Internet Socialism

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Internet Socialism

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:46 pm

http://ncannasse.fr/blog/captcha

...It's already possible to find some very annoying CAPTCHA that makes you feel bad about subscribing to a given service. Things will even get worse from here...

But with captcha being broken, how will you prevent bot-automated subscription in the future ?...

CAPTCHAs are those increasingly annoyingly hard to read image of characters you have to type in when signing up for free services on the internet.

http://ncannasse.fr/blog/captcha?lang=en#comments

Shelby wrote:Solution is of course is that nothing is free.



(Translation: Everything has a cost, and when we try to give away things for free that have a cost, there are side effects. When the side effects become too great, then malinvestment (e.g. centralized ad supported model of the current web) die. It applies to bandwidth sharing as well:

http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?pid=166#p166

This concept that we can't share equally has enormous implications on internet, society, what is money, etc... read my forum at GoldWeTrust.com to come up to speed.)

If we do not quickly move the internet from a socialistic model (i.e. centralized ad supported via Google) to a decentralized one based on instant micro-payments of e-gold, then we could lose the internet to centralized and socialistic model of control, i.e. fascism.

Believe me, I am working on this...stay tuned...

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Motivation for open source is economy-of-scale

Post  Shelby on Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:22 am

I think the brilliant Eric Raymond was close:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homesteading_the_Noosphere

...explores the underlying motivations of people involved in the open source movement. He seems to settle on the idea that striving for a great reputation within the 'tribe' is a key motivational feature...

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-2.html

Eric Raymond wrote:...what anthropologists call a `gift culture' in which members compete for status by giving things away...

I think open source contribution is not motivated solely by status in the community, but more deeply it is the fact that individually each contributor does not have the resources/time alone to produce a product which is significant enough to gain traction in the market. Instead, by contributing to a group effort, then there is sufficient economy-of-scale for the sum of the individual contributions to succeed in the market.

The "gift" aspect is because the contributor is compensated indirectly, and a direct payment for contributions would so constrict the possibilities, that such open source projects would never spawn (spontaneously). The contributor is not really giving away the contribution for free, because the contributor gets to use the sum of the effort of all the contributors, as well the contributor gains advantages in knowledge, early adopter insight, and influence over a larger economy-of-scale economic force. Since the contribution was worth near ZERO alone, then sharing it, makes the contribution worth more than ZERO. So I really disagree that the motivation is the so called "gift economy" model of altruism and socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

Rather it is a form of capitalism, where each contributor is acting in his/her own self interest.

Looks like Eric Raymond realized this also:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-5.html

Eric Raymond wrote:...so patch author J. Random Hacker is left with two choices: sit on the patch, or throw it into the pool for free. The first choice gains nothing. The second choice may gain nothing, or it may encourage reciprocal giving from others that will address some of J. Random's problems in the future. The second choice, apparently altruistic, is actually optimally selfish in a game-theoretic sense...

One of the arguments made against the benefits of deflation (i.e. a gold/silver money standard), is that then no one could earn a living if prices always go down. But the converse is that as prices go down, then less wages are needed to buy same quantity of goods. So as more and more people become programmers, then there is more incentive to drive the prices down, so that some people do not have their capabilities wasted unused (valued at ZERO).

The world needs new economic models for massive scale, chaotic (not centralized) collaboration. This will be huge growth industry in the tech sector. Specifically I will say that for the most part, I think the server must die. The future is a distributed cloud of data, controlled by no one, paid for by the users. I have already laid out my basic ideas on this in the How to Beat Google thread at hommel forum, and in the posts I made in the links at forum.bittorrent.org.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron-12.html

Eric Raymond wrote:...John Gilmore's famous observation that the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it...

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=617#more-617

Eric Raymond wrote:...Go active whenever there’s a political debate about “unlicensed spectrum”. More of it is good. Oppose any efforts to make UWB (or any other technology that doesn’t cause destructive interference) require a license anywhere on the spectrum. If you are capable, contribute to the development of mesh networking, especially wireless mesh networking...

...Until relatively recently I would have agreed with you. I used to rant at my friends about how the 1934 power grab by the Feds aborted a property-rights system for radio frequencies in given broadcast areas, treating them analogously to homesteaded land with interference being interpreted as trespass. Yes, the courts had been heading in this direction.

More recently, I have been convinced that frequency scarcity is an artifact of stupid radios. That is, if you have software-defined radios doing spread-spectrum packet protocols, it’s possible for two radios to negotiate a channel-hop sequence and get data through even under conditions of extremely high and time-varying noise from other transmissions. As a side effect,
communication is unjammable. Yes, there’s an aggregate upper limit of total over-air bandwidth, but it’s ridiculously high and not a practical constraint.

Under these circumstances, spectrum is effectively non-rivalrous, and you therefore don’t need any analogue of property rights. The radios will stay out of each others’ way in order to minimize power expenditure per transmitted byte.

Final note: This is not a blue-sky possibility. It is nearly certain that this is the way U.S. military radios already work. What’s novel is that today the hardware to do it can be manufactured in bulk at near-throwaway prices...

...You are correct that use of any given frequency band is a rivalrous good; that’s why, when we had to think of transmission in terms of fixed-frequency bands, property and homesteading was a good model. But when your radios are doing adaptive spread-spectrum, there’s no point in contesting frequency bands - if one is too noisy, you just jump to another.

Thus, while individual frequencies are still rivalrous, total bandwidth is not. The upper limit on where you can jump to wouldn’t be scratched if you had a billion nodes on your network...

Jim Thompson wrote:...> are colors scarce? If colors are not scarce, and colors are a wavelength, and radio spectrum
> is comprised of those same wavelengths, then how can spectrum be said to be scarce?

Spectrum ’scarcity’ is driven by the current models and definition of ‘interference’. The thing is, ‘interference’ is an artifact of receiver design. Not unlike the duality of light (is it a ‘particle’ or a ‘wave’? Its *both* until you observe it), there is *no* interference until some receiver attempts to recover a signal.

But of course, we can do far, far better than current receiver (PHY) design (and make a better MAC-layer protocol too.)

I refer the readers of this blog (again) to TIm Shepard’s MIT thesis.

http://publications.csail.mit.edu/lcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-670.pdf...

Just adding the following link as a mental note to myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar_number

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

My idea how to end internet socialism (monopolies, fascism)

Post  Shelby on Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:32 pm

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=617#comment-229725
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=617#comment-229702 (<-- use if above link fails)

Shelby wrote:Net neutrality must come via natural selection (an economic model), and I think P2P at the protocol layer (i.e. protocols on top of TCP/IP, UDP) may be the best candidate, because it can be faster and more reliable than the (undistributed, centralized manager) server/client model, so once all content is served distributed, then who can the last mile players send a bill to, other than directly to the end user? People can be tricked by silent taxes, such as inflation, but they usually seek out competition when the bill has their name on it. This then renders 666 (fascist money), patents, copyrights impotent if it is anonymous (e.g. MUTE, but with some necessary improvements I have recently in mind, not yet documented publicly), which will of course remove Linux from it's media codec conundrum (and a zillion other magnificient prosperity effects for mankind, e.g. making gold trading anonymous, etc).

http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?pid=166#p166
http://ncannasse.fr/blog/captcha?lang=en#comments (find my comment)
http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-November/020935.html

Also:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=262#comment-229729
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=262#comment-212406 (<-- use if above link fails)

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

re: Next superstar programmer

Post  Shelby on Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:25 pm

Shelby wrote:I just discovered the work of Nicolas Cannasse in past 2 weeks, and I am becoming increasingly impressed. I think he may eventually accomplish what Java was all about, "write once, run every where"...

The reason I am delayed on latest GWT improvements, is I have been dealing with some urgent design issues for the future of the internet as it impacts Nicolas's haXe (which ties into that Flash JPEG module I am creating):

http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-November/021029.html
http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-November/021031.html (this is critical reply that is not in the message chain of prior link)
http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-November/021032.html
http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-November/021034.html
http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-November/021051.html
http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-December/021052.html
http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-December/021053.html
http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-December/021054.html
http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-December/021056.html

I should finally be done with this today, so I can get back on GWT programming.

I sent this email today to some respected collegues:

Shelby in email wrote:Have you looked at haXe?

...I have blogged about haXe (and future of internet) a bit:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/economics-f4/internet-socialism-t45.htm

The lamba (everything is a unary function, mutiple arguments accomplished with closure currying) concept is interesting. haXe tries to integrate the type and untyped language world elegantly. The Neko concept of low-level VM seems it might be the winner over Java and CLR (Microsoft's .Net VM layer). Read the links in my blog thread above for details.

Currying enables mapping recursive event chaining to sequential logic:

http://notes-on-haskell.blogspot.com/2008/08/arrows-in-javascript.html

....Btw, I no longer believe in copyrights and patents, and precisely because I am *NOT* a socialist. Dig into my writings to understand...I've come a long way in my understanding of nature's mathematical laws since we last communicated...


Last edited by Shelby on Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:38 am; edited 2 times in total

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Everything digitally electronic (even cell phones) was made possible by David A. Huffman

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:44 am

http://www.huffmancoding.com/david/scientific.html
http://barista.media2.org/?p=1060 (amazing objects mathematically folded from a single sheet of paper)
http://www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperGraph/video/mpeg/mpegfaq/huffman_tutorial.html (the algorithm)

Even the photos you view on the web and in your digital cameras, HDTV, etc would be impossible without huffman encoding (or the derivative entropy encoding algorithms).

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Roberts is wrong

Post  Shelby on Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:36 pm

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21829.html

Shelby wrote:I used to read this guy over at the anti-migration vdare.com, and he was consistently writing such nonsense. He argues against Coase's Theorem (nature routes around artificial costs and barriers) over and over again. But he is simply wrong.

The reason we don't have perfect service is we don't yet have a free market. For example, the govt still sells licenses for electro-magnetic sprectrum. And since the 1980s, we've gone from 1000s of owners of major media, to 5 families that own everything.

Luckily we have abundant choice on the internet, and the internet is wiping away all those old media and communications paradigms.

Roberts is apparently a dinasour, don't listen to him. And he is a fake libertarian. He apparently doesn't understand the free market, entropy, the exponential function, or the key theorems that apply.

During the most properous period in USA (1800s), any one was free to migrate any where. Don't listen to nonsense.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

We can win!!!!

Post  Shelby on Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:39 pm

Keep repeating, "We can win!", "We can win!!", "We can win!!!", "We can win!!!!"!!!!!

Please listen to this audio, it may change your whole view on life:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg04020.html
(really you will love the humor & insight in the audio file linked in above page)

Even you don't care about software, you care about evolution, because that it what this entire crap we are going through now is about.

And the key mathematical (evolution) thing I want you to understand, is that every person matters!!!

Somebody just needs to give you a place where you can do your small part and have it matter. And I have an idea about that. We need to move quickly, but remember a few 100s of us can destroy any corporation on the planet with your knowledge. Listen to the audio above and then you will feel empowered. God gave us this power!!! It is called EVOLUTION.

Here is what I wrote today:

I never knew (how much) I loved hackers until I realized just recently that hacking = freedom, in the sense that no group of people no matter how great their collective intelligence, can foresee every best fit to every situation for the entire population. In a nutshell, that is the difference between capitalism (evolution) and socialism (devolution).

Eric raises a deeper question. How should the minority best organize and communicate? Is it optimal in evolution to just do your small atomic part even if the collective result is incomprehensible enough that few grasp the insight? Is there some generative model we can apply to empower the minority with the truth that small things grow faster?

The main thing I learned is it is not about me, it is about all of us. I must do my best to facilitate but not frustrate. I must not stand in the way of any group, even if I think they are moving in the wrong direction. I must be a facilitator, and help the most people contribute their small part, even when I disagree with them. If I truely believe that most people are being blocked from what they want and deserve, then I need only to facilitate them to prove they were right.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

I laid it all out in one post (everything I am focused on)

Post  Shelby on Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:21 am

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2545#comment-278510

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:@Jeff Read
> Don’t count trusted computing out yet. Intel is going to have another go at it.

Intel's version of trusted computing is not trustworthy. Real trust means each person is in control of the security of their device. Code signing and virus signature databases (aka "security theater" because it isn't secure) means some central authority is in control.

The proper way to eliminate the security theater (follow sub-link) and get local control over security, is for the core OS to be a provably secure micro-kernel so that full disk encryption and inter-process memory protection (and other resource protection) can be employed with certainty. Then it doesn't matter if applications are viruses, because they won't be able to do any harm.

This big gain would be a proliferation in application diversity ("granularity of real-time user choice") and destruction of lockin economic models and oligopolies, by a proliferation of real-time user changes.

@grendelkhan
> general-purpose computing being a dead end for most people?

Never. Users have diverse needs, and I explained why less choice is actually more complex perhaps O(n^2) or maybe even O(n!). Misunderstanding of complexity. If ever it happens that users no longer have diverse needs, then humanity is dead (so that evolution is not).

esr> Don’t over-focus on Aunt Tillie

You might be surprised how diverse her needs are.

esr> attempts to shut it down that’s not going to fold up short of a systemic breakdown in civil society

Afaics, if we don't bust out butts now on good globalization with the termite model of dis-intermediation and creative destruction, the math of the macro-economics is headed towards that systemic breakdown due to the delayed effect of perpetual halving of interest rates.

Eric I don't think the key work is done yet. You know precisely I came back to this blog to try to get that message out (note my personality type). Afaics, the threats loom very large still, not from the middle echelon (e.g. network access carriers), but from the systemic fiat model death star. I am interested in reading your analysis perhaps in your future blog reply to Codevilla. I think there is enormous profit potential for those who succeed in good globalization. You know I wouldn't be expending effort here, if I didn't have immense respect for you and your readers.

Also read about Topology of networks are driven by the constraints to the free market.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Internet Socialism

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum