Slashdot Mirror

An utter crock. Do the math. Assume a mere 150 miles of track and only 10,000 passengers a day. One hundred fifty million to build and 200 thousand to operate daily, but the passenger only pays less than twenty thou total? Give a link or back down

Okay, actually I was being rather conservative... this document says the latest segment will only cost a mere $64 million dollars per mile: "... at $64 million per mile, the North Portland MAX will be very expensive to construct." Thankfully, the cost of operation per rider on that segment will only be $10 each, of which the rider will pay maybe 20-30%.

This article says that the MAX system in Portland costs ten times as much per rider than the bus. That means that on the more flexible bus system a $1 fare pays for the cost of the rider, assuming the $10 figure above is correct.

This article says: "Airport MAX This was a $125 million, 5.5-mile extension developed through an innovative public/private venture involving the Port of Portland, Tri-Met, the City of Portland, Portland Development Commission and Bechtel Enterprises. Bechtel contributed $28.2 million towards the $125 million project. It links Portland International Airport to the existing regional light rail system. The system was completed in late 2001." Note that this says $125 million for 5.5 miles. That would be around $20 million dollars per mile. The article also mentions several other projects with as high or higher cost per mile.

This document has more numbers to crunch. In 2005 it will cost $7.2 million to operate this 5-mile segment each year. They give a ridership forecast for 2020 (which may or may not be bullshit depending on the motives of the person making the forecast), and assuming the fare is $2.00 per boarding, it will bring in from fares $9,412,000. However, inflation and the trend of increasing costs to maintain government programs will have no doubt raised the operating cost of the segment to well beyond that by the time 2020 hits.

• The media companies seem to be working more or less together on this; they're not trying to block competition from each other, but protecting their interestes (both copyrights on their material, and seemingly the right to produce media) from the consumers. Side note: if the corporation is an abomination for its ability to divorce individual profit from individual responsibility, a cartel is doubly so.
• I don't think there's ever been a government more responsive to the needs of corporations. The government bailed out Chrysler, and they were on the ropes before they asked for help. Imagine what hoops the unholy alliance of MPAA/RIAA/ETC companies can make the government jump through (or kiss).
• When Paul Weaver wrote his book, he might not have considered the myriad ways that government could interfere with the political process on all levels. Consider the Honorabl(y paid for) Judge Jackson, who previously worked for the MPAA. Or just how stupid some politicians can get when a steady stream of big wealth goes to their heads.

• Call this OS anything you want, but please include the name "linux" in whatever you call it.
• Please claim to your free subdomain (reputation) in our community-owned, mother-of-all-intranets at http://our.linux.org/dns (eg: va.linux.org = valinux.com etc)
• Let's chaorganize ourselves to free our idea exchange, while forging a commercial agreement to immunize ourselves from free-riders like Dr. Chiou.. This process might take us a year..

Dee Hock, the founder and CEO emeritus of what is probably the world's largest commercial enterprise (1.25 Trillion/yr) organized Visa around a completely different paradigm, the chaord. You can read about his efforts here.

Chaordic organizations like the Linux effort illustrate how correct Hock was (and is).

Highly recommended.

CHAORD = pleasant B.S.? Please...

A Chaord exists in the phase between CHAos and ORDer. It's any complex, adaptive, self-regulating system capable of constant learning and evolution. Like VISA. Like the Internet. Like Linux. Unlike any "for-stock" corporations.

Allow me to repeat:

VISA. ($1.2 trillion in sales last year.) It's an info-age corporation with 30 years experience, growing 20% every year past booms bubbles busts bear bulls. No IPO's, take-overs, buy-outs, trade-outs, shake-outs, raids. Why? It's owned by its members. Shared in "non-transferable rights of participation". Dee Hock, who founded VISA, wanted to extend ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. Had it been, he believes it would be four times more powerful today.

Key to Visa's success is chaos/organized *open* structure that attracts the by far most valuable (and least used) resource on earth: human ingenuity.

call it "chaorganization". read about it here here here

SCSL will have great difficulty enabling any true chaord, because in the end, their "community" is responsible Sun's shareholding owners. Sun's aim is to first achieve ubiquity, and then leverage proprietary advantage. It's a shame, because JINI, especially, seems really cool.

CHAORD is the keyword to the most fruitful integration of "open source" and profitable business in the long run. RHAT missed it. Andover.net missed it. (chaords don't do IPO's) It's shocking that so few .rso/ know what the word means. But hopefully, that will change =P

"the value of a company in the future will be tied to how much value it can offer people on the outside, rather than how much value it can extract from people on the outside. In other words, can companies make it fun, interesting, challenging, and rewarding for people who are not their employees to contribute their time and ideas?"

Huh? Sounds like companies will still need to "extract value" from people on the "outside". Sounds kinda tricky. If a company wants me to contribute time and ideas, it better share some "ownership". How?

example: VISA. ($1.2 trillion in sales last year.) It's an info-age corporation with 30 years experience, growing 20% every year past booms bubbles busts bear bulls. No IPO's, take-overs, buy-outs, trade-outs, shake-outs, raids. Why? It's owned by its members. Shared in "non-transferable rights of participation". Dee Hock, who founded VISA, wanted to extend ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. Had it been, he believes it would be four times more powerful today.

Key to Visa's success is chaos/organized *open* structure that attracts the by far most valuable (and least used) resource on earth: human ingenuity. call it "chaorganization". read about it here here here

I've been working for about five years on a "human language learning exchange" project, which turned into software, which recently turned (partly) into a pending u.s. patent. The basic "method" claimed ain't rocket science, but it did take a lot of error and even more trial to come up with. And trust me, it's really *sucked* working on the chicken side of the egg. I'd prefer not to get screwed in the end. Still, there are so many reasons *not* to file internet software patents, especially as churn churns churn faster:

* if the world wide web or linux were patented, who'd use 'em? free ideas are far more powerful.

* patents perpetuate outdated economic models, imposing artificial scarcity upon abundant bits.

* the Internet is transforming human societies much faster than local laws or terrestrial governments can adapt.

* (in fact, we might experience widespread institutional failure and soon.)

* not all jurisdictions recognize the international patents, so they're difficult to enforce on the web.

* it costs a fortune to file, prosecute manage and enforce patents in multiple the jursidictions of the world.

* patent laws discriminate against the poor: those who can't pay up can't legally "protect" innovations. (this ain't a big deal today, but wait 10 years when bandwidth is 60,000 times more plentiful, tripling yearly its reach)

* patent claims set a precedent, thus inviting future patents to attempt to monopolize derivative works.

* patents perpetuate ideals of marketplace "dominance". "partnership" may give rise much more valuable trade.

* patent impose an outdated a "zero sum" game. Learning grows more valuable as more people share it.

* trademarks are a far more "defense worthy", as they identify reputable brand (increasingly valuable as info gluts)


so.. why'd i file? believe me, i been on the fence.. (and sick to the stomach) but finally decided a patent pending might buy some time and keep some options open.. (besides, the thing took forever to write, and *damned* dull it was.. (no wonder the patent office is overwhelmed.. (have you ever read a patent?)))

Anyway, i'm 100% sure that, um.. "my" project should chaorganize and go open source, and aim to host a license selection forum real soon, but here's my question now:

there's been some talk of an Open Source Patent Pool to cross-license w/ the closed stuff.. (are there any "open" patents in this pipeline yet? (any chance at "first post"8P?)).. Anyone have more info?

[btw- IMO, open source patent pooling *might* be an effective "defensive" strategy, but remember the "enemy" has deeeep pockets. Better choose playing field wisely.. the way to outmaneuver *money* is increasingly to outsmart it..]

There is in fact a open-ish member-owned capitalist business that grows 20% annually, past $1.2 thousand billion (trillion) ((no kidding)) in 1998 sales. (IMO RHAT and /. may have a tough time mixing private stock ownership with open source community ethics/compensation models.) Alternative?

VISA has been an info-age corporation for 30 years, now, growing 20% annually past booms bubbles busts bear bulls. No take-overs, buy-outs, trade-outs, shake-outs, raids. How? It's owned by its members. Shared in "non-transferable rights of participation". Dee Hock, who founded it, wanted to extend ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. Had it been, he believes it would be four times more powerful today.

Key to Visa's success is chaos/organized *open* structure that attracts the by far most valuable (and least used) resource on earth: human ingenuity. Call it "chaorganization". Read about it here here here

*I can't think of a single corporate entity that's truly likely to be around ten years from now. I mean, without being bought out, re-named, taken over, acquired, or re-engineered, or moving into a new net-based business model.

Try thinking about VISA. ($1.2 tah-rillion in sales last year.) It's an info-age corporation that's done just fine for 30 years, growing 20% every year past booms bubbles busts bear bulls. No take-overs, buy-outs, trade-outs, shake-outs, raids. Why? How? It's owned by its members. Shared in "non-transferable rights of participation". Dee Hock, who founded it, wanted to extend ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. Had it been, he believes it would be four times more powerful today.

Key to Visa's success is chaos/organized *open* structure that attracts the by far most valuable (and least used) resource on earth: human ingenuity.

call it "chaorganization". read about it here here here

note: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/05/deehock.html link currently /.'d..

As you invoke links between free-thinking geeks and proprietary-minded suits, does the code word "choardic"(#3;) arise in any of your dialogues? Could creative freedom and cooperation enforced by "open source" also inform actual corporate by-laws, (sort of like Dee Hock's 25% implemented code for Visa International?). Are they conceivable, corporations that don't suck?

IPO's can be used by *people with a surplus of stored value (ca$h or credit) to multiply said surplus as much and as fast as possible and preferably with the least possible effort. If successful, such users earn themselves even more "freedom". (from what: fear? envy? lack of sex appeal? who knows?;) anyways..

Companies which conduct these IPO's exploit such human virtues to raise money (needed to finance international legal and customer aquisition costs.. (remember, you are now an Internet company dotcom(tm), or you are roadkill, and this web grows global fast)). Founders and early investors of Internet companies can also use these IPO's to amass fabulous fortunes for themselves to diversify and secure by investing in new IPO's, politicians , etc.

Now, partially owned by the "public" (see above*), stock prices reflect "our" confidence in the company's potential to profit. Company managers, typically holding stakes of their own, spur the company to attract the highest possible share price. Bottom line. Period.

Whether our grandchildren or theirs will regard this behavior as blatently criminal is another question.

Whether there are alternatives to inequity exacerbating IPO and "street" methods of idea "ownership" is a question I hope /. will address and soon. After all, the MAN(tm), his law(tm) and by-laws(IPO Corp.) are forms of "code", right? (They instruct energetic systems to behave predictably. Or try to.)

So how do IPO's and like ownership models perpetuate "code"? Openly? How does it affect our capacity to trade our learning and creativity? Are there alternatives? Here may be a interesting one:

"Chaord" or "chaordic". [haHA! 2nd post:] It's shocking that Dotters of Slash completely ignore an archetypical business structure that seems to effectively trade creativity and borderlessly: Visa International. Growth? 20% annually, since way before any long boom, past $ 1.2trillion in '98 sales, no end in sight. Method? Better attract human ingenuity, (the most valuable AND abundant resource on the planet.) Blend competition with cooperation, seamlessly. Failure? Dee Hock, who founded Visa, says it could have been four times more powerful if ownership had been extended to merchants and cardholders.. Customers owning the business? COOL! bu..WTF!? How to hack that???

IPO? Stock? Forget it. Visa can't bought, sold, traded or raided. Ownership is shared in non-transferable rights of participation.

It's a very unusual "learning organization": commanders don't control it from the center. Instead, chaos organizes itself at the edges, adapting locally, learning and evolving. Advantages arise out of individual initiative. Ideally, "chaorganizations" are "equitable owned by all participants." Sound like a more "open source" code for biz? IMHO, /. and RHAT and MP3c may have kinda choked if they didn't consider more "open" ownership models, proven successful by Visa..

Anyway, a more positive way to look at IPO's and Public Companies is as forms of "currency". If you have some to spare, you could buy gold, but you have to pay someone to guard it, and gold's value is dropping. You could guard U.S.Gov't(tm) printed dead prezidents, but why do it when your banker will pay you interest to borrow them? Still, who wants a measly 6% when brand-name "currency" like yahoo! or rhat or idealab! may earn me 600%? In this light, it's more rewarding to invest in people and ideas rather than self-obsoleting systems or hoarding stores of value. Currency users now have more options, can better "vote with their pocketbook", perpetuate what they value, and maybe earn themselves some more "freedom". More options, more freedom? Who knows?

links, again, on dee hock, visa, and chaords:
http://www.chaordic.org/chaordic /chaos_is_good.htm
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/dee_hock.htm ">
http://www.fastcompany.com/online /05/deehock.html

First off, CONGRATS! Slashdot is IMHO by the best news forum online. (I hope it gets lots better:) You "owners" certainly deserve to be rewarded, and "thanks" obviously doesn't pay rent or cut cake. Besides, prosperity could be useful, right? But at the possible expense of some trust?

So.. ASK SLASHDOT: are there alternatives to IPOs and Stock Ownership to finance Internet Companies? Was the RHAT IPO as fair as it could have been? Are better methods of "ownership" even conceivable? Can they, in reality, be hacked?

Why does nobody here ever mention chaords? Search /. for the word "CHAORD". Nothing, right? Try "chaordic". So.. these words don't exist here, at least before this post, right?. (ha! first post!:^)

Chaord? (CHAos+ORDer) It's that which "exists in the phase between chaos and order." A chaord is a "self-organizing, self-governing complex capable of constant learning and evolution." Like Linux. Like the Internet. Like money.

Pull out your shiny VISA card. Take a good look. Quite a capitalist tool, huh? Founded in the sixties, VISA International has grown 20% annually, through boom and bust, thick and thin, past $1.2 trillion in 1998 sales (11 zeros), with no end in sight. Hmmm. Wanna buy stock? No way, Jose.

VISA International is "owned" by its members. They share "ownership" by non-transferable rights of participation. (User rights!) These rights can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. Dee Hock, who founded VISA, had hoped to extend this ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. (Had it been, Mr. Hock believes the VISA community would be four times more powerful! )

Think I'm a wacko AC? Read the links. VISA thrives by an alternative system of "ownership", which, at its core, better motivates and rewards innovation by members. Does this sound a bit more in tune with open source purposes and principles?

As Open Source starts to suck in lawyers and money, how might we addapt? Maybe business planners can consider evidently successful alternatives to IPO's, and the inevitable management of "responsibilities to shareholders." It may be in their interest to do so.

In the end, informed users (customers) don't appreciate being forked over by short-sighted proprietary systems bent on obscene profits. So we then seek options. If we don't find them, we then create them.

- A.C., but not for long :->

"listen to the technology.. find out what it's telling you" -G.Gilder

First off, CONGRATS! Slashdot is IMHO by the best news forum online. (I hope it gets lots better:) You "owners" certainly deserve to be rewarded, and "thanks" obviously doesn't pay rent or cut cake. Besides, prosperity could be useful, right? But at the possible expense of some trust?

So.. ASK SLASHDOT: are there alternatives to IPOs and Stock Ownership to finance Internet Companies? Was the RHAT IPO as fair as it could have been? Are better methods of "ownership" even conceivable? Can they, in reality, be hacked?

Why does nobody here ever mention chaords? Search /. for the word "CHAORD". Nothing, right? Try "chaordic". So.. these words don't exist here, at least before this post, right?. (ha! first post!:^)

Chaord? (CHAos+ORDer) It's that which "exists in the phase between chaos and order." A chaord is a "self-organizing, self-governing complex capable of constant learning and evolution." Like Linux. Like the Internet. Like money.

Pull out your shiny VISA card. Take a good look. Quite a capitalist tool, huh? Founded in the sixties, VISA International has grown 20% annually, through boom and bust, thick and thin, past $1.2 trillion in 1998 sales (11 zeros), with no end in sight. Hmmm. Wanna buy stock? No way, Jose.

VISA International is "owned" by its members. They share "ownership" by non-transferable rights of participation. (User rights!) These rights can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. Dee Hock, who founded VISA, had hoped to extend this ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. (Had it been, Mr. Hock believes the VISA community would be four times more powerful! )

Think I'm a wacko AC? Read the links. VISA thrives by an alternative system of "ownership", which, at its core, better motivates and rewards innovation by members. Does this sound a bit more in tune with open source purposes and principles?

As Open Source starts to suck in lawyers and money, how might we addapt? Maybe business planners can consider evidently successful alternatives to IPO's, and the inevitable management of "responsibilities to shareholders." It may be in their interest to do so.

In the end, informed users (customers) don't appreciate being forked over by short-sighted proprietary systems bent on obscene profits. So we then seek options. If we don't find them, we then create them.

- A.C., but not for long :->

"listen to the technology.. find out what it's telling you" -G.Gilder