I feel that these people have a very small world view. I just don't understand them.
Unfortunately, you're showing to have a very small world view, yourself.
Why corporations? Why a totalitarian, heirarchial organization where all the wealth and power ends up in the hands of the few at the top?
Why not worker-run and worker-owned cooperatives? Why not community initiatives? Why not open source? Corporate involvement in open source software was after-the-fact. People created it first, and then corporations got into it in order to make money.
There's no reason that cablemodem access couldn't be provided by a cooperative or a collective as opposed to a corporation. There's no reason that different collectives and cooperatives around the world couldn't work together towards the common goal of international access. Voluntarily cooperating towards a common goal... Sound familiar?
Another thing to remember is this: I write code for a living. No, I'm not digging ditches or putting up drywall. Am I still a laborer? Yes, I am, and I still care more about other laborers than I do CEO's and stockholders. The working class creates the wealth, the employing class merely consumes it.
And furthermore, a lot of people who are going to be at Chicago May Day are going to be day laborers. You know, guys who make $3.00 an hour to work in fields with pesticides being sprayed on them? Do you think that they shouldn't be fighting for better wages and more rights?
It's very easy for a privileged upper or middle class male to say "find another job!" but for the other 90% of the world, it's not that easy. Go to Haitian sweatshop workers and tell them to "find another job!", or to Guatamalen bean pickers (who picked the beans for your StarbucksTM coffee), or to young Indonesian boys who make soccer balls for Nike. Better yet, go to an inner city, where the average McDonalds gets 12 applicants for each open position, and tell people there to "find another job!" How do you think those people would feel?
Do your best to think outside your own personal sphere of understanding. There's a lot of serious, serious crap going on out there, and to ignore it, and call those who address it as "silly" is, in many ways, an act of criminal negligence.
Idiot fucking communist. Why don't you slaughter a few million "counterrevolutionaries" to celebrate May Day?
If you had taken the time to click on any of the links in my.sig, or if you had looked into the history of May Day, you'd see that I am an anarchist.
Which means that, according to the communists, I am a "counterrevolutionary." Anarchists like me were slaughtered, imprisoned, or disappeared during almost every communist "revolution."
If anybody's looking for a good day to protest UCITA (or even out-of-control intellectual property rights in general), I would recommend May Day, on May 1, 2000. Chances are, if you're near a relatively large city, they're going to be having a May Day celebration.
The focus of May Day is going to be anti-globalisation/anti-corporate rule, with an emphasis on labor rights. UCITA ties in with this because most of these bills are meant to help out a few corporate interests despite screwing people (I refuse to call people "consumers").
I, personally, would love to see an anti-copyright contingent at one of the mayday celebrations.
Here's a couple links for you:
http://www.mayday2k.org - Has a list of which cities have celebrations planned, as well as links to the history of May Day and contact information.
http://mayday.indymedia.org - The same autonomous collective that brought you independant coverage of the Seattle and Washington D.C. anti-globalization protests will be helping to cover May Day around the world.
Even if you're not interested in protesting, I'd recommend you check May Day out anyways, since it should be just an all around fun time.
Alright, this is somewhat off-topic, but I was just wondering why the Mozilla team chose to use a red star (a symbol of state communism) as their logo. Wouldn't an anarchist black and red star be more appropriate? That is, if you're into using political iconoclastic images...
If man is inherently good, then anarchy is possible because people can regulate their own day-to-day activities without authority.
If man is inherently evil, then anarchy is necessary, because then nobody can be trusted to be in a position of power.
State socialism didn't work, but what about council communism, which was very anarchistic until the Bolsheviks took over the councils? What about primitive cultures, which basically existed on very anarchistic principles?
Don't put so little faith in your fellow people. It's power that corrupts, so eliminate positions of power and authority, and then we can see where we can go from there.
I keep seeing these draconian laws being passed by our government, and these orwellian systems being created and implemented by profit- and power-hungry corporations. It seems every day there's a different post to Slashdot describing some new method for controlling the flow of information and the freedoms that we should be taking for granted...
And what are we doing about it? Why do we keep allowing our rights and freedoms to be taken away?
Why are those in power doing this to us? That's easy to answer: Because they can. Because anybody in power will seek to extend their power and control.
Why are we allowing this to happen? I don't know. Some of us are fighting back as much as we can, but most of us simply post to Slashdot and complain.
Listen up! All this bullshit that we've been fed ("We live in a free country!", "The economy is doing great!"), it's all just that: bullshit! We're losing our rights and freedoms on a daily basis, our economy is fake (the drop on last Friday was equivalent to Black Tuesday in 1929), people all over the world are being forced into sweatshop slavery in the name of "economic progress", and our environment is being raped and destroyed at an alarming rate in the name of profit.
And most importantly? The technology that we all love and support is being turned back on us in order to control and monitor people. They're usurping something that they have no right to usurp. We have to put the power of technology back into the hands of the people!
It's time to fight back! It's time for a revolution!
Their whole market position is based on intellectual property. Intellectual property only exists because the government uses laws, courts, and ultimately police and military to protect it.
If governments refused to protect IP, then Microsoft wouldn't have been able to stop people from copying and distributing their software. Now, true, they still could have made money, by doing the same thing Red Hat and the like do, but there's *no* way they could have gotten the position in the market that they have without government protection.
Also a big point is that Microsoft Corporation exists because corporations are allowed to exist. A corporation is a holding of various companies by a single entity via a government-granted charter. Without the government to enforce charters (via the laws and courts, etc), there would be no monolithic group which ties all the various ownings of Microsoft together. You would have much more of a "free market" this way, but for some reason laissez-faire proponents never consider this option (eliminating corporations).
Also, to a lesser extent, there's the large amounts of corporate welfare and the ability to exploit cheap prison (ie, slave) labor for packaging. All of these things come from the government and allow Microsoft to have an even greater foothold in the market.
You can be very rich and powerful and not be a part of the ruling class. Take a look at the DuPont family, or do a websearch for "Bohemian Grove" for more information.
Remember, Bill Gates is trying to get into the ruling class. What makes you think that the families who have been in it for 200 years would welcome any newcomer with open arms?
First of all, I have the distinct feeling that this was leaked out by Microsoft in order to help out their plummeting stock price. But let's assume it's true, and the government is being a wuss about this whole debacle.
Now, I'm no fan of governments, far from it. However, I'm also no fan of huge corporations. A couple centuries ago, some of the insanely rich people who ran our country realized that sometimes it's good to restrain other insanely rich people from becoming increasingly insanely rich. The reason, is that if those ambitious businessmen (read: greedy assholes) who were already insanely rich started proceeding in an unsporting way, they may keep the others from being as insanely rich as they are. Thus, we have the antitrust acts.
But here's the deal: The rich created the government, including the whole *concept* of government in the first place. No poor farmer in the middle of revolutionary America thought "Yes, let's overthrow the British aristocracy, and replace it with something a little more close to home." Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison, etc., were the bourgoisie of the time, and thus imposed their ideas of a government on people who had just helped them revolt from the last one.
And so, Microsoft benefits greatly from the advantages of having a government around to do it's bidding. How? Well, there's the obvious IP laws. Who does MS go to when they find somebody who is pirating their software, en masse? The government. They also have other advantages that they get from the government, including the use of prison labor to package their software, and I'm quite sure that the cities of Redmond and Seattle, as well as the state of Washington, have gone to great lengths to accomodate them in any way they could (corporate welfare, repealing of land development laws, etc).
But now, the government feels squeamish about angering Microsoft? Why? Microsoft only exists because of the government, why are they scared?
Well, here's my little conspiracy theory:
The insanely rich of our time (C. Wright Mills called them the Power Elite, but I prefer Marx and Bakunin's term, the Ruling Class) have two conflicting problems in Microsoft: First, Bill Gates is not a part of the ruling class, despite his wealth. The reasons are that he did not go to (and graduate from) the right schools, his parents are merely upper-upper-middle class, and his wealth is mostly stock value, not hard, concrete, built-off-the-labor-of-slaves-and-immigrants wealth like that of the DuPonts or the Vanderbilts. Because of this, and because Bill Gates has tried to enter into the ruling class, the DOJ case is a matter of showing Mr. Gates where his place is in the social darwinist jungle.
On the other hand, what we've found amongst the ruling class/power elite is an interesting progression of capitalism. It's nothing really new, globalisation, it's basically a mixture of laissez faire theory, colonialism, and a little bit of fascism mixed in for good measure. The basic idea is, however, that government intervention and interference is not a good thing. So what you have is a generation of the ruling class who hasn't read their history properly. They don't remember the causes of the great depression, or any of the various recessions. They simply read their Friedman or Rothbard and insist that those theories are implemented.
Remember, capitalism is highly unstable. Think what would happen if Microsoft were to continue growth unchecked, without fear of government intervention. They could grow to huge proportions, encompassing massive industries and markets. Then, when they're valued at about 3 trillion dollers, their stock value plummets. How would that affect the economy? Exactly. So, we have governments and certain restrictions to make sure that that doesn't happen (unstable economy == popular revolution, usually).
But now, like I said, we have a generation of the ruling class that hasn't learned from history. They're doing things like repealing the glass-steagall act. They're allowing the CBS/Viacom and AOL/Time-warner mergers to go through without so much as a peep. They may talk about "getting government off our backs", but in reality, they keep increasing our military, increasing the police force, and increasing corporate welfare. Why? Because when the second great depression hits from all this unchecked capitalism, they'll need a strong military and police force in order to preserve "peace".
Republican rhetoric about small government sounds well and good when you're listening to Rush Limbaugh, but the reality is that although personal welfare has been reduced and limited, schools are underfunded, and health care is expensively privatized, the government will still be doing it's best to break union strikes, beat down inner city rebellions, pepper spray peaceful protestors, as well as spreading this form of American "democracy" across the globe. And at the same time, they'll be cutting a check to GM in order to keep them from moving yet *another* plant down to Mexico so they can exploit cheap labor. And then GM will move down anyways.
So, what am I getting at? Well, basically, my point is that we should be worried. Worried, and angry, because the government would dare be scared at the prospect of breaking up Microsoft, when almost all of Microsoft's wealth has been acquired with the help of the government and government intervention.
Cars, computers, medicine, software, music, art. I was under the impression that *people* made these things, not corporations. A corporation is only a piece of paper (a charter). Open source shows that it's more than possible to exist without huge monolithic corporations.
No money? Definitely possible, western culture seems to be the only one that can't imagine society without a centrally controlled monetary system. On the other hand, who said that corporations are synonymous with money? You can get rid of corporations and still have an economy. You could even do vice-versa if you're ambitious.
Really think about what you're saying before you say it.
I have to say, I am very impressed with the level of dedication to freedom that the authors of Freenet have expressed. Let me address a few points that people have been making, though.
"Freenet could be used by pedophiles and terrorists." Okay, this is kind of ridiculous. In a way, saying this makes it seem as though there are is a large army of child pornographers just waiting for an anonymous network. Whether Freenet existed at all, pedophiles would still exist, and they aren't decreasing or increasing due to the internet. Pedophilia is a social and/or mental illness, and until you address that illness, FreeNet or not, pedophiles will still exist.
As for terrorists, who is a terrorist? Was Martin Luther King? The FBI thought so. What about Abbie Hoffman, or Gloria Steinem? Despite what people believe, our government is not terribly worried about the bomb-setting religious fanatics that they portray in the movies, they're worried about the peaceful anarchists and libertarians who feel that the real criminals reside in the oval office and/or attend stockholder meetings. Right-wing militia and hate groups are hardly ever bothered by the authorities until they commit a murder or assault. On the other hand, peaceful groups like Earth First! or Food Not Bombs are constantly hassled by police and the FBI, for "terrorist" behaviour such as blocking a bulldozer or giving away free food to the homeless.
I support FreeNet because hoping for a better future is a dangerous idea. I feel that it is necessary to have a medium where this dangerous idea can be spread without fear of incrimination.
"What about all the warez and mp3's?" What about them? More importantly, what about all the independant game developers and musicians and film makers that will now have a fantastic medium for spreading their work?
People need to do away with the idea that corporations are worth saving and protecting. We can do without them, especially the ones that are focused on making money off of the art and music of others. If the major labels all fail miserably because of MP3's, would it be a major loss? Honestly? What if in it's wake, a couple thousand indie labels started up? I not only do not fear that outcome, I anxiously await it.
I would like to help out any way that I can (I know perl, but not Java). I'll see how I can get involved.
What pisses me off is that my company's share prices were just slammed, for no frickin reason other than the fact that we are a software company. Sure, we do NT software, but we also do Solaris and HP-UX, SCO, etc. I lost over $150,000 today. That sucks. No frickin reason. We're not monopolists, we write damn good software, and we just had another killer quarter.
Welcome to capitalism, buddy. Not just capitalism, one of the greatest examples of a capitalist bullmarket that the US has seen since around 1929.
It is an accepted fact by critics and apologists of capitalism alike that it is an incredibly unstable system, with highs, and lows that match those highs. That's why governments exist, both to protect the private property of the rich, and to intervene into the economy in order to stabilize it. Governments exist because of capitalism, and capitalism couldn't exist without governments. Of course, you might ask why the government is attacking Microsoft, and not helping them, considering their market value. The reason, although it may sound conspiratory, is that there are stronger forces than MS out there, pulling the strings. Forces that have *real* money, not inflated stock-based money.
As for the $150,000 lost in stocks, I'm sorry if I can't shed much of a tear, not when millions of Americans are living in abject poverty. If you're working for the money alone, then you just have to accept things like this, because the same bullmarket that can make you rich can take it all away. If you're working with technology because you love it, however, my suggestion is to take the money you have (which I'm assuming is a sizable amount), quit your job, create a simpler, more holistic environment for yourself, and write free software in your own interest and the interests of fellow hackers. If you truly love high-tech, don't waste your talents for the profit of the very few.
If all the future of technology holds is the promise of toilets that can email, I'm gonna grab an old 386 with linux on it, move out to the boonies, and live out my life in peace and sensibility.
Technology could be used to start a real revolution, but instead we call networked toasters a "revolution" and leave it at that.
I love technology, I really do. But the way these IPO hungry corporations treat it, I'm starting to think John Zerzan may have a point.
No, this is the shocking truth... it's much, much harder and more valuable to society to be an organizer, than a worker. The organizers of society are what create wealth. These are the people who take risks to build companies and hire people. Workers very rarely take risks.
If tomorrow, all the managers, CEO's and stockholders dropped off the face of the planet, the world would function just fine. In fact, as Open Source/Free Software has shown, it arguably would function much better than ever before. Not because there would be a lack of organization, far from it. But because there wouldn't be any coercive organization.
Don't give me this Ayn Rand ridiculousness about the ruling class holding the world together. Revolutionary Spain, Open Source, worker cooperatives, all these things show that coercive organization is destructive, and surely not worthy of a reward, especially the kind of obscene awards that CEO's give themselves. Is the skill to coercively organize people so wonderful that it is worth 419x more than the skill to produce something?
And to all those workers out there who actually think this guy makes sense, take a look at this section of his website:
I am a former Vice President of Alpha Base Systems, Inc, former Vice President of Air-Shields Information Systems (now Hill-Rom Netlynx), and former Chief Technology Officer of EduPoint.com. I am currently President of a small consulting company called Silicon Engine, Inc.
Of course he's going to defend the right of the ruling class to rule, because he's trying so desperately to enter into it.
Finally, nerds have realised something. It's something that's not a very easy thing to come to terms with, but it'll change your outlook once you do.
No matter how many zeroes we may have on the end of our paychecks, we are still working class
Not middle class (which doesn't really exist outside of tax forms), not ruling class, not even managerial class, but working class. This is simply because, we actually produce the products, we actually create the wealth. And how does our society (more importantly, the people with the wealth) treat people who create the wealth?
They may wine and dine us if there aren't many of us. But they're always looking for ways to find people who'll work for less, take more shit, and be even more scared of being fired than you are. Whether that means farming out work to India, or hiring students right out of college, or via other means, they're doing it. But in the meantime, we have power, right? Wrong. One thing that people in power have never willingly granted the working class is power. Once we start challenging their power, they'll ask the restaurant bouncer to throw this bum out on the sidewalk, because they're through wining and dining.
So how do we fight these people (the "Ruling Class", if I may use a term popular in anarchist/socialist discussion) and their profit-driven concepts of intellectual "freedom" and "property", which are completely at odds with our definitions? We have money, that's true. But think about the truly idealistic and skillful hackers. The Tim Berners-Lee's, or the Linus's, or the Steve Wozniak's. Some have made a very decent chunk of change, but nothing compared to Jim Clark, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs. And definitely nothing compared to the RIAA, the WTO, or the MPAA.
I don't have a complete solution, but a step in the right direction is greater collaboration with other working class people. Whether it's construction workers (throw out any classist preconceptions you have; which would you rather associate yourself with, a construction worker who's more than willing to get their hands dirty and get some work done, or some manager in an expensive suit that reads email all day and pays for luxury trips on the company credit card?), biotechnologists, telecommunications workers, or anyone else who actually accomplishes something in their nine-to-five. More importantly, anybody who is upset by how the corporation they work for is distorting their work and using it for unethical means (this could be everyone from GM to Amazon.com to Monsanto to Disney).
Think about it. Geeks aren't the only ones pissed off by the actions of the rich and powerful.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. - Preamble to the IWW constitution.
...where you can get arrested, get labeled as an anarchist, get an arrest record, pay a whopping fine, give ammunition to those forces calling for a state crackdown, and go home having accomplished nothing but feeling like you've accomplished something.
You're saying that Seattle accomplished nothing? That the university occupations haven't accomplished anything? That the 9-month long UNAM student occupation was worthless? That the Zapatistas should just give up and vote for somebody different in the next Mexican election? Where have you been?
Oh yeah -- before you flame me, let me point out that I've been an activist since the early '80's and have been helping to build the Michigan Green Party for the last 7 years. I know what I'm talking about -- been there, done that. I don't disagree with your ends -- just your means.)
Ah, so you're a Green. Great, why don't you just keep writing your letters and soliciting donations, voting for candidates that have been proven ineffectual, and hoping that you can make capitalism more "environmental" and "caring" any more than you can make the marxist state "egalitarian" and "democratic."
Meanwhile, I'll be focusing on things a little bit more realistic.
Protest is to effective political change as masturbation is to sex -- it feels great, but there's no chance at a long-term effect.
Go read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. Protest, striking, sabotage, etc., are all very strong parts of our history,and they're the reason you're able to write emails to fellow "Greens" who have faith in the capitalist system that otherwise would have you working in a sweatshop.
You don't get things accomplished by continually demanding and attacking. At some point you have to get off the streeets and take to the ballot box!
Why, so I can choose my temporary dictator? That's not democracy, and it is definitely not freedom.
Be one of *them*, not just some hippydippy-wannabe, who thinks that simply being morally correct is going to change anybody's mind.
If you'd like to be an ineffectual liberal (probably middle-to-upper class, I'm betting, as most Greens are), that's your choice. The fact of the matter is that a couple of days of lockdowns, occupations or strikes would accomplish the kind of awareness that Greens haven't been able to attain with years of working "within the system".
On April 16th, a diverse group of protesters will be converging on Washington DC to protest the IMF. More importantly, though, they will be protesting corporate rule and the placement of profit over freedom.
It just so happens that I found this on the RIAA website:
> The RIAA is located at: > 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300 > Washington, DC 20036 > Phone: (202) 775-0101 > Fax: (202) 775-7253.
If I'm not mistaken, this isn't that far from where the A16 action will occur. We need to organize and get our voices heard! We have a few different options, from physically occupying their offices and demanding certain concessions, to locking arms around their building, to attacking their building with grafitti and posters outlining why we feel the RIAA and others are destroying the culture of sharing information.
But it will never change policy in your favor, and would more than likely get you branded as a kook with nothing of importance to say.
That's exactly what the system wants you to think, that radical forms of protest don't work. That's ridiculous. Some people may think you're a kook (although they're not usually open-minded to begin with) but even they know *why* you did it. And next time, before you make an assertion like that, be sure you've done your homework. The recent occupations at UW-Madison, UMich-Ann Arbor, and UPenn were successful in forcing their universities to drop out of the corporate sham that is the Fair Labor Association and provisionally join the Workers Rights Committee. And what about the 10,000 person occupation in Ecuador? That succeeded in forcing the president to step down.
Hell, this is just what I can remember off the top of my head from the last few months.
No, these aren't 100% wins, but they're steps in directions that wouldn't even occur if these sit-ins never taken place. Don't be so quick to dismiss such an incredibly effective form of protest.
Come to think of it, wasn't there a thread a couple of days back about rich geeks wanting to put money back into OpenSource? Certainly, forming our own country is a way to help O/S...
As far as funding open source programmers goes, I don't think creating a whole *country* on an island is necessary (if it is, why not just revolt against our government? it's worked in chiapas, mexico so far), instead why not solicit donations from rich geeks with the intent of starting housing cooperatives? Take a small, old house, pack it full of geeks who are willing to live on a budget, along with all the computer equipment and internet access necessary to create really cool stuff, and see what happens.
If costs are shared properly, and donations are sizable enough, it could alleviate the necessity for a fulltime job. And as any geek knows, it's a lot easier to write free software when you're working 25 hours a week as opposed to 50-60 hours.
That's the question that needs to be looked at here. What can we, as a group, as a rising political force do to stop this?
Be careful to remember something: The powers that be ("Power Elite" according to C. Wright Mills, "Ruling Class" according to Marx and Bakunin) like computer geeks right now. They think that we're interesting little beings that do things they don't understand and make them lots of money doing it. But we could very easily fall out of favor with them very quickly. All it takes is some good ol' fashioned free speech to make them revile us more than independant organic farmers.
Right now, we keep basically silent. We may post to Slashdot or usenet and bitch and complain, but the Power Elite/Ruling Class don't read Slashdot or Usenet, because they can't control it (yet, be cautious, Andover). Once we start to speak out against the decisions they're making about the way we conduct our lives, they will hit us. And the louder we speak out, the harder they will hit us. This is the way it is, and has been for centuries.
Now, don't let me discourage you or anybody who's interested in making themselves heard. Quite the opposite, I think that's what needs to be done. Here's a few suggestions that I can think of:
Forget emailing or writing your senator. Honestly, when has that ever really worked? Instead, stage a sit-in protest in his office. Force your way in, and refuse to leave until he hears you out. Notify the press. Bring U-Locks and lockboxes in case they try to drag you out. Contact people from the Ruckus Society or Direct Action Network to learn more about how to plan such an action, and what your legal options are.
Print up some honest-to-goodness propaganda. Check out Subvertise or (if you're really talented) Adbusters for some inspiration. My belief about propaganda is that it should be radical and in people's faces. Don't sugarcoat things, and don't be afraid to challenge people's concept of what's right and wrong. A poster that screams "Copyright Is Theft!" or "Information Wants To Be Free!" is going to intrigue people a lot more than one that says "We think that the DMCA is dangerous to the free software community because of the implications blah blah blah".
Third, there's going to be a lot going on in Washington, D.C. on April 16th. Remember Seat tle? Well, this should be even better. Get your butt out there and make a case against the monopolization of intellectual property. You may want to learn about more of what's going on (it's not just software that IP affects), such as the situation with AIDS drugs in Africa, or the patenting of crops by Monsanto. Also remember that the people protesting are not against globalization (well, unless you count Pat Buchanen as a protester). What we're opposed to, to varying degrees, is corporate rule, greed, and how the Power Elite/Ruling Class are using the idea of "globalization" not to open borders for the prosperity of all, but to create a new form of colonialization. Intellectual property is one major way that they're doing this.
These are a few of the options. I know you said that we should work from inside the system, and that's fine and dandy, but the truth of the matter is that direct action gets the goods. You have to get in people's faces, make them feel a little squeamish (or sometimes downright terrified if the situation is urgent enough), and force them to deal with the issues on *your* terms, without the benefit of having a speech writer churn out the BS beforehand.
flash forward about 10 years or so, i am now the CTO of an internet startup, getting paid way more than i "deserve" by my old scale, and yet all i do is, sit on the phone, talk to the people that work for me, talk to the people i work for, and think... and for me, there is no difference between home and work. i understand now what my father told me so many years ago...
And, to clarify, how does that justify your inflated paycheck? I can understand it justifying your inflamed ulcer, but why does the fact that you've sold your soul for the almighty dollar mean that you should make more than others, who actually *do the work*?
By the way, my father's in construction (and non-union, unfortunately), and trust me, his work does *NOT* stay separate from the rest of his life. He recieves faxes and pages at 10:30pm, and has to review plans and price quotes during dinnertime. And furthermore, he has chronic back problems to deal with, along with strong classist attitudes from the people he works for.
I'm a database programmer, and I've lucked out with my current job, but I've had a few previous jobs, and trust me, there was no separation. I was once paged at 11:30pm at night so I could fix a simple little bug. I'm sure that's happened to a lot of people on Slashdot.
Don't feel as though you're justified in recieving an insane amount of money while people who are living paycheck to paycheck are actually *producing* something. Chances are, if all the managers and CEO's called in sick tomorrow (contrary to Ayn Rand), the world would not grind to a halt, but instead function more efficiently and freely than ever before.
In a way, I apologize for being a bit harsh, but I'm sick and tired of people who make 419 times the average wage of their workers trying to justify that gap. I refuse to believe that there is any justification, whatsoever, not when there's hunger in the world, and more imporantly, when Tim Berners-Lee drives a beat up Volkswagen.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel that these people have a very small world view. I just don't understand them.
Unfortunately, you're showing to have a very small world view, yourself.
Why corporations? Why a totalitarian, heirarchial organization where all the wealth and power ends up in the hands of the few at the top?
Why not worker-run and worker-owned cooperatives? Why not community initiatives? Why not open source? Corporate involvement in open source software was after-the-fact. People created it first, and then corporations got into it in order to make money.
There's no reason that cablemodem access couldn't be provided by a cooperative or a collective as opposed to a corporation. There's no reason that different collectives and cooperatives around the world couldn't work together towards the common goal of international access. Voluntarily cooperating towards a common goal... Sound familiar?
Another thing to remember is this: I write code for a living. No, I'm not digging ditches or putting up drywall. Am I still a laborer? Yes, I am, and I still care more about other laborers than I do CEO's and stockholders. The working class creates the wealth, the employing class merely consumes it.
And furthermore, a lot of people who are going to be at Chicago May Day are going to be day laborers. You know, guys who make $3.00 an hour to work in fields with pesticides being sprayed on them? Do you think that they shouldn't be fighting for better wages and more rights?
It's very easy for a privileged upper or middle class male to say "find another job!" but for the other 90% of the world, it's not that easy. Go to Haitian sweatshop workers and tell them to "find another job!", or to Guatamalen bean pickers (who picked the beans for your StarbucksTM coffee), or to young Indonesian boys who make soccer balls for Nike. Better yet, go to an inner city, where the average McDonalds gets 12 applicants for each open position, and tell people there to "find another job!" How do you think those people would feel?
Do your best to think outside your own personal sphere of understanding. There's a lot of serious, serious crap going on out there, and to ignore it, and call those who address it as "silly" is, in many ways, an act of criminal negligence.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Idiot fucking communist. Why don't you slaughter a few million "counterrevolutionaries" to celebrate May Day?
If you had taken the time to click on any of the links in my
Which means that, according to the communists, I am a "counterrevolutionary." Anarchists like me were slaughtered, imprisoned, or disappeared during almost every communist "revolution."
I take offense to your lame attempt at an insult.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
If anybody's looking for a good day to protest UCITA (or even out-of-control intellectual property rights in general), I would recommend May Day, on May 1, 2000. Chances are, if you're near a relatively large city, they're going to be having a May Day celebration.
The focus of May Day is going to be anti-globalisation/anti-corporate rule, with an emphasis on labor rights. UCITA ties in with this because most of these bills are meant to help out a few corporate interests despite screwing people (I refuse to call people "consumers").
I, personally, would love to see an anti-copyright contingent at one of the mayday celebrations.
Here's a couple links for you:
http://www.mayday2k.org - Has a list of which cities have celebrations planned, as well as links to the history of May Day and contact information.
http://mayday.indymedia.org - The same autonomous collective that brought you independant coverage of the Seattle and Washington D.C. anti-globalization protests will be helping to cover May Day around the world.
Even if you're not interested in protesting, I'd recommend you check May Day out anyways, since it should be just an all around fun time.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Alright, this is somewhat off-topic, but I was just wondering why the Mozilla team chose to use a red star (a symbol of state communism) as their logo. Wouldn't an anarchist black and red star be more appropriate? That is, if you're into using political iconoclastic images...
Just a thought...
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Here's the deal:
If man is inherently good, then anarchy is possible because people can regulate their own day-to-day activities without authority.
If man is inherently evil, then anarchy is necessary, because then nobody can be trusted to be in a position of power.
State socialism didn't work, but what about council communism, which was very anarchistic until the Bolsheviks took over the councils? What about primitive cultures, which basically existed on very anarchistic principles?
Don't put so little faith in your fellow people. It's power that corrupts, so eliminate positions of power and authority, and then we can see where we can go from there.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
I keep seeing these draconian laws being passed by our government, and these orwellian systems being created and implemented by profit- and power-hungry corporations. It seems every day there's a different post to Slashdot describing some new method for controlling the flow of information and the freedoms that we should be taking for granted...
And what are we doing about it? Why do we keep allowing our rights and freedoms to be taken away?
Why are those in power doing this to us? That's easy to answer: Because they can. Because anybody in power will seek to extend their power and control.
Why are we allowing this to happen? I don't know. Some of us are fighting back as much as we can, but most of us simply post to Slashdot and complain.
Listen up! All this bullshit that we've been fed ("We live in a free country!", "The economy is doing great!"), it's all just that: bullshit! We're losing our rights and freedoms on a daily basis, our economy is fake (the drop on last Friday was equivalent to Black Tuesday in 1929), people all over the world are being forced into sweatshop slavery in the name of "economic progress", and our environment is being raped and destroyed at an alarming rate in the name of profit.
And most importantly? The technology that we all love and support is being turned back on us in order to control and monitor people. They're usurping something that they have no right to usurp. We have to put the power of technology back into the hands of the people!
It's time to fight back! It's time for a revolution!
http://www.indymedia.org - Support independant media!
http://www.soaw.org - Why are our tax dollars being spent on training murderers?
http://www.corpwatch.org - So you think only governments can oppress and censor?
http://www.spunk.org
http://www.infoshop.org - Communism is dead, Capitalism is close to it. There is another alternative, and it's time we started exploring it.
http://www.adbusters.org
http://www.rtmark.com
http://www.subvertise.org - Subvertising (also known as adbusting) at it's best.
http://www.ainfos.ca - Keep informed on what is happening in the world, from an anti-authoritarian, grassroots perspective.
http://www.a16.org - Seattle and D.C. are just the beginning.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Why, I'm doing my part to smash the state and capitalism. How about you?
Anarchist Revolution. NOW!
Thank you, that is all...
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
I don't follow, can you explain?
Their whole market position is based on intellectual property. Intellectual property only exists because the government uses laws, courts, and ultimately police and military to protect it.
If governments refused to protect IP, then Microsoft wouldn't have been able to stop people from copying and distributing their software. Now, true, they still could have made money, by doing the same thing Red Hat and the like do, but there's *no* way they could have gotten the position in the market that they have without government protection.
Also a big point is that Microsoft Corporation exists because corporations are allowed to exist. A corporation is a holding of various companies by a single entity via a government-granted charter. Without the government to enforce charters (via the laws and courts, etc), there would be no monolithic group which ties all the various ownings of Microsoft together. You would have much more of a "free market" this way, but for some reason laissez-faire proponents never consider this option (eliminating corporations).
Also, to a lesser extent, there's the large amounts of corporate welfare and the ability to exploit cheap prison (ie, slave) labor for packaging. All of these things come from the government and allow Microsoft to have an even greater foothold in the market.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
You can be very rich and powerful and not be a part of the ruling class. Take a look at the DuPont family, or do a websearch for "Bohemian Grove" for more information.
Remember, Bill Gates is trying to get into the ruling class. What makes you think that the families who have been in it for 200 years would welcome any newcomer with open arms?
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
First of all, I have the distinct feeling that this was leaked out by Microsoft in order to help out their plummeting stock price. But let's assume it's true, and the government is being a wuss about this whole debacle.
Now, I'm no fan of governments, far from it. However, I'm also no fan of huge corporations. A couple centuries ago, some of the insanely rich people who ran our country realized that sometimes it's good to restrain other insanely rich people from becoming increasingly insanely rich. The reason, is that if those ambitious businessmen (read: greedy assholes) who were already insanely rich started proceeding in an unsporting way, they may keep the others from being as insanely rich as they are. Thus, we have the antitrust acts.
But here's the deal: The rich created the government, including the whole *concept* of government in the first place. No poor farmer in the middle of revolutionary America thought "Yes, let's overthrow the British aristocracy, and replace it with something a little more close to home." Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison, etc., were the bourgoisie of the time, and thus imposed their ideas of a government on people who had just helped them revolt from the last one.
And so, Microsoft benefits greatly from the advantages of having a government around to do it's bidding. How? Well, there's the obvious IP laws. Who does MS go to when they find somebody who is pirating their software, en masse? The government. They also have other advantages that they get from the government, including the use of prison labor to package their software, and I'm quite sure that the cities of Redmond and Seattle, as well as the state of Washington, have gone to great lengths to accomodate them in any way they could (corporate welfare, repealing of land development laws, etc).
But now, the government feels squeamish about angering Microsoft? Why? Microsoft only exists because of the government, why are they scared?
Well, here's my little conspiracy theory:
The insanely rich of our time (C. Wright Mills called them the Power Elite, but I prefer Marx and Bakunin's term, the Ruling Class) have two conflicting problems in Microsoft: First, Bill Gates is not a part of the ruling class, despite his wealth. The reasons are that he did not go to (and graduate from) the right schools, his parents are merely upper-upper-middle class, and his wealth is mostly stock value, not hard, concrete, built-off-the-labor-of-slaves-and-immigrants wealth like that of the DuPonts or the Vanderbilts. Because of this, and because Bill Gates has tried to enter into the ruling class, the DOJ case is a matter of showing Mr. Gates where his place is in the social darwinist jungle.
On the other hand, what we've found amongst the ruling class/power elite is an interesting progression of capitalism. It's nothing really new, globalisation, it's basically a mixture of laissez faire theory, colonialism, and a little bit of fascism mixed in for good measure. The basic idea is, however, that government intervention and interference is not a good thing. So what you have is a generation of the ruling class who hasn't read their history properly. They don't remember the causes of the great depression, or any of the various recessions. They simply read their Friedman or Rothbard and insist that those theories are implemented.
Remember, capitalism is highly unstable. Think what would happen if Microsoft were to continue growth unchecked, without fear of government intervention. They could grow to huge proportions, encompassing massive industries and markets. Then, when they're valued at about 3 trillion dollers, their stock value plummets. How would that affect the economy? Exactly. So, we have governments and certain restrictions to make sure that that doesn't happen (unstable economy == popular revolution, usually).
But now, like I said, we have a generation of the ruling class that hasn't learned from history. They're doing things like repealing the glass-steagall act. They're allowing the CBS/Viacom and AOL/Time-warner mergers to go through without so much as a peep. They may talk about "getting government off our backs", but in reality, they keep increasing our military, increasing the police force, and increasing corporate welfare. Why? Because when the second great depression hits from all this unchecked capitalism, they'll need a strong military and police force in order to preserve "peace".
Republican rhetoric about small government sounds well and good when you're listening to Rush Limbaugh, but the reality is that although personal welfare has been reduced and limited, schools are underfunded, and health care is expensively privatized, the government will still be doing it's best to break union strikes, beat down inner city rebellions, pepper spray peaceful protestors, as well as spreading this form of American "democracy" across the globe. And at the same time, they'll be cutting a check to GM in order to keep them from moving yet *another* plant down to Mexico so they can exploit cheap labor. And then GM will move down anyways.
So, what am I getting at? Well, basically, my point is that we should be worried. Worried, and angry, because the government would dare be scared at the prospect of breaking up Microsoft, when almost all of Microsoft's wealth has been acquired with the help of the government and government intervention.
What have we gotten ourselves into?
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Cars, computers, medicine, software, music, art. I was under the impression that *people* made these things, not corporations. A corporation is only a piece of paper (a charter). Open source shows that it's more than possible to exist without huge monolithic corporations.
No money? Definitely possible, western culture seems to be the only one that can't imagine society without a centrally controlled monetary system. On the other hand, who said that corporations are synonymous with money? You can get rid of corporations and still have an economy. You could even do vice-versa if you're ambitious.
Really think about what you're saying before you say it.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
the peaceful anarchists and libertarians
My, what an embaressing mistake. The proper URL is http://www.infoshop.org/faq/.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
I have to say, I am very impressed with the level of dedication to freedom that the authors of Freenet have expressed. Let me address a few points that people have been making, though.
"Freenet could be used by pedophiles and terrorists." Okay, this is kind of ridiculous. In a way, saying this makes it seem as though there are is a large army of child pornographers just waiting for an anonymous network. Whether Freenet existed at all, pedophiles would still exist, and they aren't decreasing or increasing due to the internet. Pedophilia is a social and/or mental illness, and until you address that illness, FreeNet or not, pedophiles will still exist.
As for terrorists, who is a terrorist? Was Martin Luther King? The FBI thought so. What about Abbie Hoffman, or Gloria Steinem? Despite what people believe, our government is not terribly worried about the bomb-setting religious fanatics that they portray in the movies, they're worried about the peaceful anarchists and libertarians who feel that the real criminals reside in the oval office and/or attend stockholder meetings. Right-wing militia and hate groups are hardly ever bothered by the authorities until they commit a murder or assault. On the other hand, peaceful groups like Earth First! or Food Not Bombs are constantly hassled by police and the FBI, for "terrorist" behaviour such as blocking a bulldozer or giving away free food to the homeless.
I support FreeNet because hoping for a better future is a dangerous idea. I feel that it is necessary to have a medium where this dangerous idea can be spread without fear of incrimination.
"What about all the warez and mp3's?" What about them? More importantly, what about all the independant game developers and musicians and film makers that will now have a fantastic medium for spreading their work?
People need to do away with the idea that corporations are worth saving and protecting. We can do without them, especially the ones that are focused on making money off of the art and music of others. If the major labels all fail miserably because of MP3's, would it be a major loss? Honestly? What if in it's wake, a couple thousand indie labels started up? I not only do not fear that outcome, I anxiously await it.
I would like to help out any way that I can (I know perl, but not Java). I'll see how I can get involved.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
What pisses me off is that my company's share prices were just slammed, for no frickin reason other than the fact that we are a software company. Sure, we do NT software, but we also do Solaris and HP-UX, SCO, etc. I lost over $150,000 today. That sucks. No frickin reason. We're not monopolists, we write damn good software, and we just had another killer quarter.
Welcome to capitalism, buddy. Not just capitalism, one of the greatest examples of a capitalist bullmarket that the US has seen since around 1929.
It is an accepted fact by critics and apologists of capitalism alike that it is an incredibly unstable system, with highs, and lows that match those highs. That's why governments exist, both to protect the private property of the rich, and to intervene into the economy in order to stabilize it. Governments exist because of capitalism, and capitalism couldn't exist without governments. Of course, you might ask why the government is attacking Microsoft, and not helping them, considering their market value. The reason, although it may sound conspiratory, is that there are stronger forces than MS out there, pulling the strings. Forces that have *real* money, not inflated stock-based money.
As for the $150,000 lost in stocks, I'm sorry if I can't shed much of a tear, not when millions of Americans are living in abject poverty. If you're working for the money alone, then you just have to accept things like this, because the same bullmarket that can make you rich can take it all away. If you're working with technology because you love it, however, my suggestion is to take the money you have (which I'm assuming is a sizable amount), quit your job, create a simpler, more holistic environment for yourself, and write free software in your own interest and the interests of fellow hackers. If you truly love high-tech, don't waste your talents for the profit of the very few.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
If all the future of technology holds is the promise of toilets that can email, I'm gonna grab an old 386 with linux on it, move out to the boonies, and live out my life in peace and sensibility.
Technology could be used to start a real revolution, but instead we call networked toasters a "revolution" and leave it at that.
I love technology, I really do. But the way these IPO hungry corporations treat it, I'm starting to think John Zerzan may have a point.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
No, this is the shocking truth... it's much, much harder and more valuable to society to be an organizer, than a worker. The organizers of society are what create wealth. These are the people who take risks to build companies and hire people. Workers very rarely take risks.
If tomorrow, all the managers, CEO's and stockholders dropped off the face of the planet, the world would function just fine. In fact, as Open Source/Free Software has shown, it arguably would function much better than ever before. Not because there would be a lack of organization, far from it. But because there wouldn't be any coercive organization.
Don't give me this Ayn Rand ridiculousness about the ruling class holding the world together. Revolutionary Spain, Open Source, worker cooperatives, all these things show that coercive organization is destructive, and surely not worthy of a reward, especially the kind of obscene awards that CEO's give themselves. Is the skill to coercively organize people so wonderful that it is worth 419x more than the skill to produce something?
And to all those workers out there who actually think this guy makes sense, take a look at this section of his website:
I am a former Vice President of Alpha Base Systems, Inc, former Vice President of Air-Shields Information Systems (now Hill-Rom Netlynx), and former Chief Technology Officer of EduPoint.com. I am currently President of a small consulting company called Silicon Engine, Inc.
Of course he's going to defend the right of the ruling class to rule, because he's trying so desperately to enter into it.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Finally, nerds have realised something. It's something that's not a very easy thing to come to terms with, but it'll change your outlook once you do.
No matter how many zeroes we may have on the end of our paychecks, we are still working class
Not middle class (which doesn't really exist outside of tax forms), not ruling class, not even managerial class, but working class. This is simply because, we actually produce the products, we actually create the wealth. And how does our society (more importantly, the people with the wealth) treat people who create the wealth?
They may wine and dine us if there aren't many of us. But they're always looking for ways to find people who'll work for less, take more shit, and be even more scared of being fired than you are. Whether that means farming out work to India, or hiring students right out of college, or via other means, they're doing it. But in the meantime, we have power, right? Wrong. One thing that people in power have never willingly granted the working class is power. Once we start challenging their power, they'll ask the restaurant bouncer to throw this bum out on the sidewalk, because they're through wining and dining.
So how do we fight these people (the "Ruling Class", if I may use a term popular in anarchist/socialist discussion) and their profit-driven concepts of intellectual "freedom" and "property", which are completely at odds with our definitions? We have money, that's true. But think about the truly idealistic and skillful hackers. The Tim Berners-Lee's, or the Linus's, or the Steve Wozniak's. Some have made a very decent chunk of change, but nothing compared to Jim Clark, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs. And definitely nothing compared to the RIAA, the WTO, or the MPAA.
I don't have a complete solution, but a step in the right direction is greater collaboration with other working class people. Whether it's construction workers (throw out any classist preconceptions you have; which would you rather associate yourself with, a construction worker who's more than willing to get their hands dirty and get some work done, or some manager in an expensive suit that reads email all day and pays for luxury trips on the company credit card?), biotechnologists, telecommunications workers, or anyone else who actually accomplishes something in their nine-to-five. More importantly, anybody who is upset by how the corporation they work for is distorting their work and using it for unethical means (this could be everyone from GM to Amazon.com to Monsanto to Disney).
Think about it. Geeks aren't the only ones pissed off by the actions of the rich and powerful.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. - Preamble to the IWW constitution.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
...where you can get arrested, get labeled as an anarchist, get an arrest record, pay a whopping fine, give ammunition to those forces calling for a state crackdown, and go home having accomplished nothing but feeling like you've accomplished something.
You're saying that Seattle accomplished nothing? That the university occupations haven't accomplished anything? That the 9-month long UNAM student occupation was worthless? That the Zapatistas should just give up and vote for somebody different in the next Mexican election? Where have you been?
By the way, I am an anarchist, and a wobblie too.
Oh yeah -- before you flame me, let me point out that I've been an activist since the early '80's and have been helping to build the Michigan Green Party for the last 7 years. I know what I'm talking about -- been there, done that. I don't disagree with your ends -- just your means.)
Ah, so you're a Green. Great, why don't you just keep writing your letters and soliciting donations, voting for candidates that have been proven ineffectual, and hoping that you can make capitalism more "environmental" and "caring" any more than you can make the marxist state "egalitarian" and "democratic."
Meanwhile, I'll be focusing on things a little bit more realistic.
Protest is to effective political change as masturbation is to sex -- it feels great, but there's no chance at a long-term effect.
Either you skipped history class completely, or the class you enrolled in was taught using the John D. Rockefeller Approved (tm) Curriculum of the Bosses ©.
Go read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. Protest, striking, sabotage, etc., are all very strong parts of our history,and they're the reason you're able to write emails to fellow "Greens" who have faith in the capitalist system that otherwise would have you working in a sweatshop.
You don't get things accomplished by continually demanding and attacking. At some point you have to get off the streeets and take to the ballot box!
Why, so I can choose my temporary dictator? That's not democracy, and it is definitely not freedom.
Be one of *them*, not just some hippydippy-wannabe, who thinks that simply being morally correct is going to change anybody's mind.
If you'd like to be an ineffectual liberal (probably middle-to-upper class, I'm betting, as most Greens are), that's your choice. The fact of the matter is that a couple of days of lockdowns, occupations or strikes would accomplish the kind of awareness that Greens haven't been able to attain with years of working "within the system".
Michael Chisari
Listen up, people!
On April 16th, a diverse group of protesters will be converging on Washington DC to protest the IMF. More importantly, though, they will be protesting corporate rule and the placement of profit over freedom.
It just so happens that I found this on the RIAA website:
> The RIAA is located at:
> 1330 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone: (202) 775-0101
> Fax: (202) 775-7253.
If I'm not mistaken, this isn't that far from where the A16 action will occur. We need to organize and get our voices heard! We have a few different options, from physically occupying their offices and demanding certain concessions, to locking arms around their building, to attacking their building with grafitti and posters outlining why we feel the RIAA and others are destroying the culture of sharing information.
If you can get to A16 in D.C., do it! Contact groups like the Direct Action Network, the Ruckus Society, or possibly other more revolutionary groups, and start talking about how to organize.
You don't get things accomplished by continually posting on Slashdot. At some point you have to get off your butt and take to the streets!
Michael Chisari
But it will never change policy in your favor, and would more than likely get you branded as a kook with nothing of importance to say.
That's exactly what the system wants you to think, that radical forms of protest don't work. That's ridiculous. Some people may think you're a kook (although they're not usually open-minded to begin with) but even they know *why* you did it. And next time, before you make an assertion like that, be sure you've done your homework. The recent occupations at UW-Madison, UMich-Ann Arbor, and UPenn were successful in forcing their universities to drop out of the corporate sham that is the Fair Labor Association and provisionally join the Workers Rights Committee. And what about the 10,000 person occupation in Ecuador? That succeeded in forcing the president to step down.
Hell, this is just what I can remember off the top of my head from the last few months.
No, these aren't 100% wins, but they're steps in directions that wouldn't even occur if these sit-ins never taken place. Don't be so quick to dismiss such an incredibly effective form of protest.
Michael Chisari
Come to think of it, wasn't there a thread a couple of days back about rich geeks wanting to put money back into OpenSource? Certainly, forming our own country is a way to help O/S...
As far as funding open source programmers goes, I don't think creating a whole *country* on an island is necessary (if it is, why not just revolt against our government? it's worked in chiapas, mexico so far), instead why not solicit donations from rich geeks with the intent of starting housing cooperatives? Take a small, old house, pack it full of geeks who are willing to live on a budget, along with all the computer equipment and internet access necessary to create really cool stuff, and see what happens.
If costs are shared properly, and donations are sizable enough, it could alleviate the necessity for a fulltime job. And as any geek knows, it's a lot easier to write free software when you're working 25 hours a week as opposed to 50-60 hours.
Michael Chisari
That's the question that needs to be looked at here. What can we, as a group, as a rising political force do to stop this?
Be careful to remember something: The powers that be ("Power Elite" according to C. Wright Mills, "Ruling Class" according to Marx and Bakunin) like computer geeks right now. They think that we're interesting little beings that do things they don't understand and make them lots of money doing it. But we could very easily fall out of favor with them very quickly. All it takes is some good ol' fashioned free speech to make them revile us more than independant organic farmers.
Right now, we keep basically silent. We may post to Slashdot or usenet and bitch and complain, but the Power Elite/Ruling Class don't read Slashdot or Usenet, because they can't control it (yet, be cautious, Andover). Once we start to speak out against the decisions they're making about the way we conduct our lives, they will hit us. And the louder we speak out, the harder they will hit us. This is the way it is, and has been for centuries.
Now, don't let me discourage you or anybody who's interested in making themselves heard. Quite the opposite, I think that's what needs to be done. Here's a few suggestions that I can think of:
Forget emailing or writing your senator. Honestly, when has that ever really worked? Instead, stage a sit-in protest in his office. Force your way in, and refuse to leave until he hears you out. Notify the press. Bring U-Locks and lockboxes in case they try to drag you out. Contact people from the Ruckus Society or Direct Action Network to learn more about how to plan such an action, and what your legal options are.
Print up some honest-to-goodness propaganda. Check out Subvertise or (if you're really talented) Adbusters for some inspiration. My belief about propaganda is that it should be radical and in people's faces. Don't sugarcoat things, and don't be afraid to challenge people's concept of what's right and wrong. A poster that screams "Copyright Is Theft!" or "Information Wants To Be Free!" is going to intrigue people a lot more than one that says "We think that the DMCA is dangerous to the free software community because of the implications blah blah blah".
Third, there's going to be a lot going on in Washington, D.C. on April 16th. Remember Seat tle? Well, this should be even better. Get your butt out there and make a case against the monopolization of intellectual property. You may want to learn about more of what's going on (it's not just software that IP affects), such as the situation with AIDS drugs in Africa, or the patenting of crops by Monsanto. Also remember that the people protesting are not against globalization (well, unless you count Pat Buchanen as a protester). What we're opposed to, to varying degrees, is corporate rule, greed, and how the Power Elite/Ruling Class are using the idea of "globalization" not to open borders for the prosperity of all, but to create a new form of colonialization. Intellectual property is one major way that they're doing this.
These are a few of the options. I know you said that we should work from inside the system, and that's fine and dandy, but the truth of the matter is that direct action gets the goods. You have to get in people's faces, make them feel a little squeamish (or sometimes downright terrified if the situation is urgent enough), and force them to deal with the issues on *your* terms, without the benefit of having a speech writer churn out the BS beforehand.
Michael Chisari
Superior: Do you see anything?
Subordinate: Sir, I'm starting to get an image.
Superior: See if you can focus it. We want to know if there's any real life on Europa. We don't want to contaminate it.
Subordinate: Sir, I'm seeing something. It looks like... Like a...
Superior: Yes?
Subordinate: My God... We won't have to worry about contaminating Europa, sir.
Superior: Dammit, what is it?!?
Subordinate: It's a Starbucks, sir.
--
"This is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEBODY!" - John Adams
Michael Chisari
I second that!!
When I saw this Jon Katz article, the first thing I thought was "I have to post something about boycotting the beach!!"
Luckily, a bunch of people have already beaten me to it. It's good to know that Slashdotters are staying socially conscious.
Michael Chisari
flash forward about 10 years or so, i am now the CTO of an internet startup, getting paid way more than i "deserve" by my old scale, and yet all i do is, sit on the phone, talk to the people that work for me, talk to the people i work for, and think... and for me, there is no difference between home and work. i understand now what my father told me so many years ago...
And, to clarify, how does that justify your inflated paycheck? I can understand it justifying your inflamed ulcer, but why does the fact that you've sold your soul for the almighty dollar mean that you should make more than others, who actually *do the work*?
By the way, my father's in construction (and non-union, unfortunately), and trust me, his work does *NOT* stay separate from the rest of his life. He recieves faxes and pages at 10:30pm, and has to review plans and price quotes during dinnertime. And furthermore, he has chronic back problems to deal with, along with strong classist attitudes from the people he works for.
I'm a database programmer, and I've lucked out with my current job, but I've had a few previous jobs, and trust me, there was no separation. I was once paged at 11:30pm at night so I could fix a simple little bug. I'm sure that's happened to a lot of people on Slashdot.
Don't feel as though you're justified in recieving an insane amount of money while people who are living paycheck to paycheck are actually *producing* something. Chances are, if all the managers and CEO's called in sick tomorrow (contrary to Ayn Rand), the world would not grind to a halt, but instead function more efficiently and freely than ever before.
In a way, I apologize for being a bit harsh, but I'm sick and tired of people who make 419 times the average wage of their workers trying to justify that gap. I refuse to believe that there is any justification, whatsoever, not when there's hunger in the world, and more imporantly, when Tim Berners-Lee drives a beat up Volkswagen.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Michael Chisari