Not cause and effect, contrast. The G8 will be discussing the internet and society, but the G8 organisers haven't invited the experts. People like the EFF, the Center for Internet and Society, the OSI, and the like are the folks who think the hardest and longest about how government should and shouldn't interact with the web so that it's good and not crappy. Mark Zuckerberg's there and presumably Larry Lessig isn't.

>>>Contrary to current best practices in policymaking, the invite list has been limited primarily to representatives of government and corporate leaders, who already enjoy disproportionately large influence over Internet regulation.

The signatories of this statement represent most of the groups that wade waist-deep into politics to promote the free and open web. They keep banging on the door, but they don't get a seat at the table. Many of these are the same groups that tried to change the ACTA treaty. As civil society members, they will always be pushing for greater transparency, better access, a more ethical approach. That's their role.

They're right of course that if business leaders (Around 1,500 guests in all says the Guardian article) get access, the third leg of society, civic leaders, should also have a place. However, no one will just open the door and let them in. They need clout to earn a seat, and they're having trouble building it up. They need charismatic leaders, or need to be able to influence blocks of voters. Right now, they have no standing on any political stage, let alone in a summit meeting like this.

Michelle Rodriguez has the right swagger.

In my dream casting, Jackie Earle Haley plays the Finn and some aging action star plays Armitage (Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, or Mel Gibson).

No one can be told what Project Xanadu is. You have to see it for yourself. I found that video on youtube of Ted Nelson showing off Xanadu a few years ago.

He might be a mad man, but he's an interesting madman.

I think you have to start by making a distinction between the institution of government and the process of governance in which government, business, and civil society all participate. The idea is, a FOSS-inspired change in the process might improve governance decisions.

I think of it as government of the ones who show up, and it already happens, to some extent, everywhere. In democracies, most of the decisions aren't made by elected officials, but by bureaucrats. The people doing the work. I recently spoke with a young woman who was a junior staffer in one of the highest offices of the executive branch in the George Bush administration. She said that most of the decisions made in the US capitol were actually made by people in their early twenties, just out of college, who were willing to work long hours for peanuts. If these young folks had majored in CS and Math instead of PoliSci and History, they'd have been coding instead of drafting legislation. (Joel Reidenberg and Laurence Lessig have both written cleverly on the parallels between code and law.) In authoritarian states, like for example China, the bureaucracy plays a similar role (wish I could find a reference quickly).

Most existing government structures keep some people away from the decision-making process. Law-makers hide the code of governance (the law) until it's ready to be shipped. Some of us (I don't know the metagovernment people, but I like the way they think) who are interested in both law and code think there's something to learn from FOSS. Maybe the process can be opened up. Let's acknowledge the underlying process of governance, which doesn't have much to do with voting, and more to do with people making decisions by default, because they're in the room when the question comes up.

There are plenty of problems with ideas like this. Of course, you probably don't start tinkering at a national level, but at a local level where the stakes are lower. Maybe the analogy between governance and coding is a false one. But you can't know until you give it a go, see what problems there are, and try to fix them.

Resist the impulse to assume the riots in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen are all about the USA. I guarantee you, the people on the streets of these countries by and large don't want to live in America or a make their country more like the US in general. They have their own values and desires that you might find surprising.

These angry people are feeling their power as a mob. What we know right now is that these rioters oppose autocratic and corrupt government. Let's say they share those values with Hamas, the Peasants and Workers Party of India, the government of Somaliland, Wikileaks, the US State Department, and the Tea Party. It's much more important, however, what they're for. Whether that means they support -- to take ideas from the parent post -- democracy, free markets, pop-culture, and free expression more than do the leaders they oppose, remains to be seen.

(reposed after logging in)

Exactly, under laboratory conditions an arsenic-rich environment doesn't kill it, in fact the bacterium continues to grow, though not as quickly as in an environment that contains phosphorus. Using radioactive isotopes to trace the distribution of arsenic through the organism revealed the chemical in important molecules like proteins, DNA, and ATP. Discover Magazine has published a good blog post that explains what the research does and doesn't show so far.

The scientist who lead the team who conducted the experiment is pretty cool. And it seems she's found a research project for the rest of her life.

From this perspective, what the 'war on terror' costs, the most expensive item on the balance sheet should be the lost opportunities to spend all those lives, time, and treasure on something more constructive. Those billions of dollars could instead have been spent on anything from small business tax incentives, to scientific research, to foreign aid to develop foreign markets for American goods. The money circulates, whether spent on body scanners or on school supplies, but it probably could have circulated to better effect.

Sugar Labs is the OS loaded on the OLPC laptops. It's made for children and one page of its website says that the programs loaded are accessible to children as young as four years old. While I've only given it a cursory glance in a VM myself, it comes as a complete digital learning environment with programming games, text editor, web browser, and an integrated journal system where the young user can record what he or she learns after using each program. I heard Walter Bender describe the project a couple of months ago and apparently the OS opens the FOSS code behind all of the software to the user as well, for learning and tinkering. It's probably most enriching if the child has an adult around who can help them develop good habits, protect them from disturbing content, and reflect on what their figuring out.

Wu shouldn't be afraid of Apple. None of us should. Fear gets in the way and makes you do stupid things. Let's just keep building the open web. Also, maybe advocacy helps.

--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. --Bene Gesserit, litany against fear.