes were extensively tested by the U.S. Marines and won architecture awards around the globe. This method of architecture is sound and worthy of support. I am surprised that only one slashdot comment mentions the history of paperboard / cardboard architecture.

Perhaps the harnessing of wave power as well.

According to this site:
US Department of Energy, a carbon material needs to store 6.5% of its own weight in hydrogen to make fuel cells practical in cars.
and
scientists from the National University of Singapore have released figures for nanotubes and nanofibers that can store 10-20% of their weight in hydrogen.
And this site claims over 70% hydrogen storage by weight at about 40 atmospheres storage pressure, but maximum charging requires about 130 atmospheres and several hours.

I have decided for my own mental health that it is time to move on and attempt to spread as much support and peace as I can. I have been occupying my thoughts with what can be built on the spot where the trade center stood and the healing of the citizens of the world after this atrocious and sickening occurence. Another thing that I have started doing is listening to classical music.

Your coworker just fears that his beliefs may be threatened. That is why he reacted so strongly. It has absolutely nothing to do with age and everything to do with a persons state of mind.

Gross Universal Cash Heist

I won't address the statistical errors some believe they have made as I am not a statistician and only have a basic understanding of the field, what with those sigma sums and means, medians and modes, and such. I will address the cartographical problems of the map, though.

First, they've opted for a horrible projection which neglects to include some areas and skews others. Second, it simply doesn't carry much visual impact. If they wanted to make a message, a wiser choice of map projection would have been good. I suggest the Dymaxion Map, designed by Buckminster Fuller. This is the map known as the 'One-island-Earth' map as it accurately prtrays the world as one large land mass. It is nearly 100% perfect in its replication of land size and shape as it is the result of overlaying the globe on an icosahedron and unwrapping it.

You can find some info about the Bucky map here, http://www.bfi.org/map.htm, if you want to see this beauty.

The combination of the two would have been incredible. It would have conveyed the message that our world is becoming homogenized as the cities spread and join together, blanketing the world in light.

It reminds me of Bucky Fuller's Dymaxion World Map, which divides the earth into lots of triangles, then localizes map distortion into each triangle. The net result is that overall, the map is very accurate. In contrast, the Mercator Projection localizes all its error at the edge, so Greenland looks larger than North America.

In the same way, having lots of subject editors instead of one company doing the editing should in theory localize the bias to individual subjects. Chances are better that the Open Directory as a whole will be less biased.

I've been slogging through his book Critical Path and all i can say is read it. His life's work is an inspiration for all humanity.

For more info about bucky visit The Buckminster Fuller Institute

buckminster fuller is a real world mad scientist. everybody thought he was off his rocker. he cast away the entire euclidian gemoetry in favor of a triangle based way of thinking. he built a car with three weels, circular air-deliverable houses. and fasioned the geodesic dome. after he died, it was discovered C60 naturally occurs in the shape of a geodesic dome. it just shows how damn cool he is. read more about this legend.

Fans of Bucky who happen to be in the SF Bay Area should check out R. Buckminster Fuller: The History (And Mystery) of the Universe, a one-man play about his life, based on his writings, designs, and photos. It's fascinating. Info is at Foghouse, the theater company that's producing the show.

fellow citizen-unit,
meny thank you, for the info...

but i seem to remenber reading in some of Bucky Fullers books (before he was deemed crazy-werd (you would never see me doing unaproved activies...)). he called corporatism LawCap. that is Law and Corporate intrest interwinding...

As this citizen-unit sees it there can be no exit but LawCap. because LawCap will just incorporate you, or cut off your supply of DOPE^hDollers. thus we all no, there will be no just say know. here is a test, just how manly , us citizen-units will Boycott Everyone?

my bet us: 0 lawers: 50 MPI: 23


nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE