One needs to look only as far at the French revolution to understand how society deals with extreme inequity or resource distribution.
Strangely, if you treat companies now (as they are in the courts) as "persons" with similar rights - the degree of resource inequity is an order of magnitude more pronounced today than in the late 1700's. In those times it was only royaly who aggregated the wealth. Most people just have not realized that it doesn't have to be this way.
I've had the same problem. I subcontracted an editor, a popular fiction writer (non technical) who was great at marketing to broad technical audiences. When worked as a consultant, my editor (and MBTI INFJ) who would read the material I sent (especially critical emails) and smooth off the technical sharp edges. It sometime took some face-to-face time with the editor to get her to understand, and she would re-write the stuff for the managers types.
I'm shocked to read all the posts saying this is foolish.
The throbbing LED on the the MAC powerbook is the worst - it will light up a whole room at night. The desk in the bedroom has lights on the monitor, the backup drive, the printer, the power supplies, the lynksys.
The lights could be made unabtrusive, they could be put on the back/side, and they could be dimmer.
Most importantly there could be an option on more complex devices to TURN THEM OFF! Why on earth do I want a throbbing LED on my sleeping laptop. Add to that a bright green ring on the 05 version of powerbook G4 power supply... and I have to agree - it gets just silly.
To summarize your argument, you object that private organizations, can constitutionally assemble together to pick candidates which represent their interests, and create rules under the auspices of State law that give the leaders of these organizations the power to select their own representatives for an election?
A mediocre but passable troll. I'll bite.
No, that is not my argument. I didn't make an argument; I posted an opinion on Slashdot. Frankly, not even an original opinion, just one out there I thought needed airing.
Trying to associate the first amendment right of assembly with the actions of the Democrats and Republicans is ludicrous. Assembly is just that, people choosing with whom to associate without any reference to what purpose the people come together. The assembly right doesn't provide any other protection. In fact, the constitution makes (as I recall, I may be wrong) absolutely no reference to parties at all.
The problem is that the US has devolved to only 2 parties, and they have far too much influence on the political direction and choices of individual politicians. They have so much influence; they prevent the growth of any other parties, leaving most everyone in the political system with false-dichotomy, one-dimensional black vs. white choices --- that does not have to happen, except for the existence of a 2 party system. The 2-party system consistently negates possible middle-of-the road solutions.
A two-party system is far worse, as I see it than a 1 or a 3+ party system. People are given the illusion and the story that there is choice, but it is false. At least with a 1-party system/dictatorship, people know they are living with a single entity in control and could reasonably move toward revolt or peaceful coup if they are oppressed. In the US, the story we have a democracy is so strong, most people will not and cannot see, that the political system is so deeply flawed that it must be changed.
yes, good point - although I typically group these under businesses, as they are typically non-profit organizations, and technically they are incorporated. by this same logic the political parties are also businesses (by the IRS definition), so the argument I present above about them being "out of system" breaks down.
While there is significant evidence that human "wiring" is highly flexible and easily changed on 2-4 week time spans, I do agree, the desire to form groups is significant. I also agree with you on the borders that happen around groups.
However, the problem now is that these two, extremely powerful groups in the US are simply (and only) a tradition, and the aggregate effect is not in the best interests of representational democracy (my opinion).
We need to teach that other groups are more important than one's party. We need to make these other groups carry more weight and wean people off the idea that a politician *IS* a D or and R. They are not.
The most important group people need to be thinking about today is this: humans on earth. We're all in the same boat now (environmentally) - and unless we start telling the elected officials to start rowing together, the ships going to take on a lot more water, and so are our coastal cities.
Have you followed votes in the federal government over the last 10 years? Correlation between votes among common party members is incredibly high. It is blatantly obvious that most votes on the federal level go down on party lines.
The point of representational democracy is that the representative THINKS and VOTES their own beliefs, as a representation of what the their constituents want. It is their responsibility to understand their constituents and represent them. This is not what politicians do at all today - politicians primarily represent their party, mostly for financial reasons.
As for not following what the constituents what, examples are rampant. This post is an excellent troll, as it starts out sounding reasonable and casts doubt on a situation that is completely obvious.
The older I get, and the more I learn about US politics, the more the picture becomes clear:
The primary problem is the parties.
The USA has 3 major control structures in the culture: businesses, religions, and government. Each entity within these categories are major hierarchies with internal rules, norm, and oversight (when it works).
The two prevailing political parties are not really in any of these 3 categories, but are (arguably) the most influential and powerful organizations in the society. They literally control the actions and votes of public, elected officials, under threat of reduced support. Now it would seem that they are brazenly making explicit the ability to alter the election process. This level of power in the society is far beyond any other organization.
Having private organizations, without oversight that can manipulate and control elected officials is a very bad thing, and mostly what screws the "democracy" ideals that this country was designed to protect and promulgate. At this point USA has 2 socially-endorsed groups that enforce (as much as they can) one particular world-view onto member politicians with the intent of collecting revenue and support(votes). These two groups are warring over attention of the population but NEITHER ONE really is looking out for preserving the democratic ideals. It is like a poker game, all either one has to do is beat the other party to win, not really play a great game (represent the people). Both parties just private organizations looking to expand their power to promote their view of how the society should be structured.
People don't need them both the voters or (more importantly) the elected officials.
Imagine a world where your senator voted for what your STATE really wanted, and not for what their party line said they should. Imagine a president who made decisions for what was really best for the county, and not for how to get his party's line promoted.
Anyone who has managed very high load webservers already knows that solaris has significant advantages. a much better effort would be a grass-roots effort to educate the Linux community of why 10+ years of professional development lead to significant performance benefits on multi-core, multi-processor systems.
Solaris serves a niche in the market that is growing like crazy now, and most web developers who are building apps today should look into it seriously, IMHO.
So who gets to say what is a bank? Do I get to start a bank for my wooden nickel collection? What about the Albanians, or the Panamanians? What about Linden Labs, do they get to have a bank? What about a sperm bank? What about Liberty Dollars backed with Silver - do people who trade in them get to start a bank? Do the Americans, who basically control the Internet now get to say who can be a bank or not? Beyond the obvious, socially accepted, current definitions of a major "bank" you quickly fall into a grey quagmire of people fighting over what different people are allowed to do with a "bank", and what people are allowed to do in general with resources and money. That fight is not the place for TLDs.
Top-level domains should either be very open (any 3 or 4 letter character might be nice), or they should be generic, as they are now. Tying TLD to the function or responsibility of a domain that owns it will inevitable lead to systematic thought control.
i want to see curved displays - like a giant earth globe/sphere that is a display, or a mounted movable sphere you can be inside of, with your head at the center that displays inward to the viewer. you run around inside and the globe spins, moving you in a virtual environment - 3D WOW fun!
For those people who want alternative explanations, (like that this world is not real - we're living in a simulation), then the "Electric Universe" idea that there are "circuits" behind the nature of the universe is probably very comforting. I'd like more predictive ability, less descriptive pseudo-science before we take it seriously.
oh, and a Wikipedia deletion is a reason to think something is bunk? Science is NOT democratic, thank God.:)
don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is AWESOME, I love it, and want it to expand, however, it is a strange beast and "Wikipedia deletion" ~== not in line with current "Internet Think"
I'm pretty certain that astronomers have a pretty clear notion of what they are up against. sounds a lot like "640K ought to be enough for anybody." misattributed to Gates.
I think: What we don't know is (at least) several orders of magnitude larger than what we know. Silly science hubris tends to forget this; when you are trained as a scientist, and the equation fits for your WHOLE LIFE - it is very hard to let it go.
People don't seem to have a clue about how the "United" "States" thing was supposed to work. Federal laws that "over rule" states were NEVER supposed to happen.
I'll be dramatic: Google is a huge threat to human freedoms.
And now defend it:
Google is effectively an information black hole - collecting information and letting it back out for more money. They are now sitting on $12B in cash to buy other information collection systems (companies). Most founders and owners can be bought for much less. The one with the most information almost always can win any game/competition.
Unfortunately, the problems that google will be able to cause people/companies are enormous, therefore, the money they will be able to get to "avoid" those problems is similarly enormous. Frankly, unless they change their one-way information collection toon quickly, there will be a loud and growing cry to ban/avoid Google rising in the next few years.
While services from the "big" Internet companies offer are often great and useful, the real tradeoff people are making is a one-way street: making these giant companies so powerful. They are not necessarily working in the best interests of ordinary people, rather in the interest of making even more money.
Eventually, there needs to be some capitation on capitalism for the world to be truly global and to balance local interests with common global ones.
I think email in its current form will eventally die. There is no way with increased information transparancy that a global network of email will continue to function efficiently. Simply too many senders and too much spam.
I could work better if we migrate to an invite-only system on top of email (extending the email-realted RFCs) -- one where mail delivery only occurs to individuals from those who hold a key (the public half of a keypair between the two people).
Such a migration will require minimal additional functionality by both existing email clients and servers. I wrote up some thoughts on this idea here http://biocontact.org/pmail/ but I've recieved no response.
I am strongly against this. We do not want the Internet domain naming group deciding which organizations are allowed (approved?) to manage financial resources. If not them, them who? As it stands now, each governement in local areas makes this decision, and that is just fine.
Some things do not need a single global ruleset, and financial resource management is one.
Information drives actions, and information drives what resources we need; thus, information is quite useful when you have no resources: it helps you get them. Mostly the idea of "no resources" is artificial, because it comes from a model of scarcity. In all places where humans live there are resources, by definition. Without food and water, all the people die or leave in about 2 weeks. Read up on Maslow. As for wars, information is a critical part of what people fight over. Ever hear of all the "intelligence" failures that lead to Iraq? The whole case for war and all the reasons the US attacked were based within information.
I agree, tyranny and ignorance exist along a continuum. There is a huge middle ground that we can rest in where people will be happy. There is no need to chose one to avoid the other. Copyright, in principle is sound as an idea, the way it was initially framed. But in practice today, (c) is completely out of control. To lose access to information for a time period of (life of the author + 70 or 95 years), given a median human lifespan of about 70 years... this is effectively information tyranny. The information is never available for use in your lifespan. Your assertions that statements I write are "rhetoric" seem childish and transparent - they do not help your case.
I never asserted that all information is equal. It is clearly not. You put relative value of information in one class that you defined as lower than other categories. There is not one axis of value, but even if there were, each person would get to assign value to information, as they want. Who defined what information is in what category? You? RIAA? ISP filtering software? I don't accept your categorization of "entertainment" and you shouldn't accept my categories or values. As such, I reject your relative value scheme. Each individual has their own values.
Most movies are both art and business: very big $ business, and a remarkable art form. I don't judge what information private individuals want to exchange with each other. Who said anything about any of this being noble?
I disagree. Information is far more valuable that physical resources. With the right information, we know which trees grow food, how and where to grow them, and when and how to harvest them, also which plants grow (just like weeds) that we can weave and wear, and how to build the best structures with available materials. Rinse and repeat for most all of the physical resources people need.
The choice between ignorance and tyranny is a false choice, provided by those who wish to control your access to information in order to take money and energy from you.
I strongly disagree with the implication that just because some information has "entertainment" value that it is of a lower class or less important than other information. Who are you to judge what someone else values and why? You might consider reading more about myths and how they have evolved over time - and learn how stories are the transport layer for the structure of civilizations. Do you think people who make movies do so only to distract us from our "more important" business pursuits? Wow.
So the "harmful to children" line is completely bogus. LOTS of stuff is harmful to children. That is why parents have to take some responsibility to protect their kids.... Oh, think of the children. Yes, think just how terrible it will be to grow up under information tyranny.
The second line is much most interesting. p2p really IS a threat to the nation state system. More generally, free information exchange will erode the power of the state significantly. Lots of people all freely sharing information will mean the whole concept of countries starts to break down. If everyone can get all the information they need from anywhere across the globe and across borders, why do we need those borders still? To protect the physical resources? Hardly. Information is the last (latest) great resource humanity has stumbled upon and now people are making Googles of money doling it out, just like the oil barons, and other folks who have controlled major resources in the past.
The really cool thing about information is that you don't loose it when you copy it, so there CAN NEVER be scarcity of information (at least long term) UNLESS the laws and the state artificially support systems to create information scarcity. WHY WOULD HUMANS CHOOSE THAT? Quite simply, they won't, when they fully understand the choice. p2p works directly against the idea that information should be artificially maintained as a scarce resource by laws, and hence, it gives the 'ole thhhhbbbtbtbtbt to the nation state and the lynch pins of it's power and ability to control the people.
Life is a such beautiful thing. It unfolds exactly as it should. This is good.
Slashdot Mirror
One needs to look only as far at the French revolution to understand how society deals with extreme inequity or resource distribution.
Strangely, if you treat companies now (as they are in the courts) as "persons" with similar rights - the degree of resource inequity is an order of magnitude more pronounced today than in the late 1700's. In those times it was only royaly who aggregated the wealth. Most people just have not realized that it doesn't have to be this way.
I've had the same problem. I subcontracted an editor, a popular fiction writer (non technical) who was great at marketing to broad technical audiences. When worked as a consultant, my editor (and MBTI INFJ) who would read the material I sent (especially critical emails) and smooth off the technical sharp edges. It sometime took some face-to-face time with the editor to get her to understand, and she would re-write the stuff for the managers types.
three words: "Craigslist Casual Encounters"
I'm shocked to read all the posts saying this is foolish.
The throbbing LED on the the MAC powerbook is the worst - it will light up a whole room at night. The desk in the bedroom has lights on the monitor, the backup drive, the printer, the power supplies, the lynksys.
The lights could be made unabtrusive, they could be put on the back/side, and they could be dimmer.
Most importantly there could be an option on more complex devices to TURN THEM OFF! Why on earth do I want a throbbing LED on my sleeping laptop. Add to that a bright green ring on the 05 version of powerbook G4 power supply... and I have to agree - it gets just silly.
To summarize your argument, you object that private organizations, can constitutionally assemble together to pick candidates which represent their interests, and create rules under the auspices of State law that give the leaders of these organizations the power to select their own representatives for an election?
A mediocre but passable troll. I'll bite.
No, that is not my argument. I didn't make an argument; I posted an opinion on Slashdot. Frankly, not even an original opinion, just one out there I thought needed airing.
Trying to associate the first amendment right of assembly with the actions of the Democrats and Republicans is ludicrous. Assembly is just that, people choosing with whom to associate without any reference to what purpose the people come together. The assembly right doesn't provide any other protection. In fact, the constitution makes (as I recall, I may be wrong) absolutely no reference to parties at all.
The problem is that the US has devolved to only 2 parties, and they have far too much influence on the political direction and choices of individual politicians. They have so much influence; they prevent the growth of any other parties, leaving most everyone in the political system with false-dichotomy, one-dimensional black vs. white choices --- that does not have to happen, except for the existence of a 2 party system. The 2-party system consistently negates possible middle-of-the road solutions.
A two-party system is far worse, as I see it than a 1 or a 3+ party system. People are given the illusion and the story that there is choice, but it is false. At least with a 1-party system/dictatorship, people know they are living with a single entity in control and could reasonably move toward revolt or peaceful coup if they are oppressed. In the US, the story we have a democracy is so strong, most people will not and cannot see, that the political system is so deeply flawed that it must be changed.
yes, good point - although I typically group these under businesses, as they are typically non-profit organizations, and technically they are incorporated. by this same logic the political parties are also businesses (by the IRS definition), so the argument I present above about them being "out of system" breaks down.
Stanford prison experiment.
touche.
but pork and last-minute budget line are a separate problem
While there is significant evidence that human "wiring" is highly flexible and easily changed on 2-4 week time spans, I do agree, the desire to form groups is significant. I also agree with you on the borders that happen around groups.
However, the problem now is that these two, extremely powerful groups in the US are simply (and only) a tradition, and the aggregate effect is not in the best interests of representational democracy (my opinion).
We need to teach that other groups are more important than one's party. We need to make these other groups carry more weight and wean people off the idea that a politician *IS* a D or and R. They are not.
The most important group people need to be thinking about today is this: humans on earth. We're all in the same boat now (environmentally) - and unless we start telling the elected officials to start rowing together, the ships going to take on a lot more water, and so are our coastal cities.
Have you followed votes in the federal government over the last 10 years? Correlation between votes among common party members is incredibly high. It is blatantly obvious that most votes on the federal level go down on party lines.
The point of representational democracy is that the representative THINKS and VOTES their own beliefs, as a representation of what the their constituents want. It is their responsibility to understand their constituents and represent them. This is not what politicians do at all today - politicians primarily represent their party, mostly for financial reasons.
As for not following what the constituents what, examples are rampant. This post is an excellent troll, as it starts out sounding reasonable and casts doubt on a situation that is completely obvious.
The older I get, and the more I learn about US politics, the more the picture becomes clear:
The primary problem is the parties.
The USA has 3 major control structures in the culture: businesses, religions, and government. Each entity within these categories are major hierarchies with internal rules, norm, and oversight (when it works).
The two prevailing political parties are not really in any of these 3 categories, but are (arguably) the most influential and powerful organizations in the society. They literally control the actions and votes of public, elected officials, under threat of reduced support. Now it would seem that they are brazenly making explicit the ability to alter the election process. This level of power in the society is far beyond any other organization.
Having private organizations, without oversight that can manipulate and control elected officials is a very bad thing, and mostly what screws the "democracy" ideals that this country was designed to protect and promulgate. At this point USA has 2 socially-endorsed groups that enforce (as much as they can) one particular world-view onto member politicians with the intent of collecting revenue and support(votes). These two groups are warring over attention of the population but NEITHER ONE really is looking out for preserving the democratic ideals. It is like a poker game, all either one has to do is beat the other party to win, not really play a great game (represent the people). Both parties just private organizations looking to expand their power to promote their view of how the society should be structured.
People don't need them both the voters or (more importantly) the elected officials.
Imagine a world where your senator voted for what your STATE really wanted, and not for what their party line said they should. Imagine a president who made decisions for what was really best for the county, and not for how to get his party's line promoted.
Anyone who has managed very high load webservers already knows that solaris has significant advantages. a much better effort would be a grass-roots effort to educate the Linux community of why 10+ years of professional development lead to significant performance benefits on multi-core, multi-processor systems.
Solaris serves a niche in the market that is growing like crazy now, and most web developers who are building apps today should look into it seriously, IMHO.
So who gets to say what is a bank? Do I get to start a bank for my wooden nickel collection? What about the Albanians, or the Panamanians? What about Linden Labs, do they get to have a bank? What about a sperm bank? What about Liberty Dollars backed with Silver - do people who trade in them get to start a bank? Do the Americans, who basically control the Internet now get to say who can be a bank or not? Beyond the obvious, socially accepted, current definitions of a major "bank" you quickly fall into a grey quagmire of people fighting over what different people are allowed to do with a "bank", and what people are allowed to do in general with resources and money. That fight is not the place for TLDs.
Top-level domains should either be very open (any 3 or 4 letter character might be nice), or they should be generic, as they are now. Tying TLD to the function or responsibility of a domain that owns it will inevitable lead to systematic thought control.
i want to see curved displays - like a giant earth globe/sphere that is a display, or a mounted movable sphere you can be inside of, with your head at the center that displays inward to the viewer. you run around inside and the globe spins, moving you in a virtual environment - 3D WOW fun!
For those people who want alternative explanations, (like that this world is not real - we're living in a simulation), then the "Electric Universe" idea that there are "circuits" behind the nature of the universe is probably very comforting. I'd like more predictive ability, less descriptive pseudo-science before we take it seriously.
oh, and a Wikipedia deletion is a reason to think something is bunk? Science is NOT democratic, thank God. :)
don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is AWESOME, I love it, and want it to expand, however, it is a strange beast and "Wikipedia deletion" ~== not in line with current "Internet Think"
I think: What we don't know is (at least) several orders of magnitude larger than what we know. Silly science hubris tends to forget this; when you are trained as a scientist, and the equation fits for your WHOLE LIFE - it is very hard to let it go.
Blackwater... ?
People don't seem to have a clue about how the "United" "States" thing was supposed to work. Federal laws that "over rule" states were NEVER supposed to happen.
http://ca.lp.org/printer_lp20070410.shtml
*SIGH* the USA experiment was a great success. Now it is over, sadly. Move along. Nothing new to see here any more.
I'll be dramatic: Google is a huge threat to human freedoms.
And now defend it:
Google is effectively an information black hole - collecting information and letting it back out for more money. They are now sitting on $12B in cash to buy other information collection systems (companies). Most founders and owners can be bought for much less. The one with the most information almost always can win any game/competition.
Unfortunately, the problems that google will be able to cause people/companies are enormous, therefore, the money they will be able to get to "avoid" those problems is similarly enormous. Frankly, unless they change their one-way information collection toon quickly, there will be a loud and growing cry to ban/avoid Google rising in the next few years.
While services from the "big" Internet companies offer are often great and useful, the real tradeoff people are making is a one-way street: making these giant companies so powerful. They are not necessarily working in the best interests of ordinary people, rather in the interest of making even more money.
Eventually, there needs to be some capitation on capitalism for the world to be truly global and to balance local interests with common global ones.
I think email in its current form will eventally die. There is no way with increased information transparancy that a global network of email will continue to function efficiently. Simply too many senders and too much spam.
I could work better if we migrate to an invite-only system on top of email (extending the email-realted RFCs) -- one where mail delivery only occurs to individuals from those who hold a key (the public half of a keypair between the two people).
Such a migration will require minimal additional functionality by both existing email clients and servers. I wrote up some thoughts on this idea here http://biocontact.org/pmail/ but I've recieved no response.
I am strongly against this. We do not want the Internet domain naming group deciding which organizations are allowed (approved?) to manage financial resources. If not them, them who? As it stands now, each governement in local areas makes this decision, and that is just fine.
Some things do not need a single global ruleset, and financial resource management is one.
Information drives actions, and information drives what resources we need; thus, information is quite useful when you have no resources: it helps you get them. Mostly the idea of "no resources" is artificial, because it comes from a model of scarcity. In all places where humans live there are resources, by definition. Without food and water, all the people die or leave in about 2 weeks. Read up on Maslow.
As for wars, information is a critical part of what people fight over. Ever hear of all the "intelligence" failures that lead to Iraq? The whole case for war and all the reasons the US attacked were based within information.
I agree, tyranny and ignorance exist along a continuum. There is a huge middle ground that we can rest in where people will be happy. There is no need to chose one to avoid the other. Copyright, in principle is sound as an idea, the way it was initially framed. But in practice today, (c) is completely out of control. To lose access to information for a time period of (life of the author + 70 or 95 years), given a median human lifespan of about 70 years... this is effectively information tyranny. The information is never available for use in your lifespan. Your assertions that statements I write are "rhetoric" seem childish and transparent - they do not help your case.
I never asserted that all information is equal. It is clearly not. You put relative value of information in one class that you defined as lower than other categories. There is not one axis of value, but even if there were, each person would get to assign value to information, as they want. Who defined what information is in what category? You? RIAA? ISP filtering software? I don't accept your categorization of "entertainment" and you shouldn't accept my categories or values. As such, I reject your relative value scheme. Each individual has their own values.
Most movies are both art and business: very big $ business, and a remarkable art form. I don't judge what information private individuals want to exchange with each other. Who said anything about any of this being noble?
I disagree. Information is far more valuable that physical resources. With the right information, we know which trees grow food, how and where to grow them, and when and how to harvest them, also which plants grow (just like weeds) that we can weave and wear, and how to build the best structures with available materials. Rinse and repeat for most all of the physical resources people need.
The choice between ignorance and tyranny is a false choice, provided by those who wish to control your access to information in order to take money and energy from you.
I strongly disagree with the implication that just because some information has "entertainment" value that it is of a lower class or less important than other information. Who are you to judge what someone else values and why? You might consider reading more about myths and how they have evolved over time - and learn how stories are the transport layer for the structure of civilizations. Do you think people who make movies do so only to distract us from our "more important" business pursuits? Wow.
So the "harmful to children" line is completely bogus. LOTS of stuff is harmful to children. That is why parents have to take some responsibility to protect their kids. ... Oh, think of the children. Yes, think just how terrible it will be to grow up under information tyranny.
The second line is much most interesting. p2p really IS a threat to the nation state system. More generally, free information exchange will erode the power of the state significantly. Lots of people all freely sharing information will mean the whole concept of countries starts to break down. If everyone can get all the information they need from anywhere across the globe and across borders, why do we need those borders still? To protect the physical resources? Hardly. Information is the last (latest) great resource humanity has stumbled upon and now people are making Googles of money doling it out, just like the oil barons, and other folks who have controlled major resources in the past.
The really cool thing about information is that you don't loose it when you copy it, so there CAN NEVER be scarcity of information (at least long term) UNLESS the laws and the state artificially support systems to create information scarcity. WHY WOULD HUMANS CHOOSE THAT? Quite simply, they won't, when they fully understand the choice. p2p works directly against the idea that information should be artificially maintained as a scarce resource by laws, and hence, it gives the 'ole thhhhbbbtbtbtbt to the nation state and the lynch pins of it's power and ability to control the people.
Life is a such beautiful thing. It unfolds exactly as it should. This is good.