Slashdot Mirror

So true. And it's sad your post got modded down as Troll, since you are 100% right on, and whoever did that is probably caught up in the ideology behind monstrosity that is modern schooling (of course, most private schools are little better). Escalante failed to make large changes and was taken down by the institution because, ultimately, he was doing what should not be done in schools -- get poor people to think and climb out of their assigned class in life. More supportive links:

Gatto:
    "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling"
    http://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Curriculum-Compulsory-Schooling/dp/086571231X
    http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
    http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
"""
Before you can reach a point of effectiveness in defending your own children or your principles against the assault of blind social machinery, you have to stop conspiring against yourself by attempting to negotiate with a set of abstract principles and rules which, by its nature, cannot respond. Under all its disguises, that is what institutional schooling is, an abstraction which has escaped its handlers. Nobody can reform it. First you have to realize that human values are the stuff of madness to a system; in systems-logic the schools we have are already the schools the system needs; the only way they could be much improved is to have kids eat, sleep, live, and die there.
"""

Illich:
    http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-illic.htm
    http://reactor-core.org/deschooling.html

John Holt:
    http://www.holtgws.com/

Collections of links by me on this:
    http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-October/005379.html
    http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/005584.html
    http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html

Why not just give the school money directly to the parents as they see fit to take care of their children? One proposal (by me):
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/towards-a-post-scarcity-new-york-state-of-mind.html

What about when consumers can buy nanotech 3D printers? :-)
http://www.reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3d_printing

And then print their own solar cells, 3D printers, and matter extractors and recyclers? :-)

Mainstream economics, if it ever made any sense, is on its way out...

That said, totally free global markets might not be that bad if there was a global basic income as a human right for every person to regularly claim some part of the fruits of the industrial commons:
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/papers.html

And of course some way to account for externalities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

And a way to limit the concentration of wealth and power that can destroy the free market by regulatory capture (as happens all too often in the USA...)

Note that Friedrich Hayek said he was not against government intervention if it was based on "a clear set of principles", and a basic income as a human right (which also might smooth out business cycles), as well as concerns about externalities and concentration of wealth and power, might fit that definition:
"The road to serfdom: text and documents"
http://books.google.com/books?id=qg61T_I1mwsC&pg=PA20
"... he repeatedly emphasized in his talks before business groups that he was not against government intervention per se: "I think what is needed is a clear set of principles which enables us to distinguish between the legitimate fields of government activities and the illegitimate fields of government activity.""

Otherwise, without a human right to make a claim on the fruits of the industrial commons, what are you going to do if robots, AI, better design, and saturated demand take your job? Marshall Brain painted that picture, and it is not pretty:
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

And Frances Moore Lappé has already pointed out how starvation is quite possible around plenty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Moore_Lapp%C3%A9
"Throughout her works Lappé has argued that world hunger is caused not by the lack of food but rather by the inability of hungry people to gain access to the abundant amount of food that exists in the world and/or food-producing resources because they are simply too poor. She has posited that our current "thin democracy" creates a maldistribution of power and resources that inevitably creates waste and an artificial scarcity of the essentials for sustainable living."

Some other ideas about freedom, if you are interested:
"Ivan Illich: deschooling, conviviality and the possibilities for informal education and lifelong learning"
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-illic.htm

And from Ivan Illich's deschooling society, that echoes some of Hayek's points:
http://reactor-core.org/deschooling.html
"""
The choice is between two radically opposed institutional types, both of which are exemplified in certain existing institutions, although one type so characterizes the contemporary period. as to almost define it. This dominant type I would propose to call the manipulative institution. The other type also exists, but only precariously. The institutions which

I'm developing a course for aspiring computer programmers. I've been at it on and off for the past year. The reading list is done, the course outline and coverage isn't entirely done but is shaping up. This sounds like material that should be covered. Does anyone have a good writeup or recommended book for inclusion in the course? The Programmers Stone guys sort of cover this material.

You can see the course here:

From Beginner to Master A Computer Programmer's Reading Course So, you want to be a computer programmer?

From Beginner to Master, a Computer Programmer's Reading Course: So, you want to be a computer programmer?

I've been a programmer for fifteen years. Here is my list: http://reactor-core.org/programmer-syllabus.html Some of the books are hard to find. Ted

That book should be required reading in all schools. It's out of print, but on the net. Take the time to read.

You obviously never been or had a 13 year old. They think all sorts of things have "a lot of value" based upon "peers opinion". In fact, Junior High is filled with various peer groups that base all sorts of things on the perceived value assigned to things by the peer group. As one grows up, many realize that 13 year olds don't really know jack about the world yet.

Let's try substituting "13" with "45", and "Junior High" with "the real world":

You obviously never been or had a 45 year old. They think all sorts of things have "a lot of value" based upon "peers opinion". In fact, the real world is filled with various peer groups that base all sorts of things on the perceived value assigned to things by the peer group. As one grows up, many realize that 45 year olds don't really know jack about the world yet.

Seems like:

Adults have a different idea of what value is and since a 13 year old can't really argue with "you don't know jack about the world yet" They sort of assume they are right.

Or

You don't really understand the concept of value. (no offense meant)

Value is always dependent on what "peer groups" perceive it as. Take a great modern commodity: money. If everybody (your peer groups) only ever traded vegetables, meats, timber or whatever on e-bay, what value would money have? In this exaggerated example the participants trading good would first need to discover the use of money, or need to join a peer group that considers money valuable to give any value to the commodity. Even in the real world, the basis of the value of all currency depends on exactly one issue. Trust that money is worth something. (Not that different from: The bible is the book of god because god says so in the bible)

I think the "she's 13" retort was perfect not because she had some deep analytical or philosophical vision of the world, but because Steve just looked silly trying to respond. First stategem of Arthur Schopenhauer The Art of Contraversy.

These guys port scanned 36 million hosts connected to the Internet and published some of their findings. It makes for a very interesting read especially the bit about when their Japanese team gets hacked into during the scan after apparently annoying someone in China a little bit after scanning their subnet blocks. http://reactor-core.org/internet-audit.html

:( At least MS usually buys someone out cause they want something instead of simply to keep you from getting something from the other guys :/
No, and your comment is disturbing. Microsoft has a past history of denying PC Users access to the competition. Spyglass for OS2/MAC/Unix was killed after Microsoft bought them and rebranded it Internet Explorer. So were all the Non-DOS/Windows Sub-Logic games (Flight Sim). Visio used to work perfect under OS2 until Microsoft bought them.

Please remember who your dealing with. The text below is all recorded trial evidence, not speculation.


While DRI and Novell were placing their hopes in DR DOS, IBM tried to end the Microsoft monopoly with OS/2. IBM started selling OS/2 in competition with Windows 3.0 in 1990. Microsoft worked hard to keep Windows applications from running acceptably on OS/2 and to prevent the development of OS/2 applications. Besides holding back technical information needed to make Windows applications work on OS/2, Microsoft prohibited users of its software-development tools and otherwise freely redistributable software modules from using them for any operating system but Windows. The lack of applications alone would have doomed OS/2, but Microsofts attack on IBMs PC business was even more damaging. In October 1994, Microsoft proposed a new Windows license that raised the royalty IBM paid to $75 per machine for Windows 95 from the $9 IBM had paid for Windows 3.1. Because IBM sold between 5 million and 6 million PCs per year, these basic terms would have raised IBMs royalty payments to Microsoft from around $40 million to $330 million a year. IBM could reduce the royalty if it agreed to Microsofts demands to "adopt Windows 95 as the standard operating system for IBM" and ensure that "Windows 95 is the only OS mentioned in advertisement." This meant nothing less than killing OS/2 to get a lower price on Windows. In July, IBM bought Lotus Development. IBM planned to bundle Lotus SmartSuite on its PCs and sell SmartSuite to other manufacturers in competition with Microsoft Office. Three days later, Microsoft completely cut off negotiations for Windows 95. Microsoft later demanded that IBM not ship SmartSuite for six months or a year as a condition to resuming Windows 95 negotiations.

Microsoft was trying to kill OS/2 while Jackson was reviewing the proposed DoJ-Microsoft settlement. On Aug. 8, 1995, the DoJ announced it would not block shipment of Windows 95. On Aug. 21, Jackson approved the settlement. Microsoft was still refusing to license Windows 95 to IBM. With the settlement in place and the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost PC sales without Windows 95, IBM caved in 15 minutes before Windows 95 was announced. Microsofts Mark Baber had asked IBMs Garry Norris, "Where else are you going to go? This is the only game in town." IBM ended up paying $47 a copy for Windows 95. At the previous rate, IBM would have paid around $120 million to $200 million in royalties from 1996 to 1998, but the new terms exacted a price of $998 million and made IBMs PC prices uncompetitive with other major vendors. Ultimately, IBM had to kill either OS/2 or the PC business it had founded.


Full text, http://reactor-core.org/in-microsoft-we-trust.html

Enjoy,

• The 40MW press release would be the largest Solar PV plant, but the Solar Thermal at Kramer Junction is 354MW and has been operating for over 20 years along with the other SEGS style systems. Nevada Solar One is 64MW and will be completed soon.
• Solar Thermal Electric Generation was not included in the $0.42/kWh (only Solar PV), any solar thermal or hybrid installations under this program would only be eligible for the $0.11/kWh and the rules have several wordings around hybrid systems that make it unclear whether a solar thermal/geothermal hybrid would even qualify at all
• After some more looking and reading the rules, they have blatantly advertised 40MW to claim "The Biggest" and get mediots to post their press release and create hype for their company, but the rules are clear on a 10MW limit.
• OptiSolar doesn't actually have a commercial thin film PV product yet, but they have been hiring.

but Bucky Fuller said it best:

- R. Buckminster Fuller GRUNCH of Giants, 1983

It makes you wonder (a) what kind of lunatics are running Debian these days, and (b) whether Debian can hold together as an organisation.

You are certainly right on your book data, and the exchange rate you've got right as well. I'm more interested in motivations and outcomes for people. Paper money makes a very POOR Store of Value. It can suffer both inflation and deflation, and historically anything that can be speculated on can also suffer intentional inflations/deflations (has happened in england several times, happened here when the "great depression" was triggered and also later during the dot com bubble burst.

What I was meaning to rant about is buying power vs goods in their own country. Friend pays about 10.00 USD/mo for an online mmorpg that we pay 14.99 for here in the USA. that comes out to about 6 or 7 to 10.

But whatever. The currency game is supposed to be a zero sum game, but the only one that is such is the forex market. The central banks are free to print as much as they like, since they aren't limited by any stock. You might want to recall that between 1929/1933 and the mid 1950's the Treasury had stopped redeeming paper dollars for gold to foreign nations, and had stopped redeeming citizens' banknotes (read dollar bills) for Gold long before that. (1933 I believe, after Roosevelt had confiscated citizens rightfully earned gold) If they are unwilling to redeem their money with something of real value, then obviously they are either bankrupt or they are dishonest. A dollar bill is not a Store of Value, it is a notice of DEBT. Unlike the colonial Scrip, which was a currency issued to facilitate trade, not store value. However, you are not going to be willing to listen, so I'm wasting my fingers typing this. http://reactor-core.org/america-created-money.html

The Franklin quotes are accurate, if paraphrased from the different tone used in those days.

Ehh, please don't use lame windoze rubbish like Melissa and ILoveYou as examples of some bygone golden age. Mention something with a bit of substance, like the Morris worm, Zalewski's WormNet, Creeper or even Shockwave Rider.

I never said Microsoft Office overtook Lotus and Wordperfect unfairly (although there has been comment on Microsoft using hidden APIs in their Office software to their advantage). Liebowitz's analysis is true in this respect. Microsoft just unfairly closed the market once they overtook the competition.

In that case, there was a miscommunication. I tend to agree that Microsoft didn't unfairly overtake 1-2-3 and WordPerfect (based on what I've read), and I don't know enough about the tactics Microsoft used to maintain its dominance in the office-suite market to hold a meaningful opinion about whether or not they were unfair, or likely had a significant economic impact.

You might want to look at http://reactor-core.org/in-microsoft-we-trust.html It's obviously constructed out of bias, but presents factual information.
Here's the per-processor announcement for the OS, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/July94/94387.tx t.html as you can see it's 1994. This antitrust investigation was started by the FTC in 1990.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/cyberlaw/ microsoft/state_suit.html section 11 details the case against Microsoft's bundling of Office.
NOTE: I never said Microsoft Office overtook Lotus and Wordperfect unfairly (although there has been comment on Microsoft using hidden APIs in their Office software to their advantage). Liebowitz's analysis is true in this respect. Microsoft just unfairly closed the market once they overtook the competition.

Unless Florida has decided to pass a different statute (unlikely) the position in English Common law is that the goods bellong to the original owner (except in four peculiar exceptions that certainly would not apply here).

2-403. Power to Transfer; Good Faith Purchase of Goods; "Entrusting".

(1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though

(a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or

(b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or

(c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale", or

(d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.

(2) Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business.

(3) "Entrusting" includes any delivery and any acquiescence in retention of possession regardless of any condition expressed between the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of whether the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor's disposition of the goods have been such as to be larcenous under the criminal law.

> Where's the 'right to drive', in the Constitution?

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And documented cases to go along with it:
Driver Licensing vs. The Right To Travel

Small is Profitable - the hidden benefits of making electrical resources the right size or words to that effect.

Basically, if you distribute the system it's less prone to breakdown, and that's now economically feasible using things like microturbines and solar power to provide, say, 35% of the power of a city.

AND it's actually profitable to do so for about 200 reasons involving maintainence, grid losses and risk and capital management.

For the chapter and verse on why the power grid has these problems, check out Brittle Power - full text online at this URL.