There is definitely a market for software to run college newspaper websites. Two companies that provide services are College Publisher and Digital Partners. As far as I can tell, College Publisher's tools and terms are pretty awful. Digital Partners is better. Most of their stuff is written in PHP, their template system allows for more flexibility and their terms (on things like ad revenue sharing, costs, locations of banners, etc) are a bit more reasonable. Our paper uses Digital Partners, and they seem to be growing rapidly. I think we could do better on our own if their were resources (or willing talent) available -- I'm too busy keeping things running to develop a project.
I think a cooperative effort of college papers to produce an open source content management system to for publishing a paper online would be a fantastic project. If work begins on this, please let me know (strudeau takethispartout AT umich dot edu)...
This could be built in many ways on top of many open source CMS solutions (OpenACS, Zope, midgard, etc). One project that might be worth looking at is PROPS which is designed specifically for newspapers and seems to be pretty simple and workable... written in php.
These are both projects of the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Some of the CWA leadership actually have a clue that if they tech workers are going to organize, their unions aren't going to look like the Teamsters or UAW.
Prison rape is a huge problem. Rape down at the local jail however, is not. Well, unless you're from NYC, and then the risk isn't from fellow inmates...
If this is done collectively, like I previously suggested, then you are much more likely to be sharing a jail cell with fellow geeks -- if you get arrested at all. And even if you do go to prison, it probably won't be "federal pound-me-in-the-ass" prison.
On a side note, I was arrested during a mass protest ("parading without a permit"). I chose to cooperate to get out of jail and locate my friends. Those who refused to cooperate were given over to federal marshalls, who threatened to send the non-cooperators to a federal prison for holding. Some folks were sent to prison and held up to two weeks. The marshalls suggested that they could be raped and get AIDs if sent to prison -- though when the protesters arrived in prison they were widely welcomed and unharmed. Of course, the fact that they were arrested protesting the criminal justice system probably helped...
How exactly is doing something like this going to catch the public eye? Joe Public still won't have heard of what's going on, the only people that will know about it are Congress and the US Copyright Office. Now, something like what Bruce Perens planned to do (violate the DMCA in front of a crowd) on a larger scale would be more like it...
Agreed. Perens' ploy as an individual act in front of a crowd would garner much more attention than Jimmy the Gamer copying mp3's in his basement -- even if they both subsequently turn themselves in. If what Cringley is suggesting is we all do this alone, go to local police stations and turn ourselves in, and there is no broader infrastructure to communicate to the media what is happening, it won't work. Also, I think the plan is flawed because it suffers from the collective action problem: it will work if X number of people do it (and get attention), but it won't work if less than X do it. So if I break the law, and the number ends up less than X, everyone loses and I lose more. However, if X people break the law, and I am X+1, I have (from my POV) paid the costs of action unecessarily.
What I propose is a national gathering (perhaps in 2-4 locations simaltaneously) where folks can come together en masse to explicitly violate terms of the DMCA collectively in a public manner. This will encourage people to act (reduces fear of being less than X) and will make it much easier to garner media attention to the event(s). We all show up in San Fran, New York or Chicago, violate the DMCA like mad, document it, and then march down to the local police station and turn ourselves in. That just might work...
Within the last 20 years or so in the United States this has gradually changed into a system in which political correctness, slickness, and good salesmanship are more highly valued than good science. I don't pretend to understand the reasons for this, but I can point to many examples within our own community.
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 probably helped accelerate this trend (and fits into his 20 year timeline). Basically, it allowed Universities (among other entities) to retain IP rights (i.e., patents) to work done within Universities in the US. See the book Campus Inc.: Corporate Power in the Ivory Tower for more info on this Act of other corporate influences in academia.
Allowing Universities to hold title to their IP sparked the creation of IP offices at many Universities that often, for example, prohibit the release of software written by faculty, staff (or even students!) as free/open source.
Kent State wasn't the only instance where police or National Guard troops fired on and/or killed unarmed protestors. Check out the history of the US labor movement some time. For example, the Ludlow Massacre, where 20 innocent, unarmed women and children were slaughtered by a force that included the Colorado militia during a coal strike.
That said, you're right -- the DC police, with the help of Federal Marshalls, would be more than capable of "handling" any sizable protest -- and if the powers that be are too threatened by the protest, they are likely simply to arrest large groups of people on specious charges (e.g. "parading without a permit") rather than beat them senseless -- it's better PR.
I've found that if I cozy up next to my g/f while using my TiBook while she is reading/studying/watching TV, these complaints disipate. It is only when I go to the desk with my back turned that these complaints arise. My advice: get a wifi enabled laptop.
Build it yourself out of an old box you (or a friend) have lying around. Buy two $10 10/100 cards and a cheap 10/100 switch. Besides, it's more fun that way and you might learn something.
Has there ever been a study of who most Napster and progeny users were/are and how they use the service? I would expect it to be more college kids and fewer Britney fans... but who knows?
In my experience, most Napster users were college and post-college kids (18-28) and most people, including myself fit the profile of the parent message.
That said, think about this in similar terms to the Skylarov case. Just because a technology makes it possible for you to break the law, doesn't mean it should be banned outright. There are plenty of legitimate and legal uses of Napster-esque technology -- and some of the illegal uses have not even been proven to be detrimental to the music industry as a whole. The Napster model wasn't perfect, but instead of letting the technology evolve freely, the RIAA and music industry have taken control of the direction of the technology via the courts. I understand their actions from their point of view, but as consumers, we should revolt and demand institutions change to meet improved technology -- and not allow entrenched interests to kill innovation.
Support local and independent musicians as directly as possible.
I agree that it is important for all of us in the Slashdot/Open Source/Free Software etc. communities to oppose wrong-headed bills like this one and the DMCA. It is imperative that we continually develop our collective power by lobbying individually (ie letters, phone calls, etc) and collectively (via various professional associations, companies and organizations) to put an end to Bad legislation and promote Good legislation at the same time. But, as we have been learning, our power in Washington so far does not come close to matching the power of the entertainment and other industries because they have more of one thing that we can never match: money.
I propose that if that this law passes and legal/legislative actions continue to be fruitless in challenging the DMCA and other Bad legislation we learn from past social movements -- from our own countries' revolution to very recent history. Let's not forget the power of civil disobedience. If Congress passes a law that is so clearly wrong, let's ignore it -- refuse to cooperate. They can't arrest all of us -- and if they did, who would be the stewards of the information economy? There are seeds of this in the creative distribution of DeCSS code.
If Open Source software is outlawed, only outlaws will have Open Source software.
An IT labor union could have incredible power to
push tech policy in Washington and internationally.
Imagine an IT general strike: sys admins change root passwords, shutdown the routers and servers and go home. The *threat* of that possibility is enough to not only make employers listen but all those with power, including those in Washington.
I have no desire to "play" at being an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent deity. I do have some opinions on how the world should be and I'm not afraid to articulate them.
I also reject your accusation that I am lying in order to give my opinions more weight. Simply because there are proposals for how to store nuclear waste, doesn't mean the entire problem is "figured out" (my words) -- even if the only "real" problems left are political ones. A proposed solution (even a good one) is not an implemented solution. A proposal doesn't change the fact that the most waste is still stored at the plants and is still waiting to be sent off for "permanent" disposal -- so arguing for the building of more nuclear plants before the waste problem is "figured out" is unwise. Beyond that, there are still plenty of concerns about he safety and efficiency of nuclear power (too cheap to meter?!) -- 3 mile island, cherynobl -- things may be safe enough for the rational person in the present, but who knows what the future holds? Operating nuclear power plants in an unstable political and economic environment could prove dangerous (and who can say with certainty that in 10 or 20 years the US won't be dramatically unstable?).
And even if nuclear power is safe, clean, efficient and the waste can be handled in a safe, clean, and efficient manner in perpetuity, it still does not follow that pursuing other energy sources is a Bad Thing.
Ironically, nuclear power represents a short-term solution to the greenhouse
effect, by giving an immediately practical alternative to coal- and gas-fired
generators.
Yes, although we still haven't figured out quite what to do with the waste of
nuclear power generation. This makes it as unattractive than burning fossil fuels
for energy. There is no one fix-all technology for these problems, but there
are plenty of practical things we could decide to do as a society that make sense at many
levels, including lessening the potential threats of global climate change
(i.e. global-warming/cooling). I think by pursuing the Kyoto agreement (or
some similar thing) would be a Good Thing (tm) to provide an incentive toward
taking steps away from fossil fuels to a cleaner, healthier environment.
There is plenty of data
by "real" scientists that global warming (better termed
climate change, IMO) is occurring and it is tied to massive burning of fossil
fuels by humans. And even if it won't lead to near-future (i.e. a few hundred
years) catastrophe, we still have plenty of other incentives to wean ourselves from fossil
fuels. Smog and air-quality are problems in many cities (ask a city-dweller
with asthma). Energy efficiency is often better for the bottom line -- when
a long term view (oh-so-rare in America) is taken (check out Natural Capitalism
by ).
Personally, I think we should focus on natural gas
in the short term (rather
than more oil drilling and coal burning), start to develop
fuel cells, and
begin investing (seriously) in alternative energy source research
and infrastructure. More wind power, decentralized power generation (via
fuel cells), and non-fossil-based burnable fuels would be a great place to
start.
None of this is pie-in-the-sky. Wind-farms are not uncommon in the US, and
when planned properly are efficient and environmentally friendly. The
oft-mocked call of "Liberals" for energy conservation deserves to be taken
seriously -- it's good for us all and for the bottom line. Decentralized,
cleaner sources of power could help to eliminate dependencies on large,
monopolistic corporations for basics like power, and put decision making
power closer to the grassroots.
Of course, with the current quarter-by-quarter mentality of shareholders that
leads corporations to seek as much profit as soon as possible, leads corporate
decisions makers to leave out the big picture and future consquences. This gets
us super-marketed, inefficient, expensive Sport Utility Vehicles and advertising
designed to reinforce the modern
American impulse to consume-consume-consume at all costs. Combined with the
incredible power and influence of Old Energy in DC and internationally
(hell, we fight wars for them), old habits like burning fossil fuels
will die hard. Very hard. The habits will die, or we will...
As an advocate and producer of Independent Media, I feel compelled to reply.
> 1. 'Independent' people dislike 'globalization'
and dislike 'free trade'.
True. We dislike the current undemocratic trend of globalization that is continuing to exacerbate poverty around the world while making a few rich, while at the same time leading to a race to the bottom in environmental and labor rights regulation.
> 2. 'Independent' people feel a need to 'reclaim
> the streets' on a regular basis.
Because we have learned, just as the corporate media will not create space for our points of view (hence indymedia site in the first place), institutions of power (political and economical) will not create spaces to share power, especially with those who are most disaffected by trends like globalization. Taking the streets is a way to force them to listen -- and it's fun!
> 3. 'Independent' people are really psyched up
> for May 1 or "Mayday: a festival of labor,
> paganism, anarchist ideas, and action! "
May 1 is historically a day of radical action, so active radicals get excited. What's so suprising or wrong about that?
> 4. 'Independent' people aren't too worried
> about sweatshops this year. (That was all the
> rage last year)
As someone who is still highly active in the anti-sweatshop movement and watching it grow daily, I must dispute your claim as false.
> The 'Independent Media Center' is little more
> than a bunch of spoiled, bored college kids who
> are good at complaining, but incapable of
> taking any action outside of taking to the
> streets. The indymedia people are classic
> suburban
> activists. The stand against a good many
> things, but stand for nothing.
Your caricature does not fit me well, at all. I am not a college student. I am not "suburban." I take action in many ways beyond the streets -- I serve on local committees, support good politicians, organize educational events, social events, rallies, parades, celebrations, letter-writing campaigns, petition campaigns. I produce independent media, covering issues that get short shrift. I live a life that embodies my ideals: cooperative, healthy and active. And, while I stand against the many unjust and destructive forces and institutions that surround our lives, I also stand for a just and fair world, that empowers people to live freely, healthily to their full potential, free of exploitation. And if taking the streets may be a way to reach those goals (and I think it is), then I'll take to the streets, too. And one more thing, if there is one thing that I am not, it is bored.
Damn! How long do you intend to be a college student? Wait till you get out of college and have a real job. Believe me, hybrids are not going out of production any time soon.
Another model could be a variation on the public/TV radio model. "If you want us to stick around, you'd better send us money" tele-thon style every once in awhile.. combined with a street-performer protocol style system may work.
An interesting experiment would be to publish it online for free, but offer printed versions for sale.. possibly with a copyright that limits physical reproduction of the free electronic form to only "fair use" type scenarios -- ie, you can't print it and sell it, but you can print it to read it. An affordable way to distribute to the print books is to find one of the new one-off publishers (can't find a URL at the moment) that can fill orders as they come in. The only thing that needs to be printed traditionally is the cover -- the whole process is a lot cheaper and less risky than printing a whole ton of books before the orders come in. The only trick then is promotion... Which is all traditional publishers are good for.
Having a sort of meta-language that can be used for universal translation is an interesting idea. Linguistic theory based on the ideas of Noam Chomsky describe language as devided into two types -- surface structure (the actual words) and deep structure (the "gist" or meaning). When people listen/read they generally remember the gist, but not actual syntax. Also, there seems to be a neural prewiring for a certain way of structuring language. Development of a language that could somehow encode the "gist" in a non-ambiguous-as-possible way would make it easier to develop a good universal language translator. Once you write the "filter" from language X to the universal language, you can translate to/from any language that also has such a filter. Whether this is doable is another question entirely...
> 1 Constituent face to face meeting = 100 Lobby or PAC meetings
Those are some fascinating numbers and I'd like to know who told you that.. probably an elected representative who hopes you actually believe it.
> Your voice does have an impact and just giving up because big bad corporation has more money than me just doesn't hold water.
I think it holds a lot of water and at least I don't really believe most elected representatives really listen to what I have to say. Before pointers to some hard information I'll give you an anecdote from my own experience: The Michigan Music is World Class Campaign, led by Tom Ness, a local independent magazine publisher (and Green Party candidate for US Senate), was part of the national movement to relegalize low power FM radio stations. In this process, the MMWCC petitioned the Michigan State Legislature to pass a resolution in support of a favorable FCC ruling. The MMWCC presented each and every representive thousands of constituent letters of support, including dozens of community and religious organizations. Many cities (I think up to 45 at last count) in MI passed resolutions in support. Resolutions are non-binding and simply and expression of the constituency the legislature purports to represent. Members of the MMWCC visited EACH and EVERY member of the legislature at least twice face to face. Every member was presented with well put-together packets of information. They didn't even bring the issue to the floor. Why? Four words: Michigan Association of Broadcasters (aka Big Bad [media] corporations with lots of money.) And this is how a group with a simple demand (with incredibly limited adverse consequences -- the only consequence I can think of is less money from the MAB), and an incredible range of constituent support is treated -- how do you think a simple individual's concern will actually affect any decision your "representative" will make?
> Pick up the phone and call to get a meeting. It's that simple.
And they might even meet with you, shake your hand, and nod their head politely, and listen with all seriousness... and then turn to the folks who are slipping $10000+ checks into their campaign funds when it comes time to make decisions on the floor.
Also, I recommend Jim Hightower's new book, If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote, They'd Have Given Us Candidates which is a great read and dishes out some dirt on who gets money from whom and what they get in return.
Campaign contributions buy access to politicians -- even most politicians will admit that. Only 4% of the population in this country donates $$ to campaigns, and most of those are less than $200. Only.05% donate more than $1000. Many federal house races can cost well over $1 million -- who do you think your "representative" pays real attention to? The 99.9% of people who donate less than $1000? In fact, politicians set up special golf outings, retreats, and other opportunities for "face time" that their big donors get to participate in exclusively.
You might say: "Just because they take the money, doesn't mean they do what the people giving them the money say?" Yeah right. If their voting record doesn't match up with a company's interest, the plug is pulled. So if your "representative" is voting in the interest of the 99.9% that don't fill his/her pocket, and those votes happen to contracdict the interest of the money that is filling their pocket.. well, let's just say they don't last very long.
I agree that fusion should be legalized in the U.S. I believe it is currently only legal in New York state (and possibly a smattering of other places).
Of course, speaking as a member of the Green Party of Michigan and follower of third party politics it is highly unlikely the Greens would nominate Al Gore.
Speaking of the Greens, Nader is again the forerunner to receive the Green Party nomination for president. Last time he spent less than $5,000, only one in seven voters even knew he was running, and still came in fourth. This time he has promised to do real campaigning and real fundraising. Help Nader out.
Jabber (or something similar) will skyrocket to success once it is implemented for many of the same reasons that ICQ did the same.
It is free
It is cool
It will work
It will only take a handful of people who are using AIM/ICQ/etc to realize that jabber is the answer to their problems. They will start using it. They will tell their friends about it. Their friends will want it. That's all it took for the other IMs.
For people who have ISPs who won't provide a server, there will be a solution. The same solution for people who want an additional email address - third parties will provide it for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I work for a college newspaper.
There is definitely a market for software to run college newspaper websites. Two companies that provide services are College Publisher and Digital Partners. As far as I can tell, College Publisher's tools and terms are pretty awful. Digital Partners is better. Most of their stuff is written in PHP, their template system allows for more flexibility and their terms (on things like ad revenue sharing, costs, locations of banners, etc) are a bit more reasonable. Our paper uses Digital Partners, and they seem to be growing rapidly. I think we could do better on our own if their were resources (or willing talent) available -- I'm too busy keeping things running to develop a project.
I think a cooperative effort of college papers to produce an open source content management system to for publishing a paper online would be a fantastic project. If work begins on this, please let me know (strudeau takethispartout AT umich dot edu) ...
This could be built in many ways on top of many open source CMS solutions (OpenACS, Zope, midgard, etc). One project that might be worth looking at is PROPS which is designed specifically for newspapers and seems to be pretty simple and workable ... written in php.
These are both projects of the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Some of the CWA leadership actually have a clue that if they tech workers are going to organize, their unions aren't going to look like the Teamsters or UAW.
Techs Unite
WashTech
If this is done collectively, like I previously suggested, then you are much more likely to be sharing a jail cell with fellow geeks -- if you get arrested at all. And even if you do go to prison, it probably won't be "federal pound-me-in-the-ass" prison.
On a side note, I was arrested during a mass protest ("parading without a permit"). I chose to cooperate to get out of jail and locate my friends. Those who refused to cooperate were given over to federal marshalls, who threatened to send the non-cooperators to a federal prison for holding. Some folks were sent to prison and held up to two weeks. The marshalls suggested that they could be raped and get AIDs if sent to prison -- though when the protesters arrived in prison they were widely welcomed and unharmed. Of course, the fact that they were arrested protesting the criminal justice system probably helped...
How exactly is doing something like this going to catch the public eye? Joe Public still won't have heard of what's going on, the only people that will know about it are Congress and the US Copyright Office. Now, something like what Bruce Perens planned to do (violate the DMCA in front of a crowd) on a larger scale would be more like it...
Agreed. Perens' ploy as an individual act in front of a crowd would garner much more attention than Jimmy the Gamer copying mp3's in his basement -- even if they both subsequently turn themselves in. If what Cringley is suggesting is we all do this alone, go to local police stations and turn ourselves in, and there is no broader infrastructure to communicate to the media what is happening, it won't work. Also, I think the plan is flawed because it suffers from the collective action problem: it will work if X number of people do it (and get attention), but it won't work if less than X do it. So if I break the law, and the number ends up less than X, everyone loses and I lose more. However, if X people break the law, and I am X+1, I have (from my POV) paid the costs of action unecessarily.
What I propose is a national gathering (perhaps in 2-4 locations simaltaneously) where folks can come together en masse to explicitly violate terms of the DMCA collectively in a public manner. This will encourage people to act (reduces fear of being less than X) and will make it much easier to garner media attention to the event(s). We all show up in San Fran, New York or Chicago, violate the DMCA like mad, document it, and then march down to the local police station and turn ourselves in. That just might work...
Don't forget to check out Antiwargame.
The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 probably helped accelerate this trend (and fits into his 20 year timeline). Basically, it allowed Universities (among other entities) to retain IP rights (i.e., patents) to work done within Universities in the US. See the book Campus Inc.: Corporate Power in the Ivory Tower for more info on this Act of other corporate influences in academia.
Allowing Universities to hold title to their IP sparked the creation of IP offices at many Universities that often, for example, prohibit the release of software written by faculty, staff (or even students!) as free/open source.
That said, you're right -- the DC police, with the help of Federal Marshalls, would be more than capable of "handling" any sizable protest -- and if the powers that be are too threatened by the protest, they are likely simply to arrest large groups of people on specious charges (e.g. "parading without a permit") rather than beat them senseless -- it's better PR.
I've found that if I cozy up next to my g/f while using my TiBook while she is reading/studying/watching TV, these complaints disipate. It is only when I go to the desk with my back turned that these complaints arise. My advice: get a wifi enabled laptop.
Unless you have a Mac. Although, for web browsing, OmniWeb, Mozilla or (soon) Chimera are better.
Build it yourself out of an old box you (or a friend) have lying around. Buy two $10 10/100 cards and a cheap 10/100 switch. Besides, it's more fun that way and you might learn something.
Has there ever been a study of who most Napster and progeny users were/are and how they use the service? I would expect it to be more college kids and fewer Britney fans
In my experience, most Napster users were college and post-college kids (18-28) and most people, including myself fit the profile of the parent message.
That said, think about this in similar terms to the Skylarov case. Just because a technology makes it possible for you to break the law, doesn't mean it should be banned outright. There are plenty of legitimate and legal uses of Napster-esque technology -- and some of the illegal uses have not even been proven to be detrimental to the music industry as a whole. The Napster model wasn't perfect, but instead of letting the technology evolve freely, the RIAA and music industry have taken control of the direction of the technology via the courts. I understand their actions from their point of view, but as consumers, we should revolt and demand institutions change to meet improved technology -- and not allow entrenched interests to kill innovation.
Support local and independent musicians as directly as possible.
I propose that if that this law passes and legal/legislative actions continue to be fruitless in challenging the DMCA and other Bad legislation we learn from past social movements -- from our own countries' revolution to very recent history. Let's not forget the power of civil disobedience. If Congress passes a law that is so clearly wrong, let's ignore it -- refuse to cooperate. They can't arrest all of us -- and if they did, who would be the stewards of the information economy? There are seeds of this in the creative distribution of DeCSS code.
If Open Source software is outlawed, only outlaws will have Open Source software.
---
Direct action gets the goods. -- Mother Jones
An IT labor union could have incredible power to
push tech policy in Washington and internationally.
Imagine an IT general strike: sys admins change root passwords, shutdown the routers and servers and go home. The *threat* of that possibility is enough to not only make employers listen but all those with power, including those in Washington.
What we need is a geek union. Then, we display our power with a strike.
Like Mother Jones said: Direct Action gets the goods.
I have no desire to "play" at being an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent deity. I do have some opinions on how the world should be and I'm not afraid to articulate them.
I also reject your accusation that I am lying in order to give my opinions more weight. Simply because there are proposals for how to store nuclear waste, doesn't mean the entire problem is "figured out" (my words) -- even if the only "real" problems left are political ones. A proposed solution (even a good one) is not an implemented solution. A proposal doesn't change the fact that the most waste is still stored at the plants and is still waiting to be sent off for "permanent" disposal -- so arguing for the building of more nuclear plants before the waste problem is "figured out" is unwise. Beyond that, there are still plenty of concerns about he safety and efficiency of nuclear power (too cheap to meter?!) -- 3 mile island, cherynobl -- things may be safe enough for the rational person in the present, but who knows what the future holds? Operating nuclear power plants in an unstable political and economic environment could prove dangerous (and who can say with certainty that in 10 or 20 years the US won't be dramatically unstable?).
And even if nuclear power is safe, clean, efficient and the waste can be handled in a safe, clean, and efficient manner in perpetuity, it still does not follow that pursuing other energy sources is a Bad Thing.
Ironically, nuclear power represents a short-term solution to the greenhouse effect, by giving an immediately practical alternative to coal- and gas-fired generators.
Yes, although we still haven't figured out quite what to do with the waste of nuclear power generation. This makes it as unattractive than burning fossil fuels for energy. There is no one fix-all technology for these problems, but there are plenty of practical things we could decide to do as a society that make sense at many levels, including lessening the potential threats of global climate change (i.e. global-warming/cooling). I think by pursuing the Kyoto agreement (or some similar thing) would be a Good Thing (tm) to provide an incentive toward taking steps away from fossil fuels to a cleaner, healthier environment.
There is plenty of data by "real" scientists that global warming (better termed climate change, IMO) is occurring and it is tied to massive burning of fossil fuels by humans. And even if it won't lead to near-future (i.e. a few hundred years) catastrophe, we still have plenty of other incentives to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Smog and air-quality are problems in many cities (ask a city-dweller with asthma). Energy efficiency is often better for the bottom line -- when a long term view (oh-so-rare in America) is taken (check out Natural Capitalism by ).
Personally, I think we should focus on natural gas in the short term (rather than more oil drilling and coal burning), start to develop fuel cells, and begin investing (seriously) in alternative energy source research and infrastructure. More wind power, decentralized power generation (via fuel cells), and non-fossil-based burnable fuels would be a great place to start.
None of this is pie-in-the-sky. Wind-farms are not uncommon in the US, and when planned properly are efficient and environmentally friendly. The oft-mocked call of "Liberals" for energy conservation deserves to be taken seriously -- it's good for us all and for the bottom line. Decentralized, cleaner sources of power could help to eliminate dependencies on large, monopolistic corporations for basics like power, and put decision making power closer to the grassroots.
Of course, with the current quarter-by-quarter mentality of shareholders that leads corporations to seek as much profit as soon as possible, leads corporate decisions makers to leave out the big picture and future consquences. This gets us super-marketed, inefficient, expensive Sport Utility Vehicles and advertising designed to reinforce the modern American impulse to consume-consume-consume at all costs. Combined with the incredible power and influence of Old Energy in DC and internationally (hell, we fight wars for them), old habits like burning fossil fuels will die hard. Very hard. The habits will die, or we will...
As an advocate and producer of Independent Media, I feel compelled to reply.
> 1. 'Independent' people dislike 'globalization' and dislike 'free trade'.
True. We dislike the current undemocratic trend of globalization that is continuing to exacerbate poverty around the world while making a few rich, while at the same time leading to a race to the bottom in environmental and labor rights regulation.
> 2. 'Independent' people feel a need to 'reclaim > the streets' on a regular basis.
Because we have learned, just as the corporate media will not create space for our points of view (hence indymedia site in the first place), institutions of power (political and economical) will not create spaces to share power, especially with those who are most disaffected by trends like globalization. Taking the streets is a way to force them to listen -- and it's fun!
> 3. 'Independent' people are really psyched up > for May 1 or "Mayday: a festival of labor, > paganism, anarchist ideas, and action! "
May 1 is historically a day of radical action, so active radicals get excited. What's so suprising or wrong about that?
> 4. 'Independent' people aren't too worried > about sweatshops this year. (That was all the > rage last year)
As someone who is still highly active in the anti-sweatshop movement and watching it grow daily, I must dispute your claim as false.
> The 'Independent Media Center' is little more > than a bunch of spoiled, bored college kids who > are good at complaining, but incapable of > taking any action outside of taking to the > streets. The indymedia people are classic > suburban > activists. The stand against a good many > things, but stand for nothing.
Your caricature does not fit me well, at all. I am not a college student. I am not "suburban." I take action in many ways beyond the streets -- I serve on local committees, support good politicians, organize educational events, social events, rallies, parades, celebrations, letter-writing campaigns, petition campaigns. I produce independent media, covering issues that get short shrift. I live a life that embodies my ideals: cooperative, healthy and active. And, while I stand against the many unjust and destructive forces and institutions that surround our lives, I also stand for a just and fair world, that empowers people to live freely, healthily to their full potential, free of exploitation. And if taking the streets may be a way to reach those goals (and I think it is), then I'll take to the streets, too. And one more thing, if there is one thing that I am not, it is bored.
Damn! How long do you intend to be a college student? Wait till you get out of college and have a real job. Believe me, hybrids are not going out of production any time soon.
Another model could be a variation on the public/TV radio model. "If you want us to stick around, you'd better send us money" tele-thon style every once in awhile .. combined with a street-performer protocol style system may work.
An interesting experiment would be to publish it online for free, but offer printed versions for sale .. possibly with a copyright that limits physical reproduction of the free electronic form to only "fair use" type scenarios -- ie, you can't print it and sell it, but you can print it to read it. An affordable way to distribute to the print books is to find one of the new one-off publishers (can't find a URL at the moment) that can fill orders as they come in. The only thing that needs to be printed traditionally is the cover -- the whole process is a lot cheaper and less risky than printing a whole ton of books before the orders come in. The only trick then is promotion... Which is all traditional publishers are good for.
Having a sort of meta-language that can be used for universal translation is an interesting idea. Linguistic theory based on the ideas of Noam Chomsky describe language as devided into two types -- surface structure (the actual words) and deep structure (the "gist" or meaning). When people listen/read they generally remember the gist, but not actual syntax. Also, there seems to be a neural prewiring for a certain way of structuring language. Development of a language that could somehow encode the "gist" in a non-ambiguous-as-possible way would make it easier to develop a good universal language translator. Once you write the "filter" from language X to the universal language, you can translate to/from any language that also has such a filter. Whether this is doable is another question entirely...
> 1 Constituent face to face meeting = 100 Lobby or PAC meetings
.. probably an elected representative who hopes you actually believe it.
.05% donate more than $1000. Many federal house races can cost well over $1 million -- who do you think your "representative" pays real attention to? The 99.9% of people who donate less than $1000? In fact, politicians set up special golf outings, retreats, and other opportunities for "face time" that their big donors get to participate in exclusively.
.. well, let's just say they don't last very long.
Those are some fascinating numbers and I'd like to know who told you that
> Your voice does have an impact and just giving up because big bad corporation has more money than me just doesn't hold water.
I think it holds a lot of water and at least I don't really believe most elected representatives really listen to what I have to say. Before pointers to some hard information I'll give you an anecdote from my own experience:
The Michigan Music is World Class Campaign, led by Tom Ness, a local independent magazine publisher (and Green Party candidate for US Senate), was part of the national movement to relegalize low power FM radio stations. In this process, the MMWCC petitioned the Michigan State Legislature to pass a resolution in support of a favorable FCC ruling. The MMWCC presented each and every representive thousands of constituent letters of support, including dozens of community and religious organizations. Many cities (I think up to 45 at last count) in MI passed resolutions in support. Resolutions are non-binding and simply and expression of the constituency the legislature purports to represent. Members of the MMWCC visited EACH and EVERY member of the legislature at least twice face to face. Every member was presented with well put-together packets of information. They didn't even bring the issue to the floor. Why? Four words: Michigan Association of Broadcasters (aka Big Bad [media] corporations with lots of money.) And this is how a group with a simple demand (with incredibly limited adverse consequences -- the only consequence I can think of is less money from the MAB), and an incredible range of constituent support is treated -- how do you think a simple individual's concern will actually affect any decision your "representative" will make?
> Pick up the phone and call to get a meeting. It's that simple.
And they might even meet with you, shake your hand, and nod their head politely, and listen with all seriousness... and then turn to the folks who are slipping $10000+ checks into their campaign funds when it comes time to make decisions on the floor.
For some info online check out:
Common Cause
Also, I recommend Jim Hightower's new book, If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote, They'd Have Given Us Candidates which is a great read and dishes out some dirt on who gets money from whom and what they get in return.
Campaign contributions buy access to politicians -- even most politicians will admit that. Only 4% of the population in this country donates $$ to campaigns, and most of those are less than $200. Only
You might say: "Just because they take the money, doesn't mean they do what the people giving them the money say?" Yeah right. If their voting record doesn't match up with a company's interest, the plug is pulled. So if your "representative" is voting in the interest of the 99.9% that don't fill his/her pocket, and those votes happen to contracdict the interest of the money that is filling their pocket
If you want to encourage Nader to run, visit the National Committee to Draft Ralph Nader for President web site.
I agree that fusion should be legalized in the U.S. I believe it is currently only legal in New York state (and possibly a smattering of other places).
Of course, speaking as a member of the Green Party of Michigan and follower of third party politics it is highly unlikely the Greens would nominate Al Gore.
Speaking of the Greens, Nader is again the forerunner to receive the Green Party nomination for president. Last time he spent less than $5,000, only one in seven voters even knew he was running, and still came in fourth. This time he has promised to do real campaigning and real fundraising. Help Nader out.
Jabber (or something similar) will skyrocket to success once it is implemented for many of the same reasons that ICQ did the same.
It will only take a handful of people who are using AIM/ICQ/etc to realize that jabber is the answer to their problems. They will start using it. They will tell their friends about it. Their friends will want it. That's all it took for the other IMs.
For people who have ISPs who won't provide a server, there will be a solution. The same solution for people who want an additional email address - third parties will provide it for free.