Slashdot Mirror

It's a good idea. See:
"How to Do Agent-Based Simulations in the Future: From Modeling Social Mechanisms to Emergent Phenomena and Interactive Systems Design "
http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/11-06-024.pdf
"Since the advent of computers, the natural and engineering sciences have enormously progressed. Computer simulations allow one to understand interactions of physical particles and make sense of astronomical observations, to describe many chemical properties ab initio, and to design energy-efficient aircrafts and safer cars. Today, the use of computational devices is pervasive. Offices, administrations, financial trading, economic exchange, the control of infrastructure networks, and a large share of our communication would not be conceivable without the use of computers anymore. Hence, it would be very surprising, if computers could not make a contribution to a better understanding of social and economic systems. While relevant also for the statistical analysis of data and data-driven efforts to reveal patterns of human interaction, we will focus here on the prospects of computer simulation of social and economic systems. More specifically, we will discuss the techniques of agent-based modeling (ABM) and multi-agent simulation (MAS), including the challenges, perspectives and limitations of the approach. In doing so, we will discuss a number of issues, which have not been covered by the excellent books and review papers available so far. In particular, we will de- scribe the different steps belonging to a thorough agent-based simulation study, and try to explain, how to do them right from a scientific perspective. To some extent, computer simulation can be seen as experimental technique for hypothesis testing and scenario analysis, which can be used complementary and in combination with experiments in real-life, the lab or the Web."

And also:
http://www.brookings.edu/topics/agent-based-models.aspx

Or what I started almost a decade ago, but then had a kid and left on the back burner:
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/simulchaord
"This project is mainly to develop simulations of chaordic organizations, processes, and systems under the GPL license, with "chaordic" used as defined by Dee Hock at http://www.chaordic.org/ and in his book "Birth of the Chaordic Age"."

Something on the idea of a campaign to get more free software written about manstream and alternative economics:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2356864&cid=36936914

As you suggest, a distributed, global (federated) identity would make this all a lot easier and work a lot better. Persistent profile information is powerful and offers many advantages to citizens, corporations and all those middlemen, but can lead to serious privacy abuses if the information is not securely - and absolutely - controlled by the profile owner.

The fact that global identity is so valuable has not escaped the eye of marketing departments everywhere, and there are several projects aimed at establishing global identities for consumers. (Note that I say "consumers" here rather than "citizens" as the systems being designed generally only see you as a consumer and nothing more. Therefore, since there's nothing to buy on Slashdot or Poliglut, you probably wouldn't exist on those systems.)

There are two main problems with the currently proposed systems: Passport, designed by Microsoft, is a wholly centralized system. (The only thing good about this is that your profile data in Passport is not in danger of being bought by Microsoft!) The other system is Project Liberty, a system being put together by a scary consortium of BigCos. EPIC has a good, short paper on the privacy considerations of Liberty here.

There's a new group in this area working...

...to create the world's premier electronic system for individuals and organizations to interact commercially, socially and personally, while providing every entity with control of its information, identity, and relationships consistent with healthy communities.

So where does one go? First, of course it has to be open source. PGP's web of trust, Ron Rivest's and Carl Ellison's SPKI/SDSI, and Matt Blaze's Keynote all offer secure local name spaces and even integrated trust management systems. (Thought I had forgotten about your original point, didn't you?) We're nearing completion of a requirements specification and hope to have an initial implementation by years end. And this is being done mostly by volunteers, as there's no money (yet).

BTW, one of the most difficult problems facing federated identity systems such as Liberty is how to get all these BigCos to work together. We're following Chaordic approach that, like the Visa payment system, melds simple but powerful global unilateral agreements (Principles) with local control of agreements that control inter-group relationships.

A lot of people don't understand how the VISA system is organized or about it's creator Dee Hock. It's called chaordic business organization--it's like a trillion dollar co-op.

VISA itself is a business owned by no one--it's merely shared information between different banks and financial institutions. Yet VISA itself is an independent business that makes independent profits. "Hmm?" you ask? Ok, here's how it works: "VISA" collects a percentage of all transactions that move through the "VISA" network (almost 1.5 TRILLION dollars). Then, the total "commission", if you will, is equally distributed to each of the banks by VISA. So basically, the more a huge bank makes, the more the little subscriber gets. So of course even the tiniest bank wants to be a VISA person (to get a cut of the action), which increases VISA's (the company who no one knows) market share. You see what I'm getting at now, don't you? It's parasitic in a way, almost viral. Either you are on the bus/bandwagon/gravy train/etc. or off the bus/bandwagon/gravy train/etc.

Anyway, in a nut shell, what this means is that banks get to have a piece of the action of EVERY credit purchase made at ANY STORE that accepts VISA. They don't just move money for free, you know..

Anyway, now you can do it with your debit card, so they have a piece of the action for almost every CHECK purchase made. All of this goes into the banks' pockets.

And now, your computer's operating system will be able to do quick, convenient purchases while the New First Microsoft/Passport Bank, Ltd./all the other banks in the world collect a toll on EVERY ITEM you purchase online. This is just a cheap ploy by Microsoft to get a little more market share. Don't worry; the real enemy here is the BANKS, and you don't even see it.

Cheers.

The word "chaordic" is used as defined by Dee Hock (the person behind VISA) at http://www.chaordic.org and in his book "Birth of the Chaordic Age", which is essentially processes at the boundary between CHAos and ORDer and the social implications for how to design effective and responsive organizations for a dynamic society. The focus will be specially on computer simulations to support part of the goal defined here http://www.chaordic.org/who_hist.html#FourCond of: "Development of visual and physical models of chaordic organizations so that people have something to examine, experiment with, and compare to existing organizations. The models must contain the ethical and spiritual dimensions generally lacking in current models. In addition, computer simulations will need to be created to allow people to quickly see how clarity of purpose and principles allow institutions to self-organize, evolve over decades, and link in new patterns for an enduring constructive society."

People are invited to join the mailing list if they want at this page http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/ simulchaord-discuss if you want to contribute to project related discussions or submit snippets of code (with the understanding contributions will be archived and can be incorporated into the project under the GPL license). I have been posting some artificial life links there related to modelling social systems to get things started -- one of the first was a link to the Atlantic Monthly article discussed in this Slashdot thread. For now, I am using use the list to record my own musings on related simulation issues including design, architecture, and use cases. I will also be posting my experiences as I try to create such simulations. Feel free to lurk for a while or chime in.

Here is a page leading to the entire mailing list archives (aroudn twenty messages so far): http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/pipermail/simulch aord-discuss/

The main project page is here: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/simulchaord/ Cooperative development of releases of code is hosted on Savannah using CVS although I haven't yet put up any content (files or homepage) besides what's archived in the mailing list.

At the moment I am looking at using Swarm http://www.swarm.org as the base -- although I may just use Python instead -- or even use both for different aspects.

The word "chaordic" is used as defined by Dee Hock (the person behind VISA) at http://www.chaordic.org and in his book "Birth of the Chaordic Age", which is essentially processes at the boundary between CHAos and ORDer and the social implications for how to design effective and responsive organizations for a dynamic society. The focus will be specially on computer simulations to support part of the goal defined here http://www.chaordic.org/who_hist.html#FourCond of: "Development of visual and physical models of chaordic organizations so that people have something to examine, experiment with, and compare to existing organizations. The models must contain the ethical and spiritual dimensions generally lacking in current models. In addition, computer simulations will need to be created to allow people to quickly see how clarity of purpose and principles allow institutions to self-organize, evolve over decades, and link in new patterns for an enduring constructive society."

People are invited to join the mailing list if they want at this page http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/ simulchaord-discuss if you want to contribute to project related discussions or submit snippets of code (with the understanding contributions will be archived and can be incorporated into the project under the GPL license). I have been posting some artificial life links there related to modelling social systems to get things started -- one of the first was a link to the Atlantic Monthly article discussed in this Slashdot thread. For now, I am using use the list to record my own musings on related simulation issues including design, architecture, and use cases. I will also be posting my experiences as I try to create such simulations. Feel free to lurk for a while or chime in.

Here is a page leading to the entire mailing list archives (aroudn twenty messages so far): http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/pipermail/simulch aord-discuss/

The main project page is here: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/simulchaord/ Cooperative development of releases of code is hosted on Savannah using CVS although I haven't yet put up any content (files or homepage) besides what's archived in the mailing list.

At the moment I am looking at using Swarm http://www.swarm.org as the base -- although I may just use Python instead -- or even use both for different aspects.

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.

Visa International is a very unusual organization. It's a corporation owned collectively by the 22,000 banks that issue Visa cards. Visa International runs the interbank network and sets the standards. All those competing banks agree to comply with Visa's standards. Yet the banks own Visa, so it can't walk all over them. Hock calls this a "chaord".

Here are Hock's design principles for such organizations:

• Power and function must be distributive to the maximum degree. No function should be performed by any part of the whole that could reasonably be done by any more peripheral part, and no power vested in any part that might reasonably be exercised by any lesser part.
• It must be self-organizing. All participants must have the right to organize for self-governance at any time, for any reason, at any scale, with irrevocable rights of participation in governance at any greater scale.
• Governance must be distributive. No individual, institution, or combination of either or both, particularly management, should be able to dominate deliberations or control decisions at any scale.
• It must seamlessly blend both cooperation and competition. All parts must be free to compete in unique, independent ways, yet be linked so as to sense the demands of other parts, yield self-interest and cooperate when necessary to the inseparable good of the whole.
• It must be infinitely malleable, yet extremely durable. It should be capable of constant, self-generated, modification of form or function, without sacrificing its essential purpose, nature or embodied principle, thus releasing human ingenuity and spirit.
• It must be cooperatively and equitably owned. All relevant and affected parties must be eligible to participate in functions, governance and ownership.

These principles sound like unrealizible ideals. Yet they created the largest business organization on earth. Anybody thinking about open-source alternatives to Passport needs to understand how Hock pulled this off.

What if "ownership" is defined as a "nontransferable right to participate" within an idea-trading community?


http://www.chaordic.org/chaordic/what_des.html
http://www.partnershipway.org/unesco.html
http://technocrat.net/947223068/index_html

Huh? Believe it or not, a *shared ownership* model organizes the most successful global enterprise on earth: VISA International.

http://www.chaordic.org/chaordic/res_choasgood.htm l
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/05/deehock.html
http://visa.com/av/who/main.html

Dee Hock, who founded VISA, tells a bit of the story like this:

"In the strict legal sense, VISA was a non-stock, for-profit membership corporation. In another sense, it was an inside-out holding company in that it did not hold, but was held by its functioning parts. The financial institutions that create its products were, at one and the same time, its owners, its members, its suppliers, its customers, its subjects, and its superiors.

"It could not be bought, raided, traded, or sold, since ownership was in the form of perpetual, nontransferable rights of participation.

"VISA espoused no political, economic, social, or legal theory, thus transcending language, race, custom, and culture to successfully bring together people and institutions of every political, social, and religious persuasion.

"It went through a number of wars and revolutions, the belligerents continuing to share common ownership and never ceasing reciprocal acceptance of products, even though they were killing one another."

! Dee Hock estimates that if equitable ownership had been extended to merchants and card-holders, (all users), Visa would today be *four times* more successful today. !

Something to consider when deciding whether "for profit" or "non profit".. Neither And Both =)

What if "ownership" is defined as a "nontransferable right to participate" within an idea-trading community?


http://www.chaordic.org/chaordic/what_des.html
http://www.partnershipway.org/unesco.html
http://technocrat.net/947223068/index_html

Huh? Believe it or not, a *shared ownership* model organizes the most successful global enterprise on earth: VISA International.

http://www.chaordic.org/chaordic/res_choasgood.htm l
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/05/deehock.html
http://visa.com/av/who/main.html

Dee Hock, who founded VISA, tells a bit of the story like this:

"In the strict legal sense, VISA was a non-stock, for-profit membership corporation. In another sense, it was an inside-out holding company in that it did not hold, but was held by its functioning parts. The financial institutions that create its products were, at one and the same time, its owners, its members, its suppliers, its customers, its subjects, and its superiors.

"It could not be bought, raided, traded, or sold, since ownership was in the form of perpetual, nontransferable rights of participation.

"VISA espoused no political, economic, social, or legal theory, thus transcending language, race, custom, and culture to successfully bring together people and institutions of every political, social, and religious persuasion.

"It went through a number of wars and revolutions, the belligerents continuing to share common ownership and never ceasing reciprocal acceptance of products, even though they were killing one another."

! Dee Hock estimates that if equitable ownership had been extended to merchants and card-holders, (all users), Visa would today be *four times* more successful today. !

Something to consider when deciding whether "for profit" or "non profit".. Neither And Both =)

1. Open source library of knowledge for developing nations (making the world's intellectual wealth available to all)
http://www.oneworld.org/globalp roj ects/humcdrom/
http://www.oneworld.org/globalprojects/& lt;/a>
http://www.oneworld .or g/globalprojects/humcdrom/copyrigh.htm
http://payson.tulane.edu:8888/
; http://www.globalprojects.org/
; http://www.humanitylibraries.net/ http://www.villageearth.org/
http://www.villageearth.org/ATLi bra ry/cdrom.htm

2. Open source knowledge management systems
http://www.bootstrap.org/
http://bootstrap.org/colloquium/ar chi ves.html
http://www.bootstrap.org/dkr/discussion /

3. Self-replicating space habitats (support trillions of humans in style without overrunning the earth)
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/s ett le.htm
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs /sp acsetl.htm
http://www.permanent.com/
http://science.n as. nasa.gov/Services/Education/SpaceSettlement/
http://www.luf.org/
http://www.ssi.org/
http://www.ssi.org/alt-plan.html http://www.spacedev.com/
http://www.spacehab.com/
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/

4. Pursue the "Ecocity Berkley" vision in the book by that name by Richard Register and look for related visions of sustainable development
http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob ido s/ASIN/1556430094/
http://www.co-intelligence.or g/y 2k_commtyorgs.html
http://www.fuzzylu.com/greencenter/h ome .htm
http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/meta/sust vl. html
http://www.rmi.org/

5. Work towards ending the drug war and pardoning hundreds of thousands of Americans imprisoned on non-violent drug charges. (I believe drug use is wrong and should be avoided, and by all means as it is now illegal, so don't do drugs! But as with alcohol and tobacco and caffeine, drug abuse should be considered a medical problem, not a legal one (except when like DUI it hurts or puts at risk others directly)).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pag es/ frontline/shows/drugs/
http://www.drcnet.org/facts/

6. Teaching tolerance and compassion
http://www.splcenter.org/
http://www.splcenter.or g/t eachingtolerance/tt-index.html

7. Open source educational simulations and simulation construction toolkits (one of the most meaningful ways to use computers in the classroom).
http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/ http://riceinfo.ri ce. edu/armadillo/Simulations/simserver.html
http://www.creativeteachingsite .co m/edusims.html
http://www.workingmodel.com/
http://www.idsia.ch/~andrea/simtools.h tml

8. Preserving biodiversity (when it's gone, it's gone forever)
http://www.tnc.org/
http://www.environment.about.com/newsissues/enviro nment/library/weekly/aa091700.htm

9. Develop any specific sustainable technology in energy (e.g. solar), recycling (e.g. recycle computers), materials (e.g. plastics from starch), society (e.g. participatory democracy & social justice).
http://www.google.com/sear ch? q=sustainable+technology
http://www.edf.org/issues/Recycling.htm l
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/

10. Make corporations more accountable to human needs
http://www.adbusters.org/inform ati on/foundation/
http://www.adbusters.org/c amp aigns/charter/death.html
Previous link vanished, try instead:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.adbuste rs.org/ campaigns/charter/death.html+corporate+death+penal ty&hl=en
http://www.cwsl.edu/news/n_corpo rat e_death.html
http://monkeyfist.com/articles/340& lt;br> http://www.chaordic.org/

11. Reform the "Intellectual property" laws and their related organizations, perhaps so that copyrights are for a couple decades and most patents are for a dozen years and only for true innovations. Ensure that any IP developed with any government money is immediately put into the public domain.
http://danny.oz.au/fre e-s oftware/advocacy/against_IP.html
(Lots of other Slashot links!)

12. If you don't want to get you hands dirty volunteering your own time, look around and find good people (not organizations, although the people may be in organizations) already doing good things. Pick people with a track record of years of fighting for the common good or who have already made a major accomplishment demonstrating commitment and just anonymously give them $100K without strings attached. Example: Marty Johnson at Isles, Inc.
http://www.isles.org/mileston.html& lt;br> Find people just starting a career of public service or a charitable venture and struggling to do good things and give them $20K and tell them you believe in their promise and cause. Expect a bunch of the money to be wasted but give it anyway and learn how to give effectively. For ideas, look at the grantees list of any foundation. Then ask those people who they know who are just starting out and trying to do a good job.
http://www.beldon.org/grants2000_07.htm l

When I was about thirteen, I got about seven books out of the library on money thinking I wanted to become a millionaire. Six told me how to get rich (start a business and run it well.) One of them asked me "why do you want to be rich?" That is the one whose name I remember and the ideas in it have changed my life. For advice on setting a direction of what to do with wealth, read the Book "The Seven Laws of Money" by Michael Phillips and Sally Raspberry, especially the chapter on how foundations fail in their mission and how grants go to people who sound good but usually can't deliver (i.e. how hard it is to give money away).
http://www.seeingmoney.com/SevenLaws.ht m
http://www.hallbusi nes ses.com/biographies_primers/1420.shtml

My wife and I are working on a few of these issues ourselves (and a few example links are to our stuff). We make money contracting and spend it to "buy" our own time for making quality software the market can't or doesn't seem to want to pay for. Even without IPO riches, any competent software developer can make $75K-100K in today's market. Graduate students can live on $20K a year, and so can many software developers (kids make it harder) if they follow the path of Voluntary Simplicity. It's a question of priorities.
http://www.life.ca/subject/simplicity .ht ml
http://www.simpleliving.net/slj/ http://www.scn.org/earth/lightly/ http://www.thegarden.net/simplicity/

Voluntary simplicity leaves a lot of funds for doing good deeds - even if they are done on your own time by using your own money to take time off and develop open source software or do other worthwhile ventures. Or take a job that doesn't pay as well but involves helping an organization that you believe in.
http://www.idealist.org/

There are awesome things happening over the next twenty to forty years. According to Moore's law, desktop computers in twenty or so years will be a million times faster than today's. Already computers can drive cars somewhat well and identify vegetable better than humans.

http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/magazine/199 9/number_3/machine399.html ;

Other breakthrough innovations are happening in technological areas like energy, materials, nanotechnology, communications, agriculture, biotechnology, and robotics. Use your wealth to think deeply about what all this means and do something to ensure human survival with style.

It is saddening to see people spend so much money on less important stuff (another night club in this case). Now if it was a night club where these issues are discussed, then maybe it makes sense.

Capitalism without charity is evil, because capitalism only meets the needs of people with money.

Has anyone seen any good writings that explore this type of approach?

sounds like a great idea.. you might like this:
http://www.chaordic.org/chaordic/wha t_des.html

• 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..

• 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..

• 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..

1. chaorganize

propagate chaordic organization.. distribute equitable ownership to *all* /. participants, (in the form of non-transferable right of participation.)

2. open source

practice the preach, perhaps with a modified BSD/GPL requesting (requiring?) attribution, link.

3. decentralize

a. grant users subdomains within slashdot.com allowing us to discuss [rejected] topics, and distill signal from noise within [accepted] topics. (open our data to user recombination, including alternative graphic "skin" overlays.)

b. insert topic directories allowing users to distill and share opinions on daily topics, ie: GPLvBSD, patents, namespace/trademarks, privacy/accountability, etc. ie: http ://user1.slashdot.com/re/GPLvBSD (save us time, let us avoid repetition and share *distilled* conclusion/opinions)

c. reboot karma to transcend groupthink

d. invite languages other than the english

4. monetize

a. find ways to fairly direct revenue streams to all participants who contribute value to slashdot.com

b. let us openly measure logs to learn whose reputations* gather whose *attention*

c. create a /. community currency, fully fungible with any other, like saxas, but open source, (secure)

d. have your suits propose licensing guidelines allowing paid (fairly shared) republishing of user commentary in other channels

comments?

Why worry about the person of 1999? 1999 is already over. Whose vision is most important for the year 2000 and onward? Whose concept of community, ownership, collaboration, innovation and trade will prove most insightful, ethical and useful? Dee Hock.

Sun's aim is to first achieve ubiquity, and then leverage proprietary advantage

oops! maybe not.. Sun might *not* want to be a nasty bully like Microsoft because that would very bad for Sun's brand name(TM). And of all the hairballed IP complexity SUNW is compelled to manage, Sun's Trademark is the most simple, meaningful and valuable of their (non-human) assets.

Which leads to two points:

b.) The attempt to "own" "open" software standards is seriously risky to Sun's good reputation. Could a smarter risk prove more rewarding? With a reconcieved software "ownership" model, Bill Joy is certainly smart enough invent a way so jini can "make money", and Sun can further its reputation as a company that "gets it".

a.) "Chaordic®" is a registered trademark of the Chaordic Alliance. They might not be policing it, and that might be a Good Thing(TM). Still, it's a most meaningful word, and it's in everyone's best interest *not* to dilute it with improper use. Including Sun's [see b.)]

Richard Gabriel's claim that the SCSL is the legal instrument that creates the "chaord" seems to misrepresent the process so generously outlined by Dee Hock. How so? Well answer this: how did Sun arrive at this legal document? Why does it catch all this flak? Are "all affected parties" included in this week's process to arrive at the democratic principles by which all changes to jini are made? How is "ownership" equitably distributed among all jini/java participants? What or whose purpose does the SCSL serve?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that SUNW is trying to impose centralized top-down command-and-control authority, quite contrary to decentralized chaordic principles. Calling it "chaordic" without qualification adds insult to injury. Answer this: how would Sun react to an analogous misuse of Sun's proprietary trademark? I'd really like an answer.

Still, it's extremely encouraging that a leading software company like Sun is taking inspiration from the chaordic model only partly realized by VISA. Rewards will be great for any company that honestly embraces it. But taking this step half-heartedly while abusing a valuable trademark will fool none but Sun(TM).

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

Take a look at their site to see the definition. As far as I can see it is pleasant BS, but hey, Visa works on the principle...

Ben

"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?

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

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