/usr/share/doc/cfi-en/html/ch13web.htm is in cfi-en 3.0-10.
This file is owned by root:root, with mode 0o644.
The actual contents of the file can be viewed below.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 | <HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>CDNE Chapter 13 - Net-attitudes, Technocracy, and Democracy</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#c9e1fc" BACKGROUND="background.gif" LINK="#666666" ALINK="#ff0000" VLINK="#999999" LEFTMARGIN=24 TOPMARGIN=18>
<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT COLOR=BLUE><B> </b></FONT><b><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><a href="ch12web.htm"><img src="arrowleft.gif" width="45" height="54" align="absmiddle" name="ch1web.htm" border="0"></a><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="+1" color="#999999">
<a href="mainindex.htm">INDEX</a> </font><a href="ch14web.htm"><img src="arrowright.gif" width="45" height="54" align="absmiddle" border="0"></a></font></b></P>
<FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Times New Roman">
<H1 align="center"><FONT FACE="ARIAL" SIZE=5 COLOR="#0000a0"><B><font size="+2" color="#000000" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Chapter
13<br>
NET-ATTITUDES, TECHNOCRACY, AND DEMOCRACY</font></B></FONT ></H1>
</FONT>
<table width="620" border="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td>
<div align="center"></div>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>Selling and owning </b>information
is a profession today. Journalists, PR professionals, consultants, and
lobbyists base a large portion of their professional pride on the <i>ownership</i>
of information. Naturally, they don't want to share their information
unless they get something in exchange, and the things we give them in
exchange are decent salaries and social status. Their professions are
at risk of being fundamentally changed by information technology, and
many of them are aware of this. How?</font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">At MIT, the first hackers
left their programs (in the form of long strips of paper with holes in
them) lying in a box next to the computer. They did this partly so that
whoever wanted to could examine them, but also so that whoever felt like
it would be able to improve and expand the programs. This open-hearted
attitude is an example of typical "hacker mentality", and has
since then characterized almost all research and program development that
has taken place over the Internet. This falls under <i>Rule 1</i> in the
chapter about cyberpunk: the <i>hands-on imperative</i>. </font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">There are lots of programs
that have been developed according to a principle called <i>Stone Soup</i>.
This is one of the oldest - if not <i>the</i> oldest - methods in software
development. The first hackers at MIT, in the 60'd, worked according to
this principle. Today it works like this: a programmer manufactures the
core of the project, a working program that provides the <i>foundation</i>
for the end product (the stone in the soup). The programmer then puts
the program on the Internet and tells all the amateur programmers out
there: <i>"Here's the program - if you find any faults and know
how to fix them, then please do so. Then send the changes back to me."</i></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The original programmer then
assumes the role of editor, accepting suggestions and constantly adding
to and modifying the program. The end product is then distributed for
free. The PC programs <i>Fractint</i> and <i>Pretty Good Privacy</i> (PGP)
are just two of the great mass of programs that have been created in this
manner. Even if an amateur may not be able to accomplish a lot by him-
or herself, he or she is still often an expert at <i>something</i>.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">One of the first stone soup
programs that was really successful was <b>Tiny BASIC</b>, a competitor
of Bill Gates' Altair BASIC, which managed to stand out by being much
better than Gates' BASIC, and <i>free.</i> (Guess if that was a thorn
in the side to some people). Among modern stone soup products there are
entire operating systems such as <b>Linux</b>, a project started by <b>Linus
Torvalds</b> at Helsinki University, referred to by many as the most successful
hacking project of all time), <b>X-Windows</b>, and the <b>EMACS</b> text
editor, used in making countless textbooks and college essays. All of
these programs are free.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The communications protocol
stack called <b>TCP/IP</b> (Transfer Control Protocol/Internet Protocol),
which is about to conquer the entire market for network communications,
is also stone soup. (It is used to make computers "understand"
each other when "talking" over a network - TCP/IP is to a computer
as a telephone receiver and a dial is to a person). This protocol stack
is judged by those who develop the Internet, and is constantly revised
and improved as the "editors" send out <i>RFC</i>s (Request
for Comments). TCP/IP is completely free, and no one has made money
from its invention. It has (without any marketing whatsoever) become so
huge simply because no one is fighting over copyrights or trying to keep
"commercial secrets" to themselves. On the other hand, it's
not hard to make lots of money from the <i>knowledge</i> of how TCP/IP
works. The knowledge about the product is therefore of greater value to
the market than the product itself. This is why some of the people who
know TCP/IP are very secretive about their knowledge, in order to maintain
a demand for consulting services.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The companies that are marketing
their own communications protocols are naturally displeased about this.
That's why they gladly disseminate lies which claim that TCP/IP is of
poor quality - even that it's bad and worthless. The most common argument
is <i>"the more cooks, the worse the soup"</i> - which means
that a lot useless junk supposedly makes it into the programs. This is
patently false. The discussion groups evaluate every proposed change before
it is incorporated. It's a shame that such rumors are sometimes published
in major newspapers and magazines (none mentioned, none forgotten). I
prefer to listen to experts like <b>Peter Schaeffer</b> who know what
they're talking about.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">At the front of the defenders
of this fundamental technological principle there are people like <b>Richard
Stallman</b>, a former MIT hacker who referred to himself for a while
as the last real hacker. He established the foundation for <b>GNU</b>
as well as <b>EMACS</b>, and his point of view is that software shouldn't
be subject to ownership. He is also an influential force behind the <i>Free
Software Foundation</i>, which is an organization that primarily concerns
itself with the promotion of free software. He has had many software companies
up in arms over his method of copying ideas without copying program code,
which is known as <i>reverse engineering</i> or simply <i>deconstruction</i>.
It involves analyzing a program on an object (machine-code) level, noting
its functions, and then creating a program that performs the same tasks.
Stallman's productivity in this respect is so legendary that he is referred
to as perhaps the greatest and most motivated hacker ever, and fully capable
of doing the job of an entire development team on his own. He has also
had an influential role in the organization <i>League for Programming
Freedom</i>, which has as its mission the liberation of software from
patents.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Stone soup software also has
the advantage of being easily modified or analyzed in order to find out
<i>exactly</i> how it works, since all documentation is accessible to
whoever wants it. This is in contrast to software that's been manufactured
by corporations, which lock source code and documentation in a vault and
charge exorbitant prices to share their knowledge when a problem occurs.
The intention is that the user should think that the program is so incredibly
fantastic that only the in-house programmers (which are presented as some
kind of wizards) are able to understand and improve the program. Talk
about a monopoly on information.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Well.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Imagine the stone soup principle
being applied to a piece of text, like the one you're reading now. If
I had access to an Internet server, I could put this document in <i>hypertext</i>
form (which is a kind of text invented by <b>Tim Berners-Lee</b> subsequent
to an idea put forth by <b>Ted Nelson</b>, in which consistent subjects
or general keywords are electronically linked in order to allow the reader
to quickly jump to different points in the text) and put something like
this at the end:<br>
</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><i>"All of you who are reading this
- send in revisions and addenda to me, and I'll put them in the text."</i></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">It's
all free. Anyone could get the document off the Internet. I don't profit
from it except for gaining knowledge, and no one else does either. If
my document became popular and reached a wide audience, a few experts
would (with some luck) contact me with corrections and additions. Not
much, but just enough to cover the subject on which that person is an
expert. Then, I could assume the role of editor and collate all of this
information, put new links in the hypertext and facilitate searching and
notices of updates to the text. I would feel that I was doing something
useful, but I wouldn't be able to earn a living doing it. After a few
years, my document would become an entire database covering almost every
aspect of computer culture, more comprehensive, editable, and thorough
than any national encyclopaedia, and furthermore it would be written at
the grassroots level by people who love what they do.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <i>So
why don't I?</i></font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>Answer:</b>
first of all, I don't have the time or energy.<sup><a href="#FTNT1">(1)</a></sup>
Second, it is not a matter of solving a technical problem like those in
a computer program; this text is multi-faceted and highly subjective.
It bears the mark of my own values and judgments, and I want it to remain
as such in the future. Every word is written by <i>myself</i> and no one
else. Call it pride. Further, it has a beginning and an end, and it is
possible to critique it as something coherent and static, not as something
that is constantly morphing. It is possible to form a <i>clear</i> view
of the text that lasts a few days, and this is the advantage of the statically
fixed text versus the ever-changing one.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">If
this were a practical problem of a technical character within any of the
natural sciences or medicine, the situation would be radically different.
Such hypertext documents are created around the world as we speak. They
grow together, forming a world of information, accessible to anyone, anywhere,
who has access to the Internet. It's known as the World Wide Web (WWW).
By extension, the human <i>hypertextual heritage</i> will grow into a
mass of information of such mammoth proportion that it will be impossible
to get one's mind around it. It will be like a library of memories for
all of humankind. Hypertext is also changing more and more into <i>program
code</i>, which erodes the distinction between regular, literary text
and computer programs. The professions of author and programmer blend
together. This is what multimedia <i>is.</i> The tools used to create
multimedia products are not called computer languages, they're called
<i>authoring programs</i>.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Some
authors of fiction have adopted the idea of publishing their creations
for a wide audience, on the Internet. Since fictional writers generally
want their works to be read and only incidentally to make money, this
is a natural step. The first well-established author to put some of his
work on the Internet was <b>Stephen King</b>, on September 19, 1993. Many
other authors thought this was a great idea, and published some of their
older books on the Web. In Sweden, <b>Lars Fimmerstad</b> was the pioneer
in this aspect, with his novel <i>Välkommen Hem</i> ("Welcome
Home"), and shortly thereafter <b>Ola Larsmo</b> followed in his
footsteps with his short story, <i>Stumheten</i> ("The Speechlessness").
The more established an author is, the more conservatively he or she approaches
electronic publication. To a certain extent they live off their book sales,
and feel threatened by a form of publication through which they cannot
yet get paid.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This
progress within media is in step with the trends in organizations, which
are being transformed into networks - loosely connected associations without
staff or representatives, established for the purpose of answering one
single question or solving one specific and well-defined problem (making
stone soup), and that have so far stayed connected through mail correspondence
and phone calls (exchanges of information). Do not confuse a "network"
with a "computer network", even if many "networks"
employ "computer networks". Your local bridge club is a "network",
and the Internet is a "computer network". A common denominator
of all networks is that they distribute information of some kind. (Confusing?)
Mnemonic device: bridge club = a network of people, the Internet = a network
of computers.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">So
what's the point of all this?</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Well,
it is that network documents will quickly become so numerous that it will
be impossible to get an overview of them. Therefore, it is (as always)
necessary to go through a long and hard learning process, <i>or </i>hire
a consultant, to access a specific piece of knowledge. A typical consultant
is a watch group that cover some specific area of interest, which we usually
refer to as the technical press, only in this context it's electronic.
The need for specialized journalism therefore exists in the information
society as well. At the time of this writing, such journals cannot get
paid for their information services, but a system is under development.
That means that you will be able to <i>buy</i> information about anything
using your own computer. Naturally, you don't pay with cash, but with
numbers.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">These
technical journalists will basically become the first people to earn their
living solely by processing information; they'll be the first ones to
enter into the total information economy. The other papers will follow,
one by one. Some newspapers, such as <b>Aftonbladet/Kultur</b> (a major
Swedish evening paper) have anticipated this, and are preparing themselves
for the entry into the information economy by experimenting with electronic
editions. Other papers remain content with simply publishing electronic
complements to their printed material. (In the experimental stage, all
of this is free! Grab the chance now that you have it, because it won't
come back). In addition to this, and as a natural consequence of it, we'll
get a huge number of electronic fanzines<sup><a href="#FTNT2">(2)</a></sup>,
due to the amazing <i>simplicity and cheapness</i> of making an electronic
publication. (The hacker culture has spawned hundreds or maybe even thousands
of such magazines.) No printing costs, no contracts, no advertisers, just
information and motivation. Culture without biznizz.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Cynically
speaking, journalists are experts at information trading. It's probably
the only profession that even before the time of computers made a living
solely by producing and processing information. <i>Journalists</i> do
<i>not</i> think that information, and therefore knowledge, should be
free and universally accessible. On the contrary, each journalist (at
least each specialized journalist) jealously guard "their" information
sources, not revealing them without very good reason. The journalist is
just as conservative and stingy as the elitist and sectarian hacker groups.
<i>For the public good</i> is one thing - but even journalists have to
eat. It's about protecting one's intellectual property. The truth is that
the fourth state, just like the government and the corporate world, also
consists of personal contact networks and hierarchies in which string-pulling
ability is very important. Even journalists are totally ignorant of hacker
ethics, which to a high degree influences their reporting when it comes
to hackers.<br>
The guidelines surrounding electronic publishing indicate the emergence
of two new types of media. One will be stored on CD-ROM disks and will
contain huge stores of knowledge, such as a database or a searchable encyclopaedia.
<b>Interface </b>magazine was first in Sweden to try this. The other type
is <i>Online Services</i>, which provide news and information updated
daily, hourly, or even more frequently. The <br>
first Swedish online service was probably <b>Text-TV</b>. The first Swedish
online magazine on the Internet was <b>Datateknik</b>.<sup><a href="#FTNT3">(3)</a></sup>
At the moment, it is not possible to charge for online services, but that
capacity is on its way.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In
the long term, CD-ROMs will run into problems. It will soon be very easy
to copy the disks, so why should I buy the paper, the encyclopaedia, the
dictionary, or whatever, when I can copy it off my
neighbor. Once you try to protect the information from being copied, you
can bet your ass that some hackers will come around and crack the protection
and copy it anyway. Online services don't really suffer from this problem.<sup><a href="#FTNT4">(4)</a></sup>
Some prophecy the total disappearance of disks in favor of online services,
but this is unlikely to happen soon. The need to own the physical form
of something, like a compact disk or a print magazine is still strong
in our generation.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Others
say that mass media will disappear. That depends on how you look at it.
Mass media <i>as it is today</i> will certainly go away, but we will also
equally certainly get a new definition of mass media. Print publications
will most likely remain until we find a way to make electronic information
as portable, but that day will come.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The
magazine called <i>The Whole Earth Review</i> has aroused public interest
in electronic media in the USA. The popular magazine <i>Wired</i>, which
I mentioned earlier, is one of the publications that have received a boost
from the progress at the electronic frontier. This paper has become extremely
popular, not least due to its youthful layout. It has paved the way for
several similar magazines across the world, such as Sweden's <b>Z <a href=mailto:Mag@zine >Mag@zine</a></b>
and <b>Hallå</b>, which have apparently gotten their whole business
idea from magazines like Wired. They write about the Internet, BBSs, everything
falling into the category of media and information technology, and fashion
and trends. Both publications have (intentionally) refused to acknowledge
the existence of the other. Both are currently out of print, but Hallå
is restarting soon.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Other
American magazines that seem to be great sources of inspiration for this
type of media are <b>RayGun</b> and <b>Gray Areas</b>. <b>MONDO 2000</b>
is a tad too provocative for the more distinguished circles, as it has
a rather conspicuous air of hippie and yippie philosophy. Some people
are irritated by these magazines, since they write mostly about each other
(media writing about other media, journalists about other journalists,
etc.) Seeking a cause for this, one would most likely conclude that media
products are changing due to the entrance of information technology. Text
and images are becoming easier to edit and distribute, and the purpose
of journalists is under re-evaluation, etc. It's also not surprising that
journalism is of interest to journalists. With the role of media as the
"fourth state", critiquing itself is probably necessary function.
To spice it up, the subjects are often things that are exciting in real
life. Preferably hacking, of course. They're the ultra-hyped spearhead
of the "information revolution".</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The
<i>hackers</i> don't think these magazines are anything special (as the
publications seem to think themselves sometimes), but rather refer to
them bluntly as <i>hacker-wannabes</i> - trying to write as if they're
something they're not. Sweden, for example, is full of Schyffert-wannabes,
Guillou-wannabes, and Bildt-wannabes. (As for myself, I'm a Visionary-wannabe
;). The frequent use of trite terms like <i>cyber, powerful, IT</i>, and
<i>(insert latest catch-phrase here)</i> is a common denominator for hacker-wannabes,
plus that they use Macintosh computers. (Translator's note: <i>HEY! What
the hell do you think I started translating this text on?</i>).</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The
tendency of aggressive competition among hackers is similar to the brutal
reality of everyday journalism, and this is probably the reason that these
magazines inherit hacker culture and ideals. Few of these journalists
seem to understand the friendly, non-American part of hacker culture,
which is not as interesting since it's not as illegal, contains much less
confrontation, and built more on friendship than competition. This is
of course not so strange, since journalists love conflict and in many
cases spur it on. (Conflicts inspire <i>great</i> headlines, and attract
readers.)</font></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000"><b>T<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">echnocracy<br>
</font></b></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The Internet
is often referred to as "anarchistic". This is a gross exaggeration.
The Internet is fundamentally <i>technocratic</i> and <i>decentralized.
</i>As it was first built, by the university hackers, they wove some of
their open-minded attitudes into the web of the Internet. Remember Rule
#3 of hacker ethics: <i>Distrust authority - promote decentralization.</i> That
is: <i>if I help you, you help me</i>, and nowhere in the core structure
of the Internet was there a function for charging each other for the use
of communication channels. There were no locked doors, since it was held
that everyone should be able to access anything and share their information.
(Rule #2: <i>All information should be free</i>.) Just jack in and go.
The only things to pay for were the constant phone line connections on
which the information flowed, and then you could communicate as much as
you wanted. </font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The entire network has been
built using the stone soup principle. Every problem that occurs is posted
on discussion groups, after which anyone who wants to may suggest a solution.
The users are very eager to help, and usually there are a number of proposed
solutions. The proposals are evaluated in the discussion group, and the
one that's considered to be the best wins. The result is documented and
then distributed as a <i>de facto</i> standard. This technocratic
method of problem-solving is radically different from the market model.
In a market economy, companies <i>compete</i> for the best solution. Each
company has an R&D division that develop a solution, which is then
marketed. After that, consumers judge the products by buying the one that
suits them the most. The "bad" solutions are thrown out as the
companies that fail to get enough market share discontinue their productmaking
and buy patents from the successful companies, or, at worst, go bankrupt.
In this manner it is suggested that the best product always survives.<sup><a href="#FTNT5">(5)</a></sup>
(Translator's note: it's also highly circular, as the "market"
judges the "marketing and marketability" of a "marketed"
product).</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The problem is that the winning
solutions in a market economy aren't always <i>technically superior</i>.
They might as well be the <i>best marketed</i> or <i>cheapest</i> products.
For example, reflect on how the VHS video system beat the technically
superior Betamax system. (According to legend, this was ultimately due
to the fact that the VHS format was marketed by the adult video industry….
hmmm.)<sup><a href="#FTNT6">(6)</a></sup> (<i>Translator's note:</i> How
about Windows...). This would never happen in a technocracy like the Internet.
A technocracy doesn't allow marketing or arbitrariness to send a good
idea into the wastebasket of history. It's pretty typical for the universities
to build a technocratic network, since their main goal is always technological
progress.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In a market economy, it is
the <i>carrot</i> of personal gain and wealth that drive the businesspeople
to develop better and better products. In a technocracy, it's personal
commitment, fellowship, and the desire to advance knowledge that drives
the developers. With the Internet, this attitude towards research and
product development has spread across the world, and sometimes it generates
solutions that completely beat out those of the market economy. It's not
a planned economy, since there's no single authority that finances and
evaluates the products. It's a technocracy, based upon individuals in
voluntary cooperation.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In addition to the university
researchers, who thanks to secure personal finances are able to dedicate
themselves to solving Internet problems at work, many people employed
at regular market-driven companies have started developing solutions to
different technical problems on their own private time. The desire to
show one's competence in a technical field, and to be accepted as a skilled
developer among others on the Net, has been enough to motivate these people
to develop technical solutions. Call it the joy of working or professional
pride. (Yes, these still exist even in our time).</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Whether technocracy is a threat
or a complement to a market economy is hard to predict. Perhaps we're
entering a form of <i>knowledge economy</i>. It is, however, clear that
with internationalization and the ability to work in small interest groups
across great distances, we have found a so-called "nonprofit"
force that enables us to perform practical work and have fun at the same
time. Group fellowship is the same as that among the hackers, who have
long been exchanging experience through letters, BBSs, copy parties, and
the Internet. The only difference is that one form is more "respectable"
than the other.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">As I suggested earlier, it's
possible to detect an anarchistic ideological heritage within technocracy.
<b>Peter Krapotkin</b> thought that society should be run through the
cooperative efforts of independent groups. As opposed to <b>Charles Darwin</b>,
who thought that races (and by extension, society) evolved through competition,
Kropotkin emphasized the important role of <i>cooperation</i> in the building
of a society. The Internet technocracy is in some ways proof that free
groups independently set up cooperative relationships without governmental
influence. The <i>virtual society</i> is anarchistic, in this way. At
the same time, there <i>is </i>an aspect of Darwinism, in that only the
best solutions survive. The difference is that this happens as a result
of mutual agreement and doesn't affect any people or companies in a negative
manner.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" color="#0000a0"><b><font color="#000000">A
Few Examples<br>
</font></b></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I once (in
my foolish youth) wrote an opinion piece and sent it to Datateknik magazine
(a Swedish computer publication). In this piece, I lamented the poor availability
of digitized (machine-readable, stored in a computer or on disks) literature,
and the fact that our cultural heritage wasn't properly electronically
stored. I suggested that publishers should be forced to make non-copyrighted
material available to the public, every time they re-printed older literary
works. I received a well-motivated and angry reply by <b>Lars Aronsson</b>,
project leader for <i>Projekt Runeberg</i>, which electronically publishes
Swedish literature. In my naïve excitement, I'd simply been thinking
practically, and overlooked the market aspects of the whole thing. </font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Digitized text is of course
a competitive advantage during re-printing, and my proposal could hurt
the competitive power of a certain company. Another company could (if
my system was applied) steal the text directly from the publisher and
publish the same book as a new edition, which would lead to a loss for
the first company which had paid to have someone enter the text in a word
processor.<br>
The fact remains that it is a waste of human resources to let several
people carry out the monotonous task of re-entering the same text over
and over, instead of storing it in a central location and making it accessible
to everyone - companies as well as individuals. This is one of the disadvantages
of the market economy, which technocracy is trying to address: the market
economy sometimes demands wasting natural resources and duplicating work
efforts. You could make an analogy with the development of the mobile
phone networks, where several small, incompatible networks are being built
instead of one large, stable, and widely adaptable network. Call it greed
or competition - but it's <i>not</i> cost-effective. </font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Naturally, this wastefulness
is actually <i>a good thing</i> according to our classical yardstick of
the public good. GNP increases, and people get something to do (work).
One should, however, ask if people fare well from this. We're living in
a time in which the quality of life is measured by socioeconomic number-juggling.
Is it a good idea to create problems to make jobs for problem-solvers?
To provoke crime in order to employ crime attorneys and investigators?
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The technocrats on the Internet,
spearheaded by League for Programming Freedom, hold the view that good
knowledge should not be subject to patent. The companies, however, do.
There's already been open conflict between idealists and profit-hungry
corporate people. I've already touched upon the negative rumors spread
about "stone soup software". Another example is the fighting
over a compression method known as LZW, which is simply a modification
of a public-domain method called LZ2, which originated at Jerusalem University.
Basically, companies can possess so much chutzpah that they take out patents
on methods, developed by idealists, which were originally intended to
be public domain. Companies also have the time and money to sue…</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Another direct example of
the difference between market-driven and idealistic thinking is the way
various commercial firms are fighting over email services through the
Internet. Swedish Telia has had a taste of technocracy. The background
is as follows: Telia has no problem getting access to the Internet. The
problem is that Telia wants to decide how certain Internet addresses should
appear. It's always a good thing to be able to butter up your customers
with a custom, easily memorized number (Like Swedish Railways' 020-75
75 75) <i>Sadly</i>, Telia is not in charge of these things on the Internet.
The principle is that all commercial domains on the Internet should have
the -COM suffix, as in COMmercial. Instead, Telia wants to give companies
the 400NET prefix, which happens to be the name of their commercial electronic
mail system.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>Bernt Allonen</b> at Telia
says this in <a href=mailto:Z-mag@zine >Z-mag@zine</a>, 1/95: <i>"It's
time for the Internet to leave the sandbox</i>… <i>the Internet is
in need of strict rules and operators that guarantee performance."</i>
With this he's probably tried to say that the Internet should be market-driven,
like a company - as opposed to the reality of its current operational
mode, namely non-profit/academic - with all its implications, like rigid
bureaucracy, market planning, and little hierarchies in which the golden
rule is: kick downwards, kiss upwards.<sup><a href="#FTNT7">(7)</a></sup>
Mostly, he would like to see Telia assuming total control of Internet
distribution in Sweden, so that things could become <i>orderly</i>. This
is not the case, and hopefully never will be. Who really cares what Bernt
Allonen thinks? He only represents the expansionist interests of a single
large corporation.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The people who hold the most
power over the Internet in Sweden are <b>Björn Eriksen</b> and <b>Peter
Löthberg</b>. Both are representatives of the open, technocratic
attitude, and Björn decides which <i>domains</i> (Internet names
or addresses) can be created on the Swedish part of the Internet. To the
great chagrin of Telia, their market plans have no effect whatsoever on
these academicians. The Internet <i>cannot be bought!</i> May Heaven have
mercy. The academicians are not at all concerned about "orderliness"
on the Internet. In their eyes, the Internet primarily exists to be <i>useful,</i>
not <i>marketable</i>. Is it a good idea to tell Telia that all these
idealists and academicians have actually succeeded in building the world's
<i>largest</i> computer network <i>completely without competition, market
analysis, and commercial ad campaigns?</i> Now that Telia's X.400-network
hasn't been as successful as the Internet, what is Telia to do? Well,
of course they want the rights to the Internet. Normally, a giant corporation
like Telia can indiscriminately purchase and take over their competitors.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thinking people, however,
are much harder to purchase. Telia represents the philosophy of the old
market theory, which states that people that cannot be bought for money
can be bought for <i>more</i> money. Internet-users, with the technical
universities at the base, have a completely different way of thinking.
If there had been anything else than market tactics behind Telia's demands,
they might have listened. Fortunately, they prefer to continue thinking.
Thanks to this view, no one has a monopoly on the Internet in Sweden.
Hundreds of companies are currently fighting to provide Internet access.
The competition has pushed prices down to an incredibly low level. An
Internet connection is today very affordable for a normal person, and
everyone who has decent knowledge of the process can buy some computers
and modems and start their own Internet node. Variety as opposed to monopoly.
From this point of view, the Internet promotes small operators and resists
the efforts of giant corporations. Again, refer to Rule #3 of hacker ethics:
decentralization.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Rule #3 is also one of the
reasons that cyberpunks and others work against <b>Microsoft</b>, and
especially its operating system, <i>Windows</i>. When hundreds of hackers
were arrested during <i>Operation Sundevil</i>, it was because law enforcement
thought that hackers were behind the collapse in the American telephone
system on January 15, 1990. Now, it turned out that hackers had nothing
to do with it. Instead, the collapse was due to an error in the <i>computer
program</i> that controlled the switches. The problem was exacerbated
by the fact that the program was used everywhere, and the switches "brought
each other down". The only switches that worked fine were those that
used another, older program. </font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Microsoft's Windows is also
a program, and more specifically, an operating system, which means that
it's a program that is used to enable the user to run other programs.
Today, it is installed on virtually every PC computer that is sold in
Sweden. Most programs today require Windows in order to function. Therefore,
Windows is used by innumerable private companies and governmental organizations,
including Swedish Railways and the Swedish <i>national defense</i>. Recently,
a new version of Windows, called <i>Windows 95</i>, was released. <sup><a href="#FTNT8">(8)</a></sup>
This will, among other things, be used to provide easy connections between
several computers, over the Internet and other networks.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Now, what if there was an
error similar to that in the American telephone system's switch software
- but inside <i>Windows 95?</i> In that case, every computer that used
Windows 95 would crash. There is no way to prove empirically that a computer
program is free of such errors. It's thus entirely possible -and it's
happened before. Such risks exist with other, nearly monopolizing products,
such as <i>Netscape</i>. A few moronic computer folks might think that
it's impossible, but so was Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, so I don't
buy that. And by the way, I also know what I'm talking about. (Pardon
the conceited and provocative comment).</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">If something like that happened,
large parts of Swedish society would be knocked out. We have a parallel
case with the virus that in the fall of 1988 crippled the Internet by
putting 6,000 computers out of commission. It was an error in the Berkely-UNIX
(BSD) operating system that allowed this virus to be created. Some computers
were unaffected by the virus - by virtue of using another "dialect",
i.e. another version of UNIX, like NeXT or AIX (there's about 11 different
versions of UNIX). UNIX basically works in the same way as Windows<sup><a href="#FTNT9">(9)</a></sup>,
but there's <i>only one "dialect" of Windows!</i> If all computers
had used the <i>same</i> UNIX in the fall of 1988, well, all of the Internet
would have been brought down! I'm stating that this could happen even
to Windows 95, or one of its successors. If this happened, all Windows
95 systems could crash, if they were networked. It would be a catastrophe
of unpredictable consequences to society.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This is where it's important
to emulate nature. <i>Variety</i>, in which many <i>different</i> programs
work side by side, is preferable. Hackers have always proposed variety
and decentralization. In the long term, software monopolies are harmful,
and lead to problems in computer systems that resemble those that occur
with the <i>inbreeding </i>of living creatures. The only ones able to
compete with Microsoft today is <b>IBM</b>, with its OS/2 operating system,
and <b>Apple</b>, with MacOS. Personally, I look forward to more competition.
Variety, decentralization, and small companies instead of giants and institutionalism
is the only thing that's sustainable in the long term. Microsoft cannot
be allowed to dominate the operating system market. Chaos is fun. And
healthy.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The arrests of hackers after
the Jan. 1, 1990 incident was a distraction to obscure the inbreeding
within the telephone system and the incompetence of large companies by
blaming hackers for what was really a structural problem. What are they
to be blamed for next?</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">There are oodles of examples
of how the market's been beaten by home-made solutions. Some computer
nerds therefore want to stop this spreading disease by trying to stop
the publicly financed distribution channels. One such channel is <a href=ftp://ftp.sunet.se >ftp.sunet.se</a>,
an Uppsala computer system which stores thousands of quality, free-of-charge
programs. This computer is publicly funded and anyone can connect through
the Internet and retrieve any of these programs. This is actually a good
thing, since all of Sweden's (and the world's) computer enthusiasts gain
access to free programs, but it's naturally a thorn in the side to those
who promote a dogmatic, capitalist system as a way if life.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><i>"The greatest problem
with ftp.sunet.se is that it effectively undercuts all attempts to start
domestically based software companies… Software is the industry
of the future, one that we Swedes would have been able to exploit because
of our well-educated populace, if it hadn't been for ftp.sunet.se…
But how are such companies' products supposed to compete with programs
that are 'free' because they have been subsidized by tax revenues?"<br>
</i><br>
(<b>Bertil Jonell</b>, <a href=mailto:Z-mag@zine >Z-mag@zine</a> #6,
1995)</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Here,
we have an obvious conflict with another part of the hacker ethic: <i>Mistrust
authority</i>. The answer from the established software industry becomes<i>
mistrust hackers</i>, which is probably justified in the cases that Bertil
mentions above. It is, however, hard to justify this mistrust in the case
of mission-critical software such as those in airplanes or medical equipment,
since it's impossible to find any such programs written by amateurs. The
companies that make such equipment are concerned with their reputation,
and don't hire just any hobby-hacker for just that reason. Instead, they
get their programmers from the more status-filled university education
programs.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">We
shouldn't pay too much attention to what one person has said on one single
occasion. We'll instead treat it as an illustrative example. There is
a whole set of values that we think is God-given, but that is actually
not self-evident at all. It is not an obvious truth that the well-educated
engineer is a better builder of electronics than the kid around the corner
who's been a radio amateur since he could walk. More accurately, it's
a complete untruth. Granted, some enthusiasts migrate to the finer universities
and technical schools, but some of them don't like the formal and strict
environment they encounter <i>at all</i>. They prefer to stay at home
in their garages and study and experiment on their own. That kind of <i>motivation</i>
beats most university education by lengths, when it comes to direct practical
knowledge.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Of
course, the at-home hacker is usually an individual that isn't very socially
adaptable, and who also has a penchant for certain suspicious subcultures.
<i>That</i> is most likely the <i>true reason</i> that these skilled hackers
aren't hired for positions where they could do the most good. Instead,
they sit at home and put together freeware for any and all. (I've talked
about what happens in the worst cases in chapter 4 and 10, about underground
hackers and computer crime). A university degree is not only a certificate
of competence - it also indicates that its possessor is socially adept
and has the ability for discipline and obedience that is required at large
corporations. A programmer should have the ability to carry out a project
without questioning it. No large company is interested in employees that
think too independently and develop alternative solutions without permission.
Instead, every project is controlled from a high position within the hierarchy.
In short: a university degree means, in addition to competence, that the
bearer has accepted the authority and power structures that exist within
companies as well as educational institutions.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Stone
soups cooked by enthusiasts, with many rival solutions to one problem,
can beat monolithic corporations in competition. It is obvious that this
way of working and looking at the role of the economy in society is part
of the foundation of cyberpunk ideology. But here the respectable university
hackers enter the picture: people who live normal, family lives, but who
grew up with - and created - the first computers during the 70's, and
who are now at forefront of the explosive growth in computer development.
Their message is the same: Freedom of information! The rational world
of computing seems to influence its users in the same vein: towards efficiency,
decentralization, cooperation, and exchange of information, and away from
bickering, bureaucracy, and monotony. I say that this is good. What do
you think?</font></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000"><b>T<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">he
World of Science<br>
</font></b></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">To understand
how people can work their asses off without making a lot of money, one
must understand how the scientific virtual community works. The scientific
community is a society within society, with its own norms and ideals.
Inside, <i>prestige</i> and <i>knowledge</i> counts the most, not how
many stocks you own or how big your Mercedes is. Researchers, doctoral
students, and other scientists <i>pay</i> to have their creations evaluated
by other scientists, simply for the joy of sharing and promoting science.
</font></p>
<p>Th<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">e view that information
and knowledge is public property is so inherent in this community that
</font><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">it
isn't even questioned. All this information is published in a few thousand
scientific journals across the world, with an extremely small distribution,
created <i>by</i> scientists <i>for </i>scientists. Nowadays, more and
more of these journals are starting to partly or completely employ electronic
publication as a cheaper alternative to print - even within the "soft"
sciences, such as Sociology and Psychology. The scientific community
has been created to free research and science from the social power apparatus.
The only way to do this is by building a culture with its own framework
and values, which the hackers also discovered a long time ago.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">As
you see, the scientific virtual community share significant aspects with
the hackers' sub-cultural <i>Scene</i>. They exchange information freely
among each other, and ignore the market economy completely.<sup><a href="#FTNT10">(10)</a></sup>
Of course, this throws a monkey wrench into the theories of most economists,
since they'd rather see everyone acting according to a rational market
model, but the scientific community won't submit to commercialization,
no matter how much the rest of society wants it to. The icing on the cake
is that the rest of society is <i>dependent</i> on the scientific community.
Without science, little progress is made, and the schooling of new CEOs,
engineers, psychologists, etc. is completely at the mercy of scientific
realms. Therefore, society at large is forced to financially support these
scientists. Graciously, the scientists in turn support hackers and some
other subcultures by offering free access to computers.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Why
do the scientists help the hackers? Simple. They depend on them. The hackers
yield many of the ideas for new inventions and research areas. Additionally,
many of them work at the universities and technical schools. Some work
at the companies that sell information services, and some are even to
be found in the IT departments of the largest corporations. It is
actually the case that the rest of society is dependent on both the scientific
community and the <i>Scene</i> of the hackers. The conflicts that emerge
are products of the fact that the technocratic society, led by scientists
and hackers, is growing in power over the regular market-based society.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The
reason that the establishment wants to control the funding for the Internet
is, beneath the surface, a very old one: <i>it is concerned about its
POWER!</i></font></font></p>
<p><b><font color="#000000">Th<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">e
Market Paradigm</font></font></b><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">We have to try to understand
the origins of this conflict. Our society, as it exists today, is moving
towards increasing levels of specialization. Our entire economic market
model is built on it, or rather, on <i>a constantly increasing</i> degree
of specialization. Productivity levels in this system must perpetually
grow, in order to give a number of anonymous stock owners returns on their
investments, so that they can buy and own even more.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">If I want to develop software,
I need an idea. Then I have to start a company, hire as many programmers
as I need, and find some suitable investors. If I can't find anyone to
finance my venture, my idea must be a poor one, or I've been looking in
the wrong places. When the product is sold, I employ special services
for the replication, distribution, and marketing of the software. Any
CEO at any software company views the process in this manner.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The problem with this view
is that there's no room for creative spirit among the programmers themselves.
As a boss, I have to rigidly command them onto the right track. I must
never lose control over the end product, and if the programmers come up
with their own ideas, I'm of course free to listen to them, but it is
still <i>my</i> responsibility as a project leader to decide whether these
ideas will be part of the end product. There is no place for the free
action of the individual in the market-oriented way of thinking. Only
the project leader should know what really goes on with the product, while
the individual programmers should only be concerned with the little piece
they're working on. There is always an inherent hierarchy built into this
form of organization.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Market-economy thinking is
also built on a hidden method for hiding knowledge. It would be unfortunate
for the project leader if the programmers realized how little influence
they really have on the creative process. The same goes for all hierarchically
organized companies. The only people that have any idea of what's actually
occurring within a company is supposed to be the leadership. If the workers
are to have any information, it is transmitted through carefully designed
yellow sheets that are dumped in the employees' pigeonholes, in which
chosen parts of the company's activities are exposed in order to increase
motivation.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">We're dealing with a power
structure that is anything but democratic. This is the skewed balance
of power that is the reason that companies work better than governments.
The absence of democracy is very efficient. It's not a secret that the
democratic offensive into the Swedish business world, in the form of MBL
("the law of shared decisions") etc., has decreased corporate
efficiency. The workers should act under the orders of management,
not by its own will. Corporate management has therefore invented ingenious
mechanisms to limit democratic control of their companies despite these
new laws. These include, for example, constant reorganization in order
to hide the mechanisms of authority and give the workers a sense of being
in control of their own responsibilities.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The hacker ethic, cyberpunk
ideology, and technocracy stand in sharp contrast. All of these views
expect programmers to be creative, inventive, and <i>skeptical</i>. The
market economy assumes that comprehensive plans are <i>not </i>questioned
before they are completed. That's why companies go to great lengths to
hire only engineers from universities and technical schools, who have
by virtue of their degree been through the social indoctrination to <i>not
question</i>.<sup><a href="#FTNT11">(11)</a></sup> Those individuals who
question are sent into other parts of the machine of society: research,
politics, and the <i>criminal</i> <i>industry</i>, to produce information
of a kind that is important to society in other ways.<sup><a href="#FTNT12">(12)</a></sup></font>
</p>
<hr>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" color="#666666"><a name="FTNT1"></a>
1. Of course, as of today I've already submitted this text to the public
one time.<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT2"></a> 2. Which has in fact become the case. I must be psychic.<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT3"></a> 3. Nowadays, virtually all magazines have an online
version. My personal favorite is "Syber-Starlet" (Translator's
note: a magazine very similar to <i>Seventeen</i>).<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT4"></a> 4. Maybe just a little bit. Passwords and other things
that the users pay for are often cracked and tossed to the four winds…<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT5"></a> 5. This is a generalized view that presupposes an infinite
number of companies, a great number of different products in the same category,
and that the "market" is an independent filter that is never deceived
by propaganda. This stands in very poor resemblance to reality.<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT6"></a> 6. Then again, it's probably just a myth.<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT7"></a> 7. At the moment Telia is undergoing a reorganization
which, as everyone who's studied introductory management knows, is aimed
at destroying the social networks that have formed in the workplace in order
to strengthen the upper echelons' grip on the company.<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT8"></a> 8. And now Windows NT is the hot thing. And then it'll
be Nashville. Hum-de-hum.<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT9"></a> 9. I know that the know-it-alls are being driven up
the walls by statements such as this. If it bothers you, write your own
book for those who get hung up on details.<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT10"></a> 10. Pierre Bourdieu introduces the concept of "cultural
capital" in order to try to explain this trend.<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT11"></a> 11. A slightly mean (and simplified) statement.<br>
<br>
<a name="FTNT12"></a> 12. Svante Tidholm remarked that I have an ability
to sometimes reduce the individual to a simple puppet for the powers that
be. I understand his view, but I'm not smart enough to get around the way
the question is posed. My respect for the capacity of the individual is
very great, and I also take the side of the individual in this rigged game.
An expansion of my views is found in Chapter 15 as well as the </font><font color="#666666">Appendix.</font><br>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="center"><b><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><a href="ch12web.htm"><img src="arrowleft.gif" width="45" height="54" align="absmiddle" name="ch1web.htm" border="0"></a><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="+1" color="#999999">
<a href="mainindex.htm">INDEX</a> </font><a href="ch14web.htm"><img src="arrowright.gif" width="45" height="54" align="absmiddle" border="0"></a></font></b></p>
<p align=center> </p>
<p align=center><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font size="1">Design
and formatting by <a href="mailto:nirgendwo@usa.net">Daniel Arnrup</a>/<a href="http://www.voodoosystems.nu">Voodoo
Systems</a></font></font></p>
<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT COLOR=BLUE><B></b></FONT></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
|