Frediano

Whereas, I could not exist in their communal society wherein I could not own my area. I can only exist in one community at a time; a corollary is, I don't have to exist in every community at the same time, except for whatever is impressed upon me on a national basis. 50 Socialists who move into a town of 49 in the woods of Vermont, throw an election, and declare a municipal communal society is not 'free association.' It is gang rape. 50 Socialists who collectively buy a plot of land and establish a communal society in the woods of Vermont is free association. 50 Socialists who then politely campaign for their neighbors to join in on all the resulting Reindeer Fun is free association. Neighbors who agree are an example of free association. Neighbors who disagree and politely say 'No thank you' are an example of free association. Ratcake politicos who scurry to the guns of government for a gang rape -- I mean, pure democracy unfettered by free association-- is an example of forced association. None of us are significantly impacted by driving by a soon to fail commune in the woods of Vermont. More power to 'em. And none of them are significantly impacted by -er, hiking-- by a thriving community of non socialists. And the purpose of an over-reaching federal government in the context of freedom is to make sure all that association is free and not forced, to the best that it imperfectly can. And, that included examples of enforcement against forced association such as clean air and water laws, where the consequences of third party industry and commerce are forced on third parties. When our laws have a foundation in free vs forced association, their reason for being in a free nation is apparent. Other laws that are themselves instances of forced association -- such as ACA -- not so much.

Like Kurzweil's augmented human? For sure-- long already happening. But don't we have to invent a Board of Evolution Authenticity to care about whether that is 'real in our own bodies evolution' vs. 'artificial augmented evolution?' Said another way, when viewed from a great distance, isn't that exactly still 'evolution?' So, yes, maybe 'evolution' finds a another means of evolution-- an accelerated means -- but in the end, it is still continuous 'evolution.' And yes, I think it is an example of how a 'new' path of accelerated evolution could succeed in winnowing out entire nets of possible paths of evolution, simply because they are accelerated and more efficient at meandering us from here to there. (Based on Wolfram's NKS, I'd never be so arrogant to assume it was an example of our suddenly navigating to that future state, by design, after millions of years of meander; we don't have the first f'n clue what the consequences will be of augmented humanity. It is just evolution's latest accelerated meander.) regards, Fred

Does any kind of liberalism advocate forced association? Hell yes. Does any kind of conservatism? Hell yes. And, a pox on both kinds.

A group of like minded folks collecting themselves up into a socialist commune in the Woods of Vermont may indeed be collectivists, but as long as they are all collected there via free association, more power to them. It's only when they get the paternalistic urge to force that or any such puddingheadedness on a national scale and advocate for national socialism that they are a cancer on the body politic. That they sell their sweet nothings based on a tale of 'pure democracy', 51% to 49%, is far less convincing, but the exact same process that goes on at a gang rape, with an even more purely democratic 90% to 10% outcome...

Gary's taxonomy is much easier to wade through after applying the clarifying filter of free vs. forced association. Then, the rapists, slave owners, meat eating totalitarians, and even the paternalistic totalitarians of all shapes and sizes meet up at their convention of the like minded, and we can easily wade through the artificial labels.

We communicate in the visible light spectrum. How? Because at sometime in the distant past, our ancestors evolved these funny looking orbs that reach out from our brains, collect light with rods and cones, and convert stimulation in the visible spectrum that stimulates our optical nerves; our visual processing subsystem pre-processes all that and delivers it to 'something' which figures out what the Hell to do with the stimulation. That same 'something', when our eyes are closed, and or we are sleeping, is also capable of playing back past 'recordings' of actual stimulation, and as well, totally making up stimulation that never happened. We can imagine, we can dream. We communicate in the sound spectrum, using different sensors apparatus and subsystems that reach out to our ears. We communicate in the IR spectrum; we sense others and feel them. In some reptiles, this is more advanced. We communicate in the odor spectrum, unfortunately or fortunately at times. We sense via taste; we sense acceleration and forces acting on us.. But that's it? Life has stopped evolving? We've discovered all the ways of communicating/sensing the world as it is and those around us? I seriously doubt that. That is an incredibly parochial view of life. I'd put that one right up there with 'we are alone in the universe,' in the following sense: I may not have been around several hundred million years ago, but intellectually, I accept that something was. Ditto a hundred million years from now; I find it entirely reasonable to accept that life might exist then as well. Ditto life far away not just in time, but in space. On the way from then to now, we changed. On the way from now to the future, we/life will probably also change. I think, only limited by what can be and what actually happens. On the way there, will 'we' all evolve at a knife edge even pace, or even, in the same direction? In one sense, yes, but in another, no. Random deletions/mutations are one way we 'meander' to unique identities (different from syndromatic deletions, which happen often enough and deterministically enough that those features are shared by a group of otherwise individuals(who are still individuals.) Along the way, we will experience things we can't explain. We can hypothesize, but that doesn't mean we've explained them. An example is, 'reading someone's mind' without blatant communication. Sometimes we guess. Sometimes we infer from context. Or, sometimes we assume that, to explain something we can't otherwise explain, because it is poorly repeatable, or not repeatable at all. There may be a common near death experience that is entirely based on physiologic similarities. "My whole life flashed before me. I saw people who had passed before me. My memories rushed forth. And so on." Well, who can really explain their dreams? When I was 14, I -swore- I and three of my friends had seen a ghost one night along a river where we lived. An eerily luminescent, glowing thing close to the ground, seen by all four of us. We believed it ...until the next morning, and we all found a rotted log at that same spot, slimy, which was eerily luminous the night before with bioluminance. But for 12 hours, we were absolutely convinced. We'd seen the inexplicable with our own eyes...until it was explained. I suspect that things like 'rotted logs at night' are quite common in the world. When I first met my wife 32 yrs ago, I guessed her exact birthday. To this day, she thinks I looked in her purse. I didn't. Did I get lucky? Because many times ever since, out of the blue, she or I will bring up some odd topic or memory, and the other of us look dumbfounded because we were thinking of or were just about to say the same thing. Is that all pure context and familiarity? Maybe. I don't know. But it wasn't that first night I met her. The month and day literally just popped into my head. Not astronomical odds by any means for a simple birthday: 1:365. Not a strong inference, well within the bounds of shit luck. A Lucky guess can happen. Lots of folks who have been with each other long enough report things like that. Does it mean anything? Probably not. Who knows? But as arrogant as I am, I am not arrogant enough to say 'definitely not' when the honest answer is "i Don't know." However, to date, the repeat-ability of such claims has been very shaky and suspect.

Not to be confused with the sudden existential terror of someone who just spent a lifetime gazing at their naval, and suddenly looking up into the void and screaming "Surely I didn't just waste my life naval gazing???? It must have been for something!!!!! See, it is at such moments of doubt that we need our philosophy/religion the most.

I've never confused "The Department of Philosophy and Religion" with those who philosophize or practice religion. Indeed, those who philosophize and/or practice religion have actually accomplished much. Is that even a mildly controversial assertion? It is the kind of assertion that would be perfectly at home in The Department of Philosophy and Religion. Does actively pondering the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a consequence of that?" -really- require intense study at some Dust Bunny U in order to arrive at an answer? Or, would some politicos prefer that everyone subject themselves to some heavy 'guidance' before shepherding everyone on earth to the same tiny subset of answers, not to be confused with reaching their own answers? Hell, I thought the purpose of all of it -- everything going on in our schools and universities -- was about exactly that. History of Philosophy and Religion? Sure, why not. Interesting as Hell. A guided tour of past cul de sacs and meanderings and wonderings, as if through a dead wax museum of Other Peers Answers. Deliverer of 'The' answers to those questions? Are these the dusty archives from which we select our permitted answers? Hardly. That is what humans do simply by living their lives. Even, humans who never consciously ponder the questions. Those fundamental questions are never finally answered; they are individually answered every day, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. regards, Fred

It doesn't seem 'fair', to me, to grade philosophy and science on similar scales. I don't think either field is quite like painting a fence of finite length, as if it was reasonable to ask in either domain, "How much fence has been painted?' Perhaps 'painting fence' is a torturous analogy, but that is also the point; what was done? How much fence has been painted? If I stick with my tortured analog, the fences are at least orthogonal and no doubt infinitely long. Painting a fence(something that can get 'done') at some rate takes finite time. Infinitely long, unbounded fences take forever to paint, are never done. I for sure don't view science that way. Just because gradeschool science is 'finite' over 12 grades, and for some, a few more years of university, hardly makes science like a finite fence to be painted. I for sure don't know anyone who is at least marginally involved with science who views it as a finite fence to be painted, something that they eventually glimpsed sight of the end of. Orthogonal, infinite fences being painted by mankind. Religion and philosophy, however, are not 'so orthogonal' to each other as science and philosophy, I suspect. I think this is apparent in the confusion evident at many universities, where a past battle to classify each has clearly been aborted and someone long ago concluded "just call it the Dept of Religion and Philosophy." I've found the following meta-definition of 'religion' useful(to me): religion: any conscious consideration of the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a consequence of that why?" I qualify with 'conscious' because in a free country, any one of us answers those questions implicitely simply by living our lives; in the end, our lives are the answers to those questions, whether we consciously asked the questions or not, but when any of us consciously ponders the questions, then to me, we are engaged in 'religion.' Or philosophy. And I don't find the difference between 'religion' and 'philosophy' particularly meaningful; it seems to be more a poltiical construct, artificial, as part of past leg-lifting exercises by humans pondering the 'we' forms of those questions instead of 'I' forms of those questions. (ie, "Why are we here, and what are we supposed to all be doing now as a consequence of that why?" The fertilzer of True Believer Totalitarianism.) What are any of us engaged in when we ask a fundamental question about those meta questions, such as: "Is there 'a' single answer to those fundamental questions, applicable to all entities for all of time and space, such that, the task of philosophy/religion could ever be 'done?'" Or, is the attempt to assert that there are universal/singular answers to those questions itself just a political act-- an assertion? I suspect, when we ponder the above questions, we are engaged in polite philosphy, and when we assert that the answers are the same for all of us, we are engaged in impolite politics. So my bias is, there are no singular 'the' answers to those (for me) fundamental questions of religion/philosophy, and so, those fences can never be 'done.' As well, ditto 'science.' No end in sight of either orthogonal fences. Feel free to keep painting, for as long as we might. regards, Fred

There is evidence(a hint) for what you suggest as follows. I'm a big fan of looking for the inevitable gradients all around us. Everywhere. Physics, economies, love, human activity. (Death being the only concept without interesting gradient-- in fact, Death being the state of lack of all interesting gradient.) Gradient is necessary even for an understanding of 'identity' -- and here is where the hint, the evidence is, in what you suggest. Consider the identity 'you' in space and time, in the visible spectrum. There is a well defined abrupt rate of change of the entity 'you' in time that begins at your birth/conception, whichever you prefer. (there is a less well defined prehistory of the sperm and egg cells you came from which is arguably not 'you' but lets leave that issue aside for now.) As well, during the time 'you' exist, there is also a well defined and abrupt rate of change of 'you' with respect to space that begins at your skin, when viewed with the bias of the visible spectrum; what our unaided eyes plainly 'see.' This concept of personal identity is influenced by an abrupt gradient in the visible spectrum of 'you' and 'me.' Now, and this is not such a leap at all, conside 'you' in the IR spectrum. We don't have IR eyes, but with augmentation, we can 'see' in the IR spectrum. When we look at 'us' in the IR spectrum, suddenly 'we' are reflecting off of nearby surfaces and also the atmosphere around us. There is not quite the same abrupt rate of change of 'us' w.r.t. space in the IR spectrum as there appears to clearly be in the visible spectrum. We can and do communicate with other, when we are close enough, in the IR spectrum; we 'feel' another's presence without physically touching them. This isn't magic; it is just physics, the universe as it is with us in it. Mankind was not always aware of the IR spectrum (or any spectrum of light other than that which we could plainly see with our visible light filtering sensory system.) We know there are other parts of the EM spectrum. And while we are at it, -look- at the structure of our visible light processing system-- the optic centers of the brain, the optic nerves, the eyes. When looked at from above, the entire stricture appears to be 'reaching out' to the world from the brain. So, yes-- there is clear evidence that what you hypothesize not only could happen, but already long ago did happen in our evolution. I agree- I think life in the Universe -meanders- to new possibilities. We are limited only by one thing: what can be in the Universe, as it is. Our example of local meandering life is not limited to what can be with its -imaginings-. Our -imaginings- are not limited by what already is; our imaginings are not limited by much at all, certainly not physical reality. But the subset of what we can bring about from those imaginings -is- limited by what can be. That process of imagining is one means of meandering to a new, perfectly permissible reality. We sometimes navigate to a new reality by design. We sometimes meander there. Looking at the unverse as it, meander was at work long before navigate arrived. They are both here now, locally at least. regards, Fred

Michael: Yes, I think there is evidence of volition in that visual experiment; we can actually experience ourselves 'choosing' what to value. Even as we are wetbit bags of meat, we are more that that. We are more than our reptilian brain stems, and even, more than our mammalian overlayers. We may be implemented as wetbits, but there is strong evidence that our wetbits can -choose- what to value. There is strong evidence even that we are able to understand -how- we can choose what to value. This visual experiment is -not- evidence that we can't believe our own lying eyes, or are unable to correctly perceive the world as it is; the fact that -we- can understand what is occurring here is evidence of that which can understand-- our minds-- , and that is what makes us uniquely human. We are not just autonomous neural nets responding to hardwired weightings; we can choose what we value, we can choose what we we weight. regards, Fred

Speaking only for me... My mind requires a means of implementation, which I believe is my brain, sustained by my body. My brain is a layered construct, with a reptilian brain stem, a mammalian overlayer, and a human layer on top of that. These layers are value driven neural nets(outputs driven by a weighting of inputs). The lowest layers are hardwired and autonomous; the upper layers can tune the weightings(feedback) of some of the lower layers, and-- what I believe is true -- the highest layers can not only tune the weightings of the higher layers, but actually wire new weightings of new inputs; the highest levels of brain/mind function can -choose- what to value to achieve dopamine stimulation at the highest levels and achieve a sense of well being. And, as well, can choose to embrace or eschew shortcuts-- direct drug stimulation. We can choose to 'settle' for the 'same' stimulation via the shortcut of taking drugs, or we can assess that as a shortcut for the weakminded who might as well be brains in a jar, twitching away in a pointless cul de sac of stimulation devoid of effort, creativity, or meaning.. I can demonstrate an example of this to almost anyone reading this, acting inside of themselves(and have already). I'll repeat it here. The squares marked 'A' and 'B' above are exactly the same shade of gray, which can be easily proven at the source website: When the visual processing system of your mind first encounters the image above, its 'default' weigthings -- what are valued from the inputs presented to your visual processing layers -- value pattern recogntion over absolute greyscale detection. At first, for most people, it is difficult -- seeming impossible -- to see those squares as the same shade of greyscale. (I've had people get quite angry at me when I present this and assert that the squares are the same shade of greyscale, saying things like "I can see plainly with my eyes that they are not the same shade of greyscale" ...like I was telling them a lie or trying to pull a fast one over on them with some word games -- and it is a little disturbing for them -- a kind of realization -- when it is proven to them that they absolutely are the same shade of greyscale. But after understanding the image and the fact that the squares are exactly the same shade of greyscale, it becomes difficult to see them as -different- shades of greyscale (because your mind has learned something about the image, and freshly changes the -weighting- of your visual processing system. However, with some effort, we can 'see' the squares as either the same or different greyscale values. (Hint: if your mind has 'learned' the image and you are having difficulte 'seeing' them as different shades of greyscale, then focus on A, then traverse a path of adjacent blocks to B, or vice versa. This will help you 'see' -- or maybe, 'perceive' is a better word -- the blocks as lighter and darker again. That, to me, is objective proof of the machinery inside our minds, and a screaming hint about our ability to -choose- what we value/weight from our neural processing nets, plural. regards, Fred

Whether we call it 'The Law of Unintended Consequences' or Wolframs 'complexity from simple rules', constructivists like this idiot are grossly unable to build 'the' complex world from his limited simple rules and accurately see that world. Sometimes we navigate, and sometimes we meander, and for sure, not all at the same time in the same way throughout all of space and time. This guy got bored at the Walmart and decided to try his hand at Guru. Fail.

GATTACA. Translated: we aren't nearly that smart, and neither is dufus.. Is it lost on many that he even looks like Hitler? He's another fool in love with the singular. ("We have to have a ...") lather, rinse, repeat. The top The bottom The economy The Society The Framework The Basis The Remains The Identity The Mind of The God... History's latest Totalitarian. We are all One. Another fool who wouldn't know pluralities if they bit him in his ass.

Ayn Rand's villains in Atlas Shrugged, in bed with state power, defined mixed economy/crony statism; with some irony, many of the ratcake politicos pushing 'crony capitalism' characterize Ayn Rand as defending 'crony capitalists.' A clearer example of mis-characterizing an author's message by 180 degrees is harder to find. The ratcake's idea of 'capitalists' are precisely Ayn Rand's villians in her romantic novels, especially AS. She skewers the concept of state connected cronyism better than any author ever has. And yet... her detractors characterize her as a worshipper of those she paints as villians. How is it possible to so massively miss her point, unless that is deliberately so? I suppose, because she is skewering statism along with that. When Marxists et. al. worship statism uber alles, they are of course going to interpret any criticism of statism unfavorably, but beyond that, in this instance, turn the criticism of statism around into a crticism of capitalism, and they have largely got away with it.

Cronyism: another one of those words that is all over the map. One broad definition might be something like "preferential treatment for one's socius in commerce, trade, or other forms of human interaction." 'Klan'-ish behavior -- a preference to deal with one's own tribe or race or circle of friends/associates. At a college graduation: extra tickets are limited to 2 per student...unless you are a friend of the folks handing out the tickets, and then, they will slip you the extra five you need. Petty fraternal cronyism, aka, the way naked sweaty apes behave when thy think nobody is looking.. At the Exxon Station: a guard checks your ID before selling you 10 gallons of gasoline, or setting the price you pay. Huh? Does not reconcile with 'Self Serve.' At the Exxon refinery: the contract to replace that 10,000 hp stationary turbine driving a pipeline pump is given to the brother-in-law of the CEO, who builds one in his garage out of spare parts from Lowes. Maybe at NeverHeardOfIt, Inc.(because it blew up long ago.) Well, if it happens, that is a kind of Cronyism. In the Exxon boardroom: preferential treatment from government paid for with campaign donations. Now we're talking. It doesn't take much analysis to realize that a necessary component for the kind of 'cronyism' that is running rampant in our economies is a corrupt government. Because we don't have to buy gasoline from Exxon. We don't have to buy stock in Exxon. We don't have to work for Exxon. We can drive by all of those opportunities. But we do need to pay taxes to an ever expanding out of all control phalanx of governments forever wanting only 'more,' because that is the constant attribute of an out of all control corrupt institution. So I agree; "crony statism" or "mixed economy" is a far better description. But of course, with ratcake politicos scurrying around, up becomes down, left becomes right, and this gets propagandized as 'crony capitalism,' only to the ratcakes selling that phrase, the 'capitalism' is redundant.

??? So in a year, will folks be complaining about living in burned out slums, with no opportunity? I hope they enjoy the closet full of crap they looted. Who in their right mind is going to invest anything at all in these neighborhoods? A new opportunity only for government subsidy. Forget Papa Johns, here comes the free government cheese. These riots changed my mind and 'raised my awareness.' There was a part of me that was thinking, 'I don't think these people are making this shit up." But that's changed; I am now 'aware' that these are some of the biggest dumbasses on the planet, and see what the cops have been dealing with on the street. Dumbasses.

Can, may, should. Three roaming concepts when it comes to rights. Not universally identical. Can is what we are able to to. May is what we are permitted by a local tribal law to do. (Not 'the' law, but a law at a particular time and place; a law because is can be a law, and even, under a constitution, may be a law. Enforceable because it can be enforced, and may be enforced, and sometimes even should be enforced.) Should is what a particular ethical foundation(not 'the' ethical foundation) regards as a right and correct and proper and decent thing to do. One human's take on rights: Labor leader A. Philip Randolph: "At the Banquet Table of Nature, there are no reserved seats; you get what you can take, you keep what you can hold." In terms of realizing rights, the rights that you can realize. But there are all kinds of rights. There are the rights that Joan of Arc possessed even as she was burned alive at the the stake. Maybe she may have had those rights, and maybe she should have had those rights. And yet, they were worthless to her in terms of avoiding being burned at the stake and paying with her very life; whatever other rights she might have possessed were all, each of them, secondary to her loss of her right to even exist. Can an animal possess property? Sure, until he cannot. You are naked and afraid on the plains of Africa. A lion possesses a den. You, as naked sweaty ape, serve your property rights via only one means; greater force. And then the battle of may and should erupts, also ultimately decided the exact same way. Because ultlimately, the biggest slobbering beast in the Jungle is the Tribal Mob. And for instance, that is how mankind erupts in some tribal members rounding up others and selling them in trade to others from across the sea to be used as property; because of the difference between can and may and should. Can is what it is; can is the world of A. Philip Randolph and the biggest beast in the jungle. Is that what drives the may and should in any attempt to construct a civil tribe? In a civil tribe, the can is moderated by the may; the may is enforced by the biggest beast in the Jungle. On a good day, the may is moderated by a roaming sense of should, not a universal sense of should, even in areas and on issues where you would -think- there would be broad consensus. Take slavery. Of course it is today, in civil nations, widely abhorred. But why? What is the nature of slavery that makes it abhorrent? As well, the concept of rape, and especially, gang rape, is also 'universally abhorred.' But why? What is the nature, the essense, of gang rape that makes it abhorrent? I claim, it is exactly the same element, the same foundation for ethical relationships among peers in a civil nation. That element is, free vs forced association. The only difference between '12 years a slave' and '3 yrs until my 15 yr pin' is the element of free vs. forced association. The only difference between rape and and act of sex is exactly the element of free vs. forced association. The only difference between gang rape and an orgy is exactly the element of free vs forced association even in the presence of pure democracy/majority rule. Gang rapists are fully adhering to the principles of pure democracy/majority rule unfettered by the principle of free vs. forced association. Although a gang -can- take what it wants after taking a vote, it -may- and -should- be restricted to -asking- for what it wants. That is the essence of free association. The number one function of an outward facing federal/national government is national defense, and in our tribe, we staff that necessary function of government by way of an all volunteer army. So, unless we align ourselves with the essence of slavery and rape and gang rape, what other functions of self government justify the projection of forced association? Here is a concrete example of how grotesque the abuse of political language has become in a not only out of all control political process, but one that abuses language as if it was a switch blade meant only to take what we want from others: Obama, recently: "What is wrong with asking the wealthy for a little more for (whatever he claims he wants)?" The answer is, "There is nothing wrong with asking; ask. But that isn't what you are advocating. You are not advocating 'asking' anyone anything. The word 'ask' in your mouth in this political context is a slur, a lie, a deceit. Who is buying that you are advocating 'asking' anyone anything? You are making a case to take without asking because the biggest slobbering beast in the Jungle can project forced association. Before we agree that it may do that, the question is, should it do that which makes rape 'rape' and slavery 'slavery?'" And so, when it comes to the can, political may, and religious should of enforceable property rights, the civil reason for maintaining them and enforcing them are based ultimately on our support of free vs forced association. We can take what we want, when we can. We can enslave and rape, too. Should we? The ethical reasons for not doing so are the same as the ethical reasons for abhorring slavery and rape. Politics: the most used and least defined word in all of politics. Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence and force. (Asking, persuasion, begging, deceit. Commerce is also a means -- the exchange of value for value.) Mega-politics: the superset that includes violence and force. Sometimes what we want from others is to ride them like a public 'property' pony, without the need to even politely ask for a ride. Other times, what we want from others is to be left alone to live in freedom. They are not symmetric wants. Freedom ultimately means, 'from each other' -- except under rules of free association. Free of all forms of rape and slavery and so on. You know...forced association. regards, Fred

Nerian: Certainly, if you view the movie based on the book, you are well able to react with 'hatchet job?' I mean, why not "The Toe Fungus of Ayn Rand?" Her personal intrigues and foibles and fumblings are certainly a path to tearing down her ideas, period. But it is also perhaps a reality check. No, she wasn't the self image of her own romantic visions and ideas, but that is the nature of romantic thought. (Romantic in the sense of ideals and goals and visions of the ideal, not romantic in the sense of courtship in pursuit of rubbing one out with the willing.) "The Toe Fungus of Ayn Rand" does not, IMO, take away from the romantic ideas she offered. Humans have Toe Fungus. We're all human. It's a given. Lets not examine the Toe Fungus of Marx, for balance. Not necessary, it's not just his feet that stink.

Another interesting read, by Dan Bricklin, on our court process, vis. patents.

Consider 'visual spreadsheets.' (...and leave for a moment the question of whether they are just derivatives of electronic spreadsheets from the 60s.) VisiCalc...Lotus 1,2,3.....Excel. Each with their own successive revisions and versions. Derivative works? Did the early arrival first of VisiCalc in any way impede the march of Lotus 1,2,3 .... Excel? An interesting read. What you don't find in that story is much accruing to the actual originators of the ideas. Can, may, should. And I think Labor Leader A. Philip Randolph accurately called how we deal with these issues.

"Can" is what one is able to do, and is limited only by physical universal laws. "May" is what one is permitted to do, and is determined by the local tribal laws of the moment., "Should" is what one ought to do, and is determined by the local tribal ethical edicts one subscribes to. So in your example, a sailor 'can' claim an uninhibited island until a greater force not only asserts that she may not but enforces that she can not, whether it is based on the belief that she should not or not.. According to Labor Leader A. Philip Randolph: "At the Banquet Table of Nature, there are no reserved seats; you take what you can get; you keep what you can hold." That is, until a greater force not only asserts that he may not, but enforces that he cannot, whether that is based on the belief that he should not or not. The once rational arguments for licensing open spectrum change with new technology. Yet, will discrete frequency AM stations be able to broadcast in perpetuity? Can, may, should? Courts must rely on the may of legislation; relying on the courts isn't really answering the question of what our laws should be maying to restrict what the mob can enforce. The "patent" deal is supposed to be a negotiated give away of possession of knowledge. In exchange for coughing up the why and how, the tribe will provide a kind of license -- not the enforcement of that license-- that is still up to the holder -- but a kind of right to claim possession for some negotiated limited amount of time to a uniquely patent-able idea. In reality, in today's world, the primary appeal of patents is as part of a defensive stable against the predatory claims of competitors. It's a strategy funded by deep pockets, necessitated by the honeypot fact of those deep pockets, a kind of catch-22.. There are alternate strategies that smaller companies use to live in the cracks and crevices of commerce. One of the enabling features of a patent is to reduce the need to be nimble and reactive; patents enable stodgy behavior. The slow running of the wheels off a wagon. Paying a toll to cash in over some period of time. It's an odd area of human effort, mostly a legal exercise, not a technical exercise. A software patent was once granted for the concept of a box around text. As in, this control is in violation of that patent.

That is what happens when we have governments. They just get bigger and spend more of our hard earned substance. ...but that doesn't happen all by itself, Bob. It takes millions of parasites to create a big government that will educate them, give them loans, employ them, insure them, pay for their healthcare, and give them money when they're disabled. What the hell else would you expect other than a big government? Greg If we found ourselves living on the surface of an orange, indeed, what else should we expect?, On average, mankind has figured out ways to keep some oranges from rotting. But mankind, on average, has never figured out a way to keep all oranges from rotting. An out of all control government is practically a physical certainty, a law of nature. Like rotted fruit. Freedom just took a hit yesterday. How? Because of the pervasive on average belief that anything of substance just changed. The bi-annual ritualistic blood letting occurred. The 'reset' button was just hit. This time its going to be a different outcome than the evidence of the last 50 yrs +. The Rove weasels will do a better job than the Carville weasels. The gig renewed itself for another two years of gig holding. Gig: government increasing ginormously.

Keynesian economics went big starting in the 1930s for it provided political cover for politicians spending all they wanted to to maintain and expand their power. Exactly what it remains today; the Magic Keys to the Boundless Public OPM Spending Kingdom. Have to really dig deep to imagine any government ever in history taking on both halves of Keyne's Theory; only the borrow and spend half is ever embraced by the parasitic weasels. Never the cut spending and payback half. Never. And yet, lying through their teeth being their primary skill, referring to themselves as 'Keynsians' all the while. Nixon in the 70s. Economies stalling because they couldn't grow fast enough in response to the underlying demographic demand. Government needs to spend more. Clinton in 1992: the government needs to spend more. (Stimulus Plan, Nationalize Health Scare. Those and must have BTU tax never passed.) "The Erah of Big Guvmint is Ovah.' Ha! The Erah of Really f'n Huge Government was right around the corner. Government meddling caused financial crisis in 2008: the government needs to get bigger ans spend more. Economies on their ass: government needs to get bigger and spend more. In the last 50 yrs, who grew the federal pig more than Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41? Not to be outdone, LBJ, Clinton and Obama giving those pikers a run for our money. And here comes another national election; as if it matters in the least. Private Economies heating up too much; government needs to get bigger and spend more. Private Economies on their ass; government needs to get bigger and spend more. Government caused economic crisis in 1929: government needs to get bigger and spend more. War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more. No War in Europe: government needs to get bigger and spend more. Ebola in Africa: government needs to get bigger and spend more. A washing machine shuts off a rinse cycle shy of perfection: government needs to get bigger and spend more. Global Cooling: government needs to get bigger and spend more. Global Warming: government needs to get bigger and spend more. Weather we don't like: government needs to get bgger and spend more. Bad Hair Day: government needs to get bigger and spend more. Hey look! A Squirrel!: government needs to get bigger and spend more.

Let's say you wake up some day and find yourself in a successful, affluent nation. It got that way under one model of risk/reward discipline. Grandpa must have really been something, but you've got time to kill now. So you and a tiny cadre of Ivy League Prospect Street bretheren, largely bored, start a little private club. You take bets on the weather in the future, and among yourselves and those you can convince to join willingly, you largely pony up the wins and losses among yourselves. In grandpas day, there was the stock market, and the risk/reward based activity nominally had something to do with the value producing economies, but over time, the spinal rot of noticing that value-proxies was not exactly value crept in, and like a weasel magnet, well, the weasels showed up in droves. The game became all about staring at the scoreboard of a game played by others and taking bets, and to Hell with the game being played, it barely mattered to anyone in the least. At first, in roaring economies based on actual value production, a little of this effete Ivy League clubdom was just anecdotal harmless fun for a few bored generations well removed from grandpas original ways and means and impetus. But then, over the course of decades, the club expanded. Turns out, when you focus on games and gaming of the value-proxy machinery in raging real economies, money for nothing can be made to rain from the sky. And as long as a few misguided schmucks on Main Street are still slugging along running uphill in the value-producing economies, why, its was still possible to actually buy 'stuff' with all those gamed value-proxies. Things like LTCM, which were basically some MIT nerds not counting cards in Las Vegas, but rather, putting on a pony economic model show to dupe folks with money to risk based on the assumption that the weather tomorrow in San Diego is going to be warm and pleasant, held out the alluring promise of ridiculous 'guaranteed' returns on 'investments' in the bets, Hey, don't get me wrong. It's hard to count cards. It's hard to write almost good enough models(and just throw away the un-modelable terms)and snow boobs with cash in the toney CT burbs. It's just like real work, and those wingtips pinch. And, well, for as long as the gig lasts, it can be made to rain value-proxies, if not actual value. And soon enough, even virtuous managers of State Teachers Pension Funds are placing bets on this gig, which, due to its nature, requires access to large piles of leveraged OPM in order to collect up enough margins on the bets to realize the ridiculous 'guaranteed returns.' That is, until the weather is one day not sunny and warm in San Diego, and all that leverage weighs in exactly the wrong direction, and the local little club and those who place bets and those who lent money to the bet takers are all in deep shit on the downside of risk/reward. This is where free market discipline steps in and cleans up the mess, right? Those who took the stupid bets chasing reward, those who lent money for that exact purpose expecting ridiculously unsustainable returns, and those who placed faith in those banks for such practices-- that no longer little club was going to take its own haircut, right? There was going to be an outbreak of free-market discipline, right? Even, the fund managers of State Teachers Pension Funds -- there were going to be calls for heads on pikes, so to speak? Or at the very least, firings and a financial education in 'what not to do in the future.' Right? Some sheriff sales in the toney CT burbs? A few grandsons of grandpas who once must have been something putting away the wingtips, polishing the resumes, hiding the fact that they'd just been knee deep in a Cluster Fuck and looking for new jobs? But, what if these weasels could convince their fraternity brother friends in DC, working on their soft landings, that this was a 'financial crisis' and 'might possibly result in a threat to the system as a whole...er... 'systemic risk' ... if a handful of wealthy grandsons and those snookered by them took a haircut and had to find new jobs outside of the bet taking gig? The US Treasury needs to print zeros on bonds. The FED needs to take on some toxic 'debt' via some shell game few on Main Street can comprehend. The 'free market' needs to be blamed, and sure, we will rush in and command Main Street to eat your little club losses here, but the price for that is the sellout of the 'free market' -- even though it is precisely the 'free market' that is nowhere to be seen in this action of government being used as a fraternal slush fund. And, thank you, weasels, for selling out freedom. Now these same weasels are free to go make bets on defense plays, and gee, let's hope these conflicts don't end too soon, there are alot of plays to be made while Main Street sends its sons and daughters to go bleed in limited confilcts designed only to run as long as possible to support these plays, made risk free in the safety of those Georgetown Bistros by Ivy League weasels far from not only the hurt at the bloody end of the pointy stick, but also, far from the discipline of grandpa's risk/reward days. Be sure to tell me where I've mischaracterized modern political reality. America has been weaseled to death.