disable ads

Apr 25th

Apr 24th

Apr 23rd

Apr 22nd

  • retweet
    oth
    The Pirate PartyVoting as a mode of conflict resolution fails because: 1. The process of voting creates losers. 2. People who become losers are not happy. Happy people are productive, enthusiastic, and good activists. Therefore, we want happy people. The alternatives to voting: 1. Negating the possibility of one person telling another person what they can do in the first place. Nobody gets to tell anybody else what to do. This is the norm for the Pirate Party. We call it a “do-ocracy.” 2. A consensus decision-making process where everybody can veto the way forward. This method is much more costly but can be used rarely in carefully selected scenarios in groups of 30 or less. Be careful about establishing consensus as an organizational requirement though, - it would be extremely cheap for an adversary to kill operational ability through planted bad-faith veto power. Should be used sparingly for this reason.
  • retweet
    oth

Apr 21st

Apr 20th

Apr 19th

Apr 18th

  • retweet
    oth
    The Pirate Party"In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. That, in essence, is the higher service to which we are all being called." Buckminster Fuller
  • retweet
    oth
    The Pirate PartyVery inspiring stuff here. "These policy documents are designed to enable real world practices towards a society based on shared material and knowledge commons. The plans contained here, although originally created for Ecuador's FLOK Society Project have been adapted to be non-region specific. We share them to give an overview of the many precedents and possibilities pointing to a fairer societal order, and inspire civil society collectives at the local, regional, national and global levels to adapt them to their particular contexts."
  • retweet
    oth
    The Pirate PartyThe Supreme Court on Monday declined (PDF) to hear a challenge from the Authors Guild and other writers claiming Google's scanning of their books amounts to wanton copyright infringement and not fair use. The writers also claimed that Google's book search snippets provide an illegal free substitute for their work and that Google Books infringes their "derivative rights" in revenue they could gain from a "licensed search" market. The Supreme Court let stand the lower court opinion that rejected the writers' claims. That decision today means Google Books won't have to close up shop or ask book publishers for permission to scan. In the long run, the ruling could inspire other large-scale digitization projects.

Apr 17th

Apr 15th

Newsletter
user online (16) viewing this page (1)
view mobile version
FEEDBACK & SUGGESTIONS
Processing time: 0.5616 seconds