Slashdot Mirror
As We Forge the Web of Tomorrow, We Need a Set of Guiding Principles That Can Define the Kind of Web We Want, Says Tim Berners-Lee (nytimes.com)
Tim Berners-Lee, writing for The New York Times: All technologies come with risks. We drive cars despite the possibility of serious accidents. We take prescription drugs despite the danger of abuse and addiction. We build safeguards into new innovations so we can manage the risks while benefiting from the opportunities. The web is a global platform -- its challenges stretch across borders and cultures. Just as the web was built by millions of people collaborating around the world, its future relies on our collective ability to make it a better tool for everyone.
As we forge the web of tomorrow, we need a set of guiding principles that can define the kind of web we want. Identifying these will not be easy -- any agreement that covers a diverse group of countries, cultures and interests will never be. But I believe it's possible to develop a set of basic ideals that we can all agree on, and that will make the web work better for everyone, including the 50 percent of the world's population that has yet to come online.
Governments, companies and individuals all have unique roles to play. The World Wide Web Foundation, an organization I founded in 2009 to protect the web as a public good, has drawn up a set of core principles outlining the responsibilities that each party has to protect a web that serves all of humanity. We're asking everyone to sign on to these principles and join us as we create a formal Contract for the Web in 2019. The principles specify that governments are responsible for connecting their citizens to an open web that respects their rights.
As we forge the web of tomorrow, we need a set of guiding principles that can define the kind of web we want. Identifying these will not be easy -- any agreement that covers a diverse group of countries, cultures and interests will never be. But I believe it's possible to develop a set of basic ideals that we can all agree on, and that will make the web work better for everyone, including the 50 percent of the world's population that has yet to come online.
Governments, companies and individuals all have unique roles to play. The World Wide Web Foundation, an organization I founded in 2009 to protect the web as a public good, has drawn up a set of core principles outlining the responsibilities that each party has to protect a web that serves all of humanity. We're asking everyone to sign on to these principles and join us as we create a formal Contract for the Web in 2019. The principles specify that governments are responsible for connecting their citizens to an open web that respects their rights.
Now that Microsoft is using google's web-browser engine, google, and google alone, will decide the future of the web.
How many countries use government-run ISPs? How is this going to reverse the trend of the centralized Web becoming hosted on only a few domains? How is this going to combat the current trend of "de-platforming" where third parties cut off access due to public outcry?
World governments collaborating to produce a minimum standard of service and legal rights to a democratic and open web?
That's hilariously feeble at best and freaking scary at worst. (But hey at least they'd lay all their Evil cards on the table all at once.)
1. Porn Wants to Be Free
2.
OK, that's all I got so far.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just make sure that it's open and accessible for anyone who wants to have a presence even if there are others in opposition to that presence. You're not going to be able to please everyone and there are plenty of governments, industries, or other groups that are only interested in control and appeasing them in any way will ensure that you've only really created a tool with which they can abuse or enslave humanity.
And anyone who says otherwise is simply not paying attention. Wrong think? Not on the "Web We Want"! What defines "Wrong Think?" Well don't worry. We'll tell you when you think wrongly.
Many of us envision a web as a place to share ideas, to discuss them, to tear them down, to dissect them, so the best ideas can come forward. You can no longer do that. It's not even the "KKK Neo Nazi Fascist Scum" that is being deplatformed, banned. It's the average user because they said some mean words, or the comedian who said something offensive 10 years ago, as comedians often do. When you start banning the extreme, but legally protected speech, everyone is next and we're at that point.
And while everyone is increasingly starting to have these "WTF" moments, at the same time they keep asking for more of it. After all, it's the "Web We Want".
Nicknames only.
they're too inflexible and clever wordsmiths can twist them into evil things. Better to layout a set of goals and work towards them. Yeah, I know there's a fine line there, and you have to be careful to avoid getting trapped by "end justify means" but focusing on goals instead of principles yields better & concrete results.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Any other "principle" would probably just be the expression of a desire to limit privacy or freedom.
Well that would make reading the news online really difficult because that deal with real people and their real names. Also, with people uploading photographs of others/themselves, names become somewhat of a moot point. You could argue it's their fault but at the same time, so is putting their real name.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The Web is not the Internet. If you don't like what the Web has become make something else that can run on the internet.
By default the internet should be content and platform agnostic. Those are the only "principles" needed for a computer network. If you want something more restrictive than that, you can make your own thing.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
1. Lie
2. Deny.
3. Act surprised.
What was once just a tool for communication has become a weapon, and citizens, governments, militaries, and criminals are all fighting for control of it.
Average people just want their email, watch movies, shopping, maybe a little research, and so on.
Governments want to control what flows over it, and the more authoritarian and dictatorial they are, the tighter they want to squeeze.
Governments also stupidly use it to connect all their important infrastructure control, which just makes it so much easier for terrorists and criminals to attack the things that the average person relies on for their day-to-day survival.
Financial institutions also stupidly connect themselves together with it -- which wouldn't be a problem, except they're so gods-be-damned stupid about it, that it seems a 12 year old child can break in and cause all sorts of havoc and mayhem.
Militaries use it as a weapon to attack other militaries and governments.
Criminals use it like a crowbar to break into companies to steal data, steal money, hold data hostage, and so on.
Terrorists use it to influence weak-minded people into becoming murdering monsters, and as a way to coordinate their attacks on soft targets (i.e. civilians).
Perhaps we don't deserve an Internet. Perhaps, like so many other technologies that started out bright and wonderful ideas, it's all Too Much Too Fast, evolving orders of magnitude faster than our poor Caveman selves have evolved our society and civilization, and We Can't Handle It -- therefore it gets twisted and abused and perverted, as we all see it's become.
At the rate things are going, we may not have an Internet at some point. It may all just fragment and collapse under the weight of all the corruption and misuse of the technology. ISPs may just divvy it up into the 'walled gardens' everyone is so afraid of, and even the highest, most expensive tiers of access will still have limits, controls, corporate censorship, and barriers against accessing anyone else's 'walled garden', that make it essentially useless. Governments, for all we know, may adopt Chinas' 'Great Firewall' model, picking and choosing what their citizens may and may not access, and watching every single byte sent like a hawk. Law enforcement, in their over-anxious drive to see and hear everything all the time without any barriers, may destroy all encryption for everyone, creating a utopia for criminals, who will be completely unfettered in committing cybercrime.
A 'free and open Internet'? Seems more and more unlikely, at least not the way it's being done now. There may need to be an 'Internet 2.0' (or 3.0, or 4.0, or whatever) that has nothing whatsoever to do with the current Internet infrastructure -- or they may try that, and have it quashed and made illegal by governments and corporations' lobbyists. Some talk of a 'mesh Internet', completely wireless. Some talk of expanding the 'dark web', and similar ideas -- but if all the above are made illegal, federal crimes, then are we all expected to become criminals? Do we go back to SneakerNet, and exchange ideas and data and entertainment via portable drives, delivered by hand from person to person?
Do we, as regular people, have enough of a voice to change these dystopian futures of the Internet? Are there enough of us, can we speak loudly and clearly enough, to make a difference? Are there too many average citizens who are complacent, or worse, apathetic, and those of us who would speak up would just be dismissed as fringe elements (or worse, as dissidents)?
What's the mechanism by which the Internet can be saved from possible dystopian futures? Is it technlogical? Or is it socio-political? Both? The answer is important.
I don't have answers. There's too many questions, and too many people involved. Who, really, is wise enough to have the right answers? Is this a problem for The Few, or for All?
" I believe it's possible to develop a set of basic ideals that we can all agree on,"
Ummm nope.
i want a free and open web.
Governments: stay out of regulating the Internet
Companies: stay into making a profit off it
Individuals: don't demand any of the above to do anything for you.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
"governments are responsible for connecting their citizens to an open web that respects their rights"
Yeah, Tim has gone full nuts.
See subject & again, as it's Sunday (God's day)? God still loves us (the poster in it) & results https://apple.slashdot.org/com... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://search.slashdot.org/co... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
* That's only recently while I've been on Linux (July 2018) & 100's of times vs. MANY other botnets/malwares etc. in the past circa 2006-early 2018 while I was on Windows: CONCRETE VISIBLE UNDENIABLE REALITY (see those links as proof). ... & that's ONLY what /. reported on (there are FAR more)
APK
P.S.=> See subject: "It's working: Neville... it's working!" - "I AM LEGEND"... apk
made by nerds for nerds..
the web is also for normal people..
normal people do not understand that browsers connect to other places than the one in the adress bar, ... and normal people use the internet for porn ...
because browser makes do not see advertising features instead of bugs.
normal people do not understand that they need to press F5 to see current page,
because browsers use expirery date and not last updated.
normal people do not understand that copy and paste on webpage creates garbage,
because contenteditable is broken, (and have been since webkit)
normal people do not understand that watching 4K video on their SD wifi devices, slows down their neighbors wifi speed too.
because most browsers makers dont care that other people use the same airwaves/internet, and cry net neutrality if they cant waste it.
due to their nickle and dime everything and god made a mistake if a $ is still in some one elses pocket attitude.
Governments, companies and individuals all have unique roles to play.
And each wants something different from/for the Internet.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
See subject: "... my environment's a product of me" & works vs. threats https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... security pros agree https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
* Do a job RIGHT & do it yourself!
It's Sunday: "IF a man loves the world, the love of the Father's NOT IN HIM. For all that's in the world (lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes - pride of life. It's not of the father. It's of the world). The world & its desire pass away but he who does God's will's gonna live forever..." The lord helps those who HELP themselves.
APK (LORD of Hosts so to speak).
P.S.=> Accept NO substitute w/ security issues (DNS/Antivirus/addons) & slowdown vs. NATIVE hosts:
APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces)
APK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://hosts-file.net/?s=Down... (dl @ bottom)
See subject & again, as it's Sunday (God's day)? God still loves us (the poster in it) & results https://apple.slashdot.org/com... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://search.slashdot.org/co... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
* That's only recently while I've been on Linux (July 2018) & 100's of times vs. MANY other botnets/malwares etc. in the past circa 2006-early 2018 while I was on Windows: CONCRETE VISIBLE UNDENIABLE REALITY (see those links as proof). ... & that's ONLY what /. reported on (there are FAR more)
APK
P.S.=> See subject: "It's working: Neville... it's working!" - "I AM LEGEND"... apk
Instead of reserving it for future use, implement some micropayment scheme and get rid of ads
Without stating my own opinion, here are the principles he is proposing:
CORE PRINCIPLES
The web was designed to bring people together and make knowledge freely available. Everyone has a role to play to ensure the web serves humanity. By committing to the following principles, governments, companies and citizens around the world can help protect the open web as a public good and a basic right for everyone.
GOVERNMENTS WILL
Ensure everyone can connect to the internet so that anyone, no matter who they are or where they live, can participate actively online.
Keep all of the internet available, all of the time so that no one is denied their right to full internet access.
Respect people’s fundamental right to privacy so everyone can use the internet freely, safely and without fear.
COMPANIES WILL
Make the internet affordable and accessible to everyone so that no one is excluded from using and shaping the web.
Respect consumers’ privacy and personal data so people are in control of their lives online.
Develop technologies that support the best in humanity and challenge the worst so the web really is a public good that puts people first.
CITIZENS WILL
Be creators and collaborators on the web so the web has rich and relevant content for everyone.
Build strong communities that respect civil discourse and human dignity so that everyone feels safe and welcome online.
Fight for the web so the web remains open and a global public resource for people everywhere, now and in the future.
We commit to uphold these principles and to engage in a deliberative process to build a full “Contract for the Web”, which will set out the roles and responsibilities of governments, companies and citizens. The challenges facing the web today are daunting and affect us in all our lives, not just when we are online. But if we work together and each of us takes responsibility for our actions, we can protect a web that truly is for everyone.
"the freedom of speech" is not absolute, they just can't pass a new law that doesn't respect "the freedom" generally. The Constitution is also interpreted by the Judiciary, which has determined that threats or incitement of violence is not a legally protected avenue of speech, as it violates the rights of others. You also can't say "bomb" or crack threat-jokes on an airplane for similar reasons, go ahead and try it. There's a $10,000 fine for violating that FEDERAL LAW, so either your understanding of the Constitution and how it is interpreted is incorrect, or you should have no problem going down to your local airport and threatening your head off.
Go on, try it and find out. I'll wait here.
Tim Berners-Lee had the chance to set these guiding principles through a little organization called W3C. The problem is that he made the financial underpinning of the organization entirely business dependent and now it's little more than a rubber stamping operation for big business.
TL;DR: He had the opportunity to accomplish this and he blew it big time.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Fool! Show me where the constitution gives the right to the government to restrict speech. It isn't in there. Anything not specifically enumerated as powers given to the government is not a power the government has. The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights you have, it's a list of Rights that are explicitly and redundantly being taken from the governments ability to regulate. The whole "Bill of Rights" is redundant because it is stating things that governments DOES NOT have a right to mess with even though elsewhere in the constitution it is explicitly state that any power to explicitly granted to the government the government does not possess. Keep trying to spread the lie that the only rights we have are those granted us by the constitution. That is a LIE.
You're an illiterate moron? Didn't you read the part about the Constitution being interpreted, lol idiot? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32
"(7) communicates information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraftin flight;"
So there you have it, one easily found and well-known example where "speech" is legally Federally restricted in some instances. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
Go on, gouge your eyes out and call me a liar again, lol. The words will be there even if you can't read or understand them.
Kthxbai!
The angst is strong with this one.
Involving government is great news, Tim! Now, a working "do not track" flag will never be part of the "Web We Want".
Nobody gets to define shit. There should be a free market for internet access and from there the market players should determine things. In a competitive market there shouldn't be a problem because the internet providers who fuck over users would be abandoned for those who don't. It's only because we allowed government or the politicians thereof to get involved which then proceeded to hand cable companies monopoly access in the 1980s to rights of way at the local level that there is so little choice today. Talk about first mover advantage on steroids. Not only did the cable companies that got in first have an upper hand, but we ensured nobody could enter the market during a critical time that would have fostered real long term competition. Instead "regulations" were supposed to prevent prices from getting out of control- of course said regulations eventually ended in the 1990s. Today we have what we have because of stupid authoritarian policies, laws, and regulations of the past. Of which many continue on (like it's difficult to throw up new fiber lines on telephone poles as an example and license fees to access said poles are exorbitantly expensive in many places making it ridiculously expensive for ISPs that do operate despite reasonable labor costs to actually do it otherwise).
No- what we need is an end to government and its stupid corporate/wealthy owned politicians that you can't avoid anywhere and all the inefficiency that entails (it does not matter if its a dictatorship, a socialist setup of some kind, or capitalist, they all suck). No more forced redistribution of wealth for ANY reason. I don't care if it's for corporate benefit or the impoverished. EVERYBODY benefits without that. But no.. emotional retrick gets the best of most Americans and pretty much all Europeans. And it's the corporations and wealthy that ultimately benefit under all forms of government. The only way to stop that is by ending the systems that enable the forced redistribution of wealth. It's not like the impoverished get anything of significance anyway relative to the wealthy who benefit greatly (once you account for the hidden direct and indirect taxes/increased costs that the socialists and even libertarians never take into account when claiming that the poor don't pay taxes- the hard truth is that they actually do- but it's harder to spot those hidden fees/taxes/costs that disproportionately impact people with less money than the rich).
Almost all the issue with the current web boil down to hosting being handled by gatekeeping private companies. Decentralize that. Make it possible for people to not just consume the web from anywhere with ease, but to upload to the web with the same ease, without the need for a third party.
Furthermore bring back open standards for communication (remember Usenet?). Web2.0 allowed people to contribute content to websites, great idea, garbage implementation, as all the content you contribute, ends up being controlled by the party hosting the website. Make it so content can be hyperlinked in both direction, not just one way, but provide a way to display pages that link to the current one. Also fix quoting, we shouldn't be relying on copy&paste and iframes, give me a HTML tag that can reliably refer to a a section of text from another webpage.
And while at it, fix HTML, seriously. It's seriously lacking for publishing of long form content. We shouldn't need ePub, mobi and Co. to publish a book, that's something that HTML should be able to handle all by itself, but it doesn't. HTML's ability to bundling multiple pages together is rather lacking (a few rel=next/prev attributes that no browser seems to support is all you get).
Does he mean like DRM in HTML5? Some principles.. the W3C and TBL have no credibility talking about values.
Sir Tim.
"Angry nazi retard blows his stack, self-doxes, and cries about people not liking what he feels retardedly compelled to spurt online." -sums it up nicely, lol.
You oppose garbage eh? Then go brush your teeth coward, your meth mouth smells exactly the same.
Feckless nazi twats, lol. Go figure, from cow-fuck Ohio lol.
You're a nothing. Go shoot up a school or local pizza parlor, retard lol.
You already don't matter and are being replaced.
Imagine a place that you could get themes or skins for any website.
Fully customizable and ideally plug and playable (dynamic themes that can accommodate dynamic content).
Literally giving people the kind of Web they want.
The media companies also want to control what flows over the internet (usually with help from governments e.g. Article 13 in Europe) in an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle and maintain control over the way content gets distributed (both so people have to watch their content instead of the online alternatives and so they can suppress news and factual content that goes against the narrative the media organizations want to spread)
How about an internet where we do away with idiotic conventions such as "hate speech" that can easily be abused to censor disagreement?
How about an internet where payment processors are not allowed to deny transactions to people who they do not agree with?
Or how about an internet like we once had: where we regarded censorship as damage and ROUTED AROUND?
Here's what I would want as a long-time professional web developer who initially was very sceptical of the Web and in some ways still is:
1.) DNS - Fix DNS. Distributed, with no single center of control. Conceptually "Namecoin" is the right approach. Use that or find something better.
2.) Offline - Make "offline" a first-class concept. This is where the Web sucks bit time, to this very day. In this regard Fidonet is still ahead of todays puplic Internet and the Web. And Fidonet is from 1989 or something. Make referrers optional for the *user*. Preferably with mesh-networking in the mix (this lies lower than the Web, I know, but still).
3.) Client-side Application Logic - Keep the Web primarily document based but offer a turing-complete application runtime environment as a well spec'd first-class solution. JavaScript actually isn't all that bad, but maybe there's a better way. Perhaps TypeScript or something similar. Canvas and timeline control should be a zero-fuss affair.
4.) Protocols - Clean out, streamline, simplify and fix HTML and CSS. Absolute sizes, no more pixels or PTs, completely independant of screen resolution. Zero-fuss layout control. Make encryption at application-protocl level a must. Make the specification more strict. Broken HTML? Errormessage.
That's what I would want and I think it would fix most problems we have today.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Says the asshole that thinks baking DRM into the web is a good idea.
A rediscovery of the US freedoms would be a good start.
The ability to speak, publish, comment without a political "brand" saying they know a person has no right to "publish".
The freedom to talk about DRM.
To talk about how a nation is breaking encryption and to talk about what is published by whistleblowers.
To talk about how a VPN fail when a mil/gov wants to track its nations internet users.
The freedom to repair electronics and show repair work without been tracked for "counterfeiting".
To talk abut history, cults, faiths without blasphemy laws, nation laws and copyright preventing freedom of speech.
The ability to draw art, make music and publish cartoons about German, Spanish and French politics.
To publish without another nations "brand", think tank, political leadership, faith, cult, NGO, mil, gov, police, legal system able to block publication.
The ability to publish in the USA without consideration of the laws of a Communist Party in another nation.
The freedom to publish about a movie in terms of script quality, acting ability and politics in that movie. Without having an account removed.
To publish without having to consider the politics of a CEO. That any CEO with partisan political views can block all free speech and publication.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I believe it's possible to develop a set of basic ideals that we can all agree on
Really? Been binge-watching Hallmark Christmas movies, have you?
There are huge, powerful actors all over the world stage whose express plans for the Web are all about putting themselves at an advantage while putting those they consider their enemies / opponents / marks at a disadvantage. How the hell are they going to agree on 'basic ideals' when their fondest wishes are to subjugate and/or annihilate each other? Can you really see the Chinese government and the American government agreeing on any 'basic ideals' beyond those that give them more control over their respective populations?
You say "If we want a web that works for us, we must work for the web’s future." I say "If we want a web that works for us, we must work to curb corporate power and arrogance, and we must bring our own governments to heel by making them fear us, instead of us fearing them". Web woes are merely a symptom - it's the disease we need to be fighting.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
We want government controlled censorship. We want taxes on all ISP connections to cover music and video licenses. We dont want encryption. Did i miss anything?
Fear, Hate and Money? Those seem to be pretty good guiding principles.
If you can't outlaw advertising and propaganda on the net, you will end up with a net that is nothing but advertising and propaganda.
The web is not the internet.
There are a large number of problems with the web (web, not internet) including;
Personally, I've come to the conclusion that the web will die, as soon as something better comes along.
LET IT DIE.
It's great and all, but instead of spending effort expanding it, changing it, and "protecting" it, work on creating something better.
If it's a 'free and open Internet except for Alex Jones, who we must "deplatform"', then it's not a 'free and open Internet'.
He may have 'invented' it but he sure don't get it.
Unfortunately, the problems you talk about are just reflections of the wider society (and technology's impact upon it).
I recently ran across some websites on sustainable living, and I realized that we're doing it all wrong. As a society, we're not running at 100% efficiency, or even 50%, but likely less than 1% efficiency. Considering our current inefficiency, we could all be living a better-than-modern lifestyle with relatively little work (no more than 20-30 hours/week) and enjoy said work far more, all while minimizing our impact on the planet. It was truly an eye opener for me.
Don't get me wrong, the sustainability community has some half-baked ideas too, but after hearing some of them I can never see the world the same way again.
As a concrete example, modern western greenhouses are designed incredibly stupidly. They're impossible to insulate and lose their heat quickly at night, so they have to be propped up by burning fossil fuels to warm the greenhouse. This design only makes sense if labor is expensive and fossil fuel energy is cheap (even with cheap solar, it'd be better to utilize the solar directly). It also makes growing greenhouse crops incredibly risky, since by the time you're ready to harvest, you've already spent a ton of electricity on each crop and could lose it all if the crop fails due to a disease or some other problem. The better solution is to build a brick wall facing south and build the greenhouse on the south face of the wall. Over the day, the wall will soak up energy from the sun and radiate it back out at night. Brick walls are relatively cheap and simple and last a near eternity, and the wall doubles as protection against cold winds from the north and a serious insulating layer, so it makes an ideal energy storage system. Lastly, you can throw an insulating blanket over the greenhouse during the night to keep the warmth in even more effectively. At temperate latitudes, this creates an environment where you can grow temperature-sensitive crops all-year round without any heating, even in the depths of a midwestern winter (and at higher latitudes, it will drastically reduce the amount of heating required to sustain livable temperatures).
At first this might seem like a bit of trivia, perhaps only applicable to farmers. However, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be applicable in a suburban setting. A greenhouse of this design about the same size as a typical midwestern suburban home can consistently feed dozens of people year-round. They are very popular in China, likely because they need the higher efficiency to feed their massive population and much of their population lives at latitudes where this design works ideally. In a sprawling US city, each home could have a relatively small greenhouse that would be able to easily feed the family living there and produce some excess for sale or storage, maintained by the family living there. Even in denser situations, a single properly-situated house-sized communal greenhouse could feed a dozen apartments year round (or the suburban ring could produce more food per family for sale to the city center). Setting this up and maintaining it isn't rocket science, and yet I have not seen such a greenhouse in the midwestern US, despite it being the perfect location.
Why do we not do this as individuals? I did a cost-benefit estimate, and a house-sized greenhouse would produce $60,000-120,000 in produce per year with an up-front investment of $30,000 and minimal maintenance costs thereafter (maybe $5,000 a year and likely less). In a suburban setting, there would be minimal transport costs, especially if food was transported to the suburb it was being grown in (perhaps being sold to neighbors). The labor costs are hard to figure out, but growing the produce would likely be no more than full time work for one person. $55,000 is a great wage for gardening/farming, and I do think the higher profit figures are more realistic. This work would also be good exercise.
I don't currently own a house, so I'm now looking fo
Maybe the problem is that we are using the wrong tool for the job. It seems obvious that there are enormous economic and political pressures on the matrix we have now demanding things most would not want. Maybe something that layers a non-commercial mask on top of commodity Internet. This way commercial interests have their place while the mask would protect privacy when not using their matrix.
Dumbass! You are so fucking stupid. You do realize that the site prevents posting once shitbags like you swarm and censor? What a fucking worthless tool you are! Kill yourself now. Save us the trouble.
— the pathetic living punchline that is impersonating gerald butler
> I don't need to prove jackshit.
Neither do I.
True, true. But only because you are jackshitface.
Why don't you stop licking the assholes of random homeless drunks/addicts? That's just nasty! Fucking disgusting pig!
— the pathetic living punchline that is impersonating gerald butler