Sovereign Computing

Posted 23 Nov 2004 at 04:16 UTC by KlausWuestefeld Share This

Neide is 14.

After school and before going to work with her sister, she passes by the public Internet center in Vila Tiradentes, Brazil, and notices that 11 people have already accessed the sovereign services she set up the day before.

She doesn't have a PC at home, let alone fast Internet access, nor does she have money for web hosting. This is why she had used a free host called Geocities before, which benefited by placing ads on her site.

However she has a classmate, Pedro, whose father owns a shop where he has a PC and fast Internet.

With Pedro and another 4 friends that she met on the net, she got 7MHz worth of processing power and some 20MB of HD space in all.

In fact she got twice as much, but she let half of it to Gladson, Maicon and Carla, three other visitors of the Internet center. They are younger than Neide and she is teaching them the first steps in computers.

Neide's story is only just beginning.


Before they achieved computing sovereignty, people would receive hundreds of undesired messages every day bringing viruses, chain letters, advertising and all sorts of rubbish. It was the infamous "spam".

On most web pages there were also animated ads assailing the audience, who had no option but to put up with that.

People were forced to make frequent copies of all of their personal files on removable media, such as floppy disks or CDs. That was called "backup". For trusting their HDs too much, many people lost a life's worth of digital photos, music, messages, contacts and projects.

In order to "access" the Internet, people had to pay a "provider" and obtain "IP addresses", arbitrarily handed out by a controlling organization.

In order to keep in touch, people kept nagging each other with messages such as "take note of my new cell-phone number" or "take note of my new e-mail address".

E-mails, by the way, were plaintext messages - believe it or not - people used to send through intermediaries called "providers", with no privacy at all. And they used to pay for that.

Many people used to leave their private e-mails hosted on "webmail" servers, running the risk of having their privacy invaded by the system operator crew or having their e-mails suddenly lost by them.

When searching the web, instead of getting the pages with the most relevance to them first, people used to receive first the pages that the search engine - a certain "Google" for instance - considered to be the most relevant to everyone.

Besides having to wait for days to download a file at times, people who shared music, movies and other files using "peer-to-peer" systems still had to pan a torrent of phony, faulty and incomplete files.

With expression capacity limited to insipid "blogs", most people were mere consumers of information produced by global news agencies and canned by self-denominated "content providers".

Those who only used a certain instant messaging system were unable to communicate with others who used any other system. "ICQ" and "MSN" were two such systems at the time. People used to keep several of them open at the same time, to be able to chat with all of their friends.

Some participated in primitive relationship networks such as "Orkut" and "LinkedIn". They were limited, did not communicate with each other, and since they were based on centralized sites, they offered those same reliability and privacy risks as webmail servers.

If, instead of using commercial servers, anyone decided to have his own server on the Internet with his own "domain" name, this person had to pay yet another arbitrary fee every year. And if this domain name had already been taken, this person was simply forced to conform and choose another.

In order to host a safe site, people had to buy "digital certificates" from one of half a dozen companies, such as "Verisign" or "Certisign". Everyone trusted them blindly through the little padlocks on their browsers. Those companies were, in effect, the owners of the truth.

Most people took refuge in ignorance. In that depressing context, some people created for themselves an illusion of freedom, a palliative freedom they called "Free Software".

Free Software users or not, therefore, they were no more than subjects conforming to the arbitrary laws dictated by a handful of Internet "authorities".

The Turning Point

People got fed up with that monkey business.

They decided they would be free to share information and hardware resources with their friends at their own pleasure.

This freedom became known as sovereign computing.


Besides eliminating all problems described above, sovereign computing opened further possibilities people did not even dream about.

Organizations, families and affinity groups in general abandoned the clumsy e-mail-based "discussion lists" and started to share extremely rich, intricate and friendly information bases.

It was no longer necessary to manually grant and revoke access rights to every user of every restricted system. System administrators were freed to do more useful things.

It became common to work together with other people, sharing on-line projects, without having to send e-mails to and fro, duplicating versions and more versions of attached "documents".

People started to use the Internet not only to communicate with their contacts, but also as a means to express themselves. Overcoming the limitations of pathetic "blogs", people acquired a voice that was heard by their Internet communities without depending on providers or hosts.

Gutenberg had given people access to information. Attaining sovereignty in computing, they also conquered the right to publication. The five-hundred-year cycle was complete.

After requisite legislative reform in their countries, people started to buy things and establish credit using electronic currency that they issued themselves. Each person became his or her own mint, surpassing the liquidity of the monetary system and, at the same time, recovering the autonomy of barter, lost thousands of years earlier.

Anyone became capable of, with a single mouse-click, hosting any service in his or her machine, to be accessed by him or her and by their friends - and these services remained up even when their machines were turned off.


The above is a story we will tell our children. Stories such as Neide's will then be commonplace, whereas now they are simply a flash of the future.

I shall demonstrate that - resuming some simple freedoms, which we have in the real world but have lost in the virtual - to live this new reality is only a matter of time. Because it is such a pleasant experience, it is not much time we are talking about.

"Are we talking about new software? About new technology?"

Yes, but that is not all. It is much simpler and much more encompassing than that. It is a new attitude we are talking about. It takes wanting:

>>To be free to share information and hardware resources with friends.<<

When we acquire that freedom, we shall have attained computing sovereignty.

"Alright. And...? How shall we acquire that freedom?"

Little by little.

    First Freedom: Own Name

You must be free to choose a name for yourself, any name.

It need not be a weird name such as "joseph underscore smith at yahoo dot com dot tee vee". It can be "Joseph Smith" with a right to spaces, capital letters, everything.

It need not be a new, exclusive name either. If I changed my name to access a system, just because someone said there already was another user registered in the system with the same name, I would not be sovereign. I would be a fool.

And it need not be a definitive name. Being sovereign, you may change it as many times as you please, of course.

I, for instance, call myself "Klaus Wuestefeld" at the moment.

    Second Freedom: Nicknames

You must be free to call your friends whatever you like.

If you have a dentist called "Frederick Smith" and a cousin with the same name, you may give one of them the nickname "Dentist" and the other the nickname "Freddy".

Notice that your cousin is now "Freddy" to you, rather than "freddy smith with no space at hotmail dot com".

Your dentist's secretary becomes simply "Dentist -> Secretary", no longer "ana dot claudia 2004 at terra dot com dot bee are".

Thus we rid ourselves of the illusion that there must be one single absolute addressing scheme.

When we believe this fallacy, we are in fact adopting and submitting to a scheme invented by someone else and we are thereby abdicating our sovereignty. IP addresses such as "" and domain names such as "" are examples of that.

Do you know who commands the distribution of these addresses? If you do not, albeit in a subtle way, you are allowing someone you do not know to have dominion over you.

The same applies to an entire country, which shamefully subordinates to a foreign scheme such as this.

"Is it forbidden, then, to use IP addresses or domain names?"

Of course not. Being sovereign we may use whatever we want.

If besides "Mother -> Site" you wish to continue calling your mother's site "h tee tee pee colon slash slash double-u double-u double-u dot provider dot net slash sites slash tilde whatsername", that's OK. You will only stop being sovereign if you are incapable of using your own addressing scheme whenever you wish.

In order to be sovereign, then, you will use a RELATIVE addressing scheme, where you are the origin. "You -> Dentist -> Secretary" is an example of such a relative path stemming from you. "My uncle's sister-in-law" is another example.

(I used arrows (->) to show the path, but you may use whatever you wish, of course, or you would not be sovereign)

Einstein has shown us that even in the physical world absoluteness and objectivity are mere illusions. It is simply dawning on us that the same applies to the virtual world.

    Third Freedom: Trust

You must be free to trust whoever you wish.

Anyone can be sovereign on his own, isolated on an island, but this is no fun. Things become more difficult and more interesting when you start interacting with other people.

What determines the intensity of your interactions with other people is the degree of trust you place in them.

What is the address of your bank's web site?

This address will point to whatever your Internet provider wishes. Your Internet provider can fool you, passing itself for any non-secure site on the Internet.

Conspiring with any of the "owner of the truth" companies such as Verisign or Certisign, any Internet provider in the world can pass itself for any site, of any organization, including secure sites (with little padlocks), such as your bank's site.

Alright, but why don't Internet providers do that? Why doesn't Verisign do it? Why should I trust them?

"Well, because most people trust them."

Most German people trusted Hitler and the rest is history. And the German people knew the guy. Of the cybernauts who even know the meaning of that little padlock on their browsers, only a fraction ever heard about Verisign, Certisign and band.

To be sovereign, then, you may simply stop trusting people you do not know. You can simply tell your Internet provider and the "owners of the truth" to take a hike.

Now, if you trust your brother and he says he trusts his brother-in-law, due to the reference you tend to trust that brother-in-law a little more than a mere stranger, right?

We can represent reliability as a percentage, where 0% would be no reliability and 100% would be total reliability.

If you say you trust your brother 70% and he says he trusts his brother-in-law 50%, for instance, you may consider 35% (70% x 50%) reliability for his brother-in-law.

Notice that the trust you place in someone decreases as relations become more distant, exactly like in real life.

Again like in real life, you may trust someone more or less depending on the subject. You may trust your brother 70% when it comes to soccer. When it comes to "Music", however, you trust him only 1%, in view of his deplorable musical taste.

"What subjects can I use?"

You don't get it. Being sovereign, you are free to use whatever subjects you wish, or none.

"What is the use of knowing that my brother's brother-in-law has 35% reliability and the uncle of the girlfriend of the neighbor of the parrot of the dentist of my grandfather has only 0,06% reliability for me?"

It is useful for guaranteeing our fourth freedom.

    Fourth Freedom: Privacy

There are two aspects to privacy:

You must be free to see only what you want to see and, You must be free to maintain information hidden from people you do not trust.

This second aspect, secrecy, is obvious. The following are some examples of the first aspect.

Whenever your search for a page, music, film or any other resource, you may order results by reliability, leaving rubbish to the end.

Being sovereign, you may decide that you want to be interrupted by urgent messages from whoever has more than 60% reliability, but all messages from senders with less than 1% reliability go straight to the trash.

Being sovereign, you may bid spammers good-bye.

    Fifth Freedom - Expression

You must be free to express yourself.

To depend on a static web host or blog host is not to be free. To be limited to these ridiculous vehicles is also far from being free.

Besides, it must be extremely easy for your friends, for people who trust you, to hear your voice, to know your opinion on matters of interest to them.

Musical taste is a very down to earth example of that.

What are the best ten songs of all time? What are the worst ten songs? What are the best ten "blue" songs? What are the ten songs that stick to your mind the most? What are the best ten songs to sing in the shower?

I am sure you would be interested in your friends' opinion on this type of subject, the same as they would be interested in yours.

Imagine you grade, from zero to 10, the top ten songs to listen to while having sex.

While the average grade you award is 8, you realize a friend of yours - much more demanding than you - awards 4 on average. To be able to compare, you decide to multiply her grades by 2 so that they are in the same range as yours.

You realize, still, that another friend keeps two lists: the top ten songs for sex in the car and the top ten songs for sex at home. That is a bit too much for you so you simply decide to merge both lists and pick the top ten.

Now you can publish a synthesis of your best songs along with your friends', all in the same range and in the same category.

Notice then that SYNTHESIS is also a form of expression.

It is precisely the force that counterbalances the chaos created by millions of sovereign parties publishing tons of information any way they please. You have access to all this information not directly, if you don't want to, but through syntheses - and syntheses by the people you trust the most on each subject.

    Sixth Freedom - Hardware

You must be free to share your hardware resources as you wish.

I have a 30GB surplus on my HD and a 17kbps surplus on my Internet link to let. Are you capable of leasing to me 4MB of your RAM and 7MHz of your processor in exchange for that? Do you even know anyone who is?

There are about three people I know who could do that but only after they had spent months programming.

For the first time in my life, the capacity of my HD is greater than my capacity to install apps and store files in it. For the first time now, I have surplus space and its tens of gigabytes.

Still, I am forced to make backups of my personal files, including my digital photos, so as not to run the risk of loosing them. My mother is in the exact same situation.

After searching for hours, I could not find a free software app allowing me to create, updated in a totally transparent fashion, in the idle space of my HD, a replica of my mother's files and vice-versa.

Maybe such a solution even exists, but it is certainly not in common use.

For us to be truly sovereign, we must be capable of freely associating and sharing the space on our HDs. The same applies to our RAM, our processors and our Internet links.

With that we can bid Internet hosts, as we currently know them, good-bye.

If you, my mother and I create a cluster with our 3 machines, we shall have presences on the Internet that will be more robust and more available than the vast majority of today's commercial sites, even without making file backups.

And this need not be all. How many of your friends have machines at home with fast Internet access? If you federate with your sovereign friends, you can all establish Internet presences that are practically invulnerable.

Even if your machine crashes, your virtual presence will remain alive and perfectly well, hosted by the machines of people you trust.

    Seventh Freedom - Software

You must be free to share all the software you use with whoever you wish.

For such, it is essential to use Free Software, of course. The four freedoms defined by the Free Software Foundation are therefore considered freedoms 7.0, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 of sovereign computing.

But using Free Software is not enough. Software must also be extremely easy, simple to install and to use.

Free Software products have improved a lot in this respect lately, but it is a point most Free Software definitions still leave out.

The more a software is friendly to use and to install, the greater the number of people with whom you will be free to share it.


Even if I resort to the whole Free Software arsenal available to me, without spending months programming, even I who was raised amongst computers, cannot freely share information and hardware resources with my friends.

That is ridiculous.

Some friends and I are developing applications, which, besides being free, make it trivial for just any person to attain computing sovereignty.

"Why are you doing that?"

Because we can.

We are programmers. It is practically our duty to put an end to the circus it is to use the Internet today.

Besides, a world with independent and sovereign people will be far more interesting than hordes and hordes of passive and numbed cybernauts.

"But must one be a programmer to help?"

No. Software is useless if no one knows about it or no one uses it. To use what we are developing, it is enough to wish to be free, truly free.

End of the Story

Neide is happy because removing her site from Geocities she will finally be able to use dynamic content and, above all, she will be rid of that damned ad.

She will be able to use real programming, that she started to learn last year, and create her own sovereign service. Other people, she hopes, might even give her the honor of installing it on their own machines.

She leaves the public Internet center, heading to her sister's office, chin up, smiling. She hops.

Maybe she is no one in the real world, but she knows that at least in the virtual world she has a future.

She is someone.

'GRAND' posting, cheers!, posted 23 Nov 2004 at 05:26 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

a Lutheran in our own time! I told my guy , 'don't let this dude dream about pen the old/new constitution by himself even if it was built on fiction. Catch him up with our own songs NOW.'

Imagine..., posted 23 Nov 2004 at 12:11 UTC by jerry » (Journeyer)

Imagine we where half way there.

Before I start I better admit: my reply is a shameless plug for the Askemos project, and I'm the principal author of it.

However you nice article mentions most of the considerations and aims, which started the Askemos concept. Calling it "sovereign computing" is actually great! I hope you don't mind me using that term from now instead of "autonomous operating system" as I used to call it.

What's the recipe?

Take a set of rules to handle granting and revokation of capabilities. Make sure it matches basic human rights, i.e., you find a way to express these rights both ways verbal and by these rules: Be sure to provide a proof (I'm using set theory), that this very set of rules guaranties that nobody will ever be able to gain all your capabilities. This means rule out all central administration, it's too powerful for itself.

Combine these rules with a calculus for interacting processes (agents). I found the pi-calculus appealing.

Identify the total set of operations within this "rights management enhanced pi calculus". Define an API. Since I wanted it to be "compatible" at all costs, don't reinvent the wheel, resort to XML no matter what issue you might want to see.

Since you might want to have something instead of paper certificates, it's a good idea to reference you objects via a crypto check sum. So called self verifying identifiers. If the content matches the identifier, you certificate is indeed unchanged.

Now that we have an abstract calculus and an API, define a virtual machine to execute it. Since the calculus describes stepwise modifications to some abstract state, it's a good idea to use byzantine synchronisation within a network of proxies/servers to vote on execution of these steps. That's tamper proof processing, which brings two advantages: a) people might want to cheat, they might want to just take the bare metal and modify the document including the "self verifying identifier" - within a byzantine network they'd need to mess with the majority of machines at once b) machines might break and backups are really a pain in the neck. Since in a byzantine network there's no "master copy" our programmers continue to work while machines are off. Often we even don't notice.

Call that concept Askemos, publish and put this plug here, since you failed to find it in the first place. ;-)

What next?

Take a side step: find that you've just got an expression for "legal certainty" and find it beeing incompatible with the §3a of the proposed directive for european software patents. Try to tell publically, but leave the parliament not unheard but without getting a single one to understand what you are talking about. Give up and go back to you business - eventually you are the only kid on the block, who can show that it delivers tamper proof processes at 98% reliability.

Free Software is..., posted 23 Nov 2004 at 12:44 UTC by atai » (Journeyer)

Software by the People, of the People and for the People

Do I mind?, posted 23 Nov 2004 at 15:44 UTC by KlausWuestefeld » (Master)

    "Calling it 'sovereign computing' is actually great! I hope you don't mind me using that term from now instead of 'autonomous operating system' as I used to call it."

Sovereign computing, to me, is a particular kind of freedom. An autonomous operating system might "provide" sovereign computing or "enable" sovereign computing or "support" it. To me, therefore, an autonomous operating system can never "be" sovereign computing.

You can use the term regardless of me minding it, though. Or else you would not be sovereign.

Re: Do I mind?, posted 23 Nov 2004 at 16:43 UTC by jerry » (Journeyer)

Sovereign computing, to me, is a particular kind of freedom. An autonomous operating system might "provide" sovereign computing or "enable" sovereign computing or "support" it.

That's absolutly in line with my understanding. The operating system (which I call BALL as in Byzantine Askemos Language Layer) enables to exercise the freedom, the hosts (or to be precise the operators of those hosts) which run it support it. The conceptual "space", wherein the rules apply, (the rationale behind the API) I'm calling "Askemos". "Souvereign computing" is, what was conceived for.

sovereign, soverain, supernus, super, posted 23 Nov 2004 at 17:36 UTC by nymia » (Master)

[Middle English soverain, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *supernus, from Latin super, above. See uper in Indo-European Roots.]
Sovereign Computing, to my interpretation is basically an area where one can exercise his or her freedom. Note that this freedom is not absolute, it must also be a derivative from the basic freedom. The exercise of computing in a space defined by an authority is required, so as to be recognized and respected. Any self-declaration or a simple land-grab isn't probably going to prosper as this is tantamount to occupation of another sovereign space.

Perhaps the nearest term would be the word emancipation, closely followed by liberation.

sovereign, soverain, supernus, super, posted 24 Nov 2004 at 17:29 UTC by KlausWuestefeld » (Master)

    "The exercise of computing in a space defined by an authority is required, so as to be recognized and respected. Any self-declaration or a simple land-grab ... is tantamount to occupation of another sovereign space."

Not really. You are thinking zero-sum. Why?

I can bring my machine into the sovereign space. I don't have to grab anyone's space.

null space being occupied by real space is a perturbation, posted 24 Nov 2004 at 17:50 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

on the previous state but if the previous state has a concept of inverted space then the new perturbation only introduces a new equalibrium of a second order.

The Game of GO is designed so that a seasoned player has to become fully aware of the different properties between null and inverted space. IMHO, 'Sovereign computing' can not make a free man with free mind any better than ancient 'game of go' .

Sovereign Space, posted 24 Nov 2004 at 22:03 UTC by nymia » (Master)

Not really. You are thinking zero-sum. Why?

Part of the definition has the inherent property, being defined as a space that is habitable can mean its sovereignty can be occupied. The occupier can range from every type, one example is the cracker who can sneak in and occupy the space.

Then there's another, a space that is outside of Sovereign Computing that can be considered sovereign or free for the taking. I'm assuming the free space you were referring was the free space that can be used for said purpose.

GO [off-topic], posted 25 Nov 2004 at 05:05 UTC by KlausWuestefeld » (Master)

    The Game of GO is designed so that...

Oh. So now the game of GO has an intent. How do you know? Is there some 4000 year old parchment left behind by the "designer" of Go?

    a seasoned player has to become fully aware of the different properties between null and inverted space. IMHO, 'Sovereign computing' can not make a free man with free mind any better than ancient 'game of go'.

Can the game of GO rid me of spam?

Anyway, let's play? I play on Kiseido (nick: Prevayler).

Re: Sovereign Space, posted 26 Nov 2004 at 10:13 UTC by jerry » (Journeyer)

Part of the definition has the inherent property, being defined as a space that is habitable can mean its sovereignty can be occupied. The occupier can range from every type, one example is the cracker who can sneak in and occupy the space.

Not nessesary so. The first to occupy some space could be defined to be the one who owns it. What's left is to proof that the concept of the cracker is not part of the sovereign computing concept. (Providing that proof was the point of Askemos concept.)

Looking closer at the concept of the cracker (in the computing world) we find, that the cracker plays according to the rules of the game (as defined by the software in use), just only against the intentions of the "proper" owner. The typical case is tricky or malicious abuse of administrative power. Hence the proof we needed was that no concept comparable to central administration (global administrator, root account, whatever you name it) can be created within sovereign computing space.

Littlest must know Wise team of mighty sovereigns are fair, just, merciful , posted 27 Nov 2004 at 05:32 UTC by mirwin » (Master)

As can be easily proven might makes right. Survivor guilts eventually fades aways as we rewrite the lies, myths, history, future plans and get on with Species mandate to admire and appreciate the universe that spawned or created us. Alpha and the Omega, Big Bang, others all parse to something from nothing. How? Obviously Something eventually sends signal back to initiate itself.

I.C. - Black box/universe - (decision to assure self existence) ^ | | v -----------------------------------------

Christian faith is that God create us in his image. We have godlike powers when we work together. Tower Babel, Garden Eden, etc.

Moslem --- I am even less familar with these but have seen it alleged that it derives/diverges from Christrianity via Prophet's travels.

Big Bang ---- notice that if a single point within a infinite data space containing points capable of imploding/exploding eventually results in infinitely expanding bubble or we can eventually stablize bubble or jump to another bubble then we have time to evolve or relocate to survide final heat death of universe.

For the religious god rules with righteous all knowing keys to universal power.

For the secular last resort is to earthly courts or superior force.

Stable intersovereign civilization of expanding grid of computing, cottage manufacturing, and other critical bootstrapping assets must reach critical mass where: With ever improving resolution/maginitude no peturbation can alter the underlying axioms enforced by justly (correct, accurate, yada yada as per boundary contracts and conditions) judicious force. Must make a profit/improvement towards new stable equilibrium of expanding opportunity, joy, influence, weight, etc. yada yada where the differential between sovereigns remains within manageable, chaotic, dynamic equilibrium. In other words strange, transparent atttractors must process transactions with proper sceduling, sequencing, magnitudes, and phase delays and changes must be established "fairly" initially such that workable majority (hopefully significant margin) subsequent transactions are confidently knownt to be voluntary actions resulting from healthy free sovereigns in full compliance with all laws, customs, regs, etc. as established in soverereign zones protected by secure boundaries.

Example: Confidence must be high at the Canadian Border that 100 percent inspection either at Canadan ports of entry or at Canidian/U.S. borders result in minimal risk of infiltraion of criminal activity.

Same for U.S. Mexican border. Despite perception in large significant fraction of Sovereign U.S. Citizens that Bush is illegimate through incompetent hiring practices ..... everbody knows participating votes can be authenticated in variety of ways and various feedback loops established for quality control Not that costly. No compromise in secrecy. Requires only additional voluntary participation as individual sovereigns choose to invest their liquid capital in increasing the strength of social fabric but MOST IMPORTANTLY!! if U.S. military is significant fraction of separated powers authorized to establish order via the use of force within pre-established default rules of engagement and zones of authority ... for example if Seti@home style supercomputer centered at Coquille H.S. is engaged in some level of prioritized processing (recouting votes) local citizen defense forces, city, county, state, federal police, Assisting alien forces of or similar to National Guard, Regular Forces, Reserves must be able to instantly coordinate and negotiate action plans to restore order for force if necessary sufficient to establish the vote tallies Coquille and four other cities have undertaken to audit to prove Bush the 14th of his line unbroken is truly the freely elected leader of his superpower fraction or the Solar System, Inner planets, neosphere, datahole, West Galaxy, whatever coalition of sovereign he claims to legitimately work for.

How I love to count the vote, let me count some ways.... yes I know there are probably better ways ,which reinforces my well publicised but rarely read treatises at usenet space.policy that I am sovereign and he (bush and U.S.G.) are employees. If littlest i or 800 pound gorilla can figure out how to counts votes why cannot the aggregate union ??????

1. A vote is cast by machine, mail, or at voting booth. 2. A receipt detailing the vote is available including unique identifer tag. Shredding machines and burners are available so voters preferring simple secret vote can simply toss receipt or choose not to receive it. 3. Anonymous copy of voting information is inserted to the ballot box. 4. Entire database/list of votes is available for public download. 5. Any citizen can allege their vote misrecorded. Tag allows them to actually check. 6. Ballots counted tallied by goverment witnessed by sovereign volunteers or paid auditors. 7. Tally is compared to cumulative total as citizens recant, allege misdeeds or errors etc. 8. Various conditions trigger investigations, recounts, reassessment. For example: 75 percent vote for incumbent but at certified audit institution 30 percent have alleged misdeeds. Forty five percent fails to carry over 50 percent required to be declared winner. Runoff required. Celebration!!!! Free entainments!! We love our animated silly season as opposing teams of various sizes and factions jockey and manuever with analysis, satyr, policies, new promises, back and forth, blah, blah ..... if new election fails to secure to president team ... then who holds temporary power of ultimate CEO position? How many ultimate presidential positions are there while we cycle and jockey through yet another election? Eventually those who last through and participate establish clear quorum and stock market sector cashing in on extra political enternment season dips severely.

Obviously there are aleady frackers (friendly hackers) against slackers or (SEASILSS) Software Engineers Against Stupidity and Incompetence Leading to Species Suicide) have been demonstrating how shoddy existing voting technology i:

1. Exceed 32,000 and reset to zero? Back to 8088? Very funny. Slander/allegation against Intel or Microsoft? What most useful to our/my/their teams? Acting in my sovereign self interest where/when do I go exercise free speech regarding appropriate response of everybody else if any one cares to check? Clearly my sovereign space and cc'd to appropriate places.

2. Go to millenium and stop? Are we laughing at Latter Day Saints or Assemlby of God Royal Rangers?

3. Check for yourself it is in various places in news ... I think is paying for one recount they may have further links.

The point is there must be way to establish without doubt there is a correctly, fairly elected leader. Anything else is eventually civil war with segments of nuclear powers: U.S., Russia, China, India/Pakistan, (Korea, Iran) have all had civil wars or revolutions within last 40 years? Within my life expectancy, if we cannot begin repairing damage faster than we take it on spaceship Earth we are headed for Armegeddon, Environmental Die Off, Failure to respond to universe regarding dinosaur killer warning that struck jupiter.

Last point. We are improving, compare body counts in Wars on time graph. That is a lost less filth blasted into pyschic space to cause brain damage throughout body politic.

Medicine. Even in the face of deadly slackers (269,000 DOCUMENTED deaths or major injuries in U.S. hospitals last year? Obviously it is undereported ... factor of 2 or 5?) Now the insurance companies who supposed capitalize to reduce damage by providing economic assistance to those who can prove in court they are damaged wish to restrict access to the sovereign's medical records by the soverereign, individual or aggregate. NOTICE! VERY IMPORTANT Cut the feedback loop. Cannot possible slow or reverse the increasing carnage inflicted by self serving hypocrites who are licensed to practice medicine!! Angry teams sovereign citizens cannot collect individual data to cross/spot check "Scientific Studies" funded by self serving corrupt U.S.G. employees, pharmaceuticals, medical establishment etc. (in an angry whisper turning white pacifist parasites blame DOD military research and manufacturing establishment?

That will be a long debate if anyone brings data and teams up to check it and attempt to fairly drawn up conclusions and recorded an audited tally of opinions of any who will participate in anyway, even if only to vote. Even if we agree only to continue to disagree the information and respect exchanged will enable us to better work together on premise possibly we can all aggree on:

Minimum necessary force reduces collateral damage. Losses must be minimized before we can possible begin accelerating the expansion of our civilization in whatever diverse ways we/they/someone chooses to. Until some of us participating citizens can think better we cannot improve our negotiation and resolution skills .... or perhaps that should be maximize whatever benefits can be derived from whatever consensus can be achieved on some issue, any issue.

I have good friends who claim zero force but will call 911 for police ..... huh? Slacker!!!! Clearly not believe zero. Convenient. Does not have to figure out what is desired. Problem if you cannot tell otherside what you want they cannot possibly torture themselves enough to give you what you desire.

That little trick of just say NO! is appropriate in someplaces. Many two year olds move on after a few months to a few years. Some slackers never move on or learn any other trick. Some libertarian want to tackle the evils of emiment domain or how to fairly exercise it?

Enough. You see some of what I think I hope. I will carefully consider your thoughts on these matters. Excellent thread so far. Will require much careful though on my part. I will probably play with paying farmers/kids to grow vegetables for own use and receive pay for data based on low scale for quality of data reported. If I can make the business case (adequate short term and long return likely and measurable) I will go after some of Powell's $5 billion for Africa to pay Africans, some of Education or DARPA (food growing skills valuable in maintaining order in face of Wall Street collapse, deficit not last forever, all currencies and officials: China, Euro, Japan have put us on notice publicly that credibility to deliver acceptable return on IOUs/dollars is going to soon be necessary).

Thanks for the data, concepts, and reading.

Trademarks, posted 6 Aug 2006 at 01:51 UTC by KlausWuestefeld » (Master)

"Sovereign Computing", "We Are the Net", "Computação Soberana" and "Somos a Internet" are trademarks of Klaus Wuestefeld. I hereby eternally and irrevocably authorize any person to use and apply these expressions in any way they please. I am just trademarking these terms so no other fool tries to do the same and restrict people from using them.

Trademarks II, posted 18 Nov 2008 at 21:55 UTC by KlausWuestefeld » (Master)

"Computing in the Crowd" is a trademark of Klaus Wuestefeld. I hereby eternally and irrevocably authorize any person to use and apply this expression in any way they please. I am just trademarking this terms so no other fool tries to do the same and restrict people from using it.

Sneer (TM), posted 18 Nov 2008 at 21:57 UTC by KlausWuestefeld » (Master)

"Sneer" is a trademark by Klaus Wuestefeld.

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

Share this page