The Music Animation Machine!
Visualising music like a sequencer!
http://musanim.com/
The Capitalist Imperative
At first “banks” were just the consequence of a taxation system which required safe storage e.g. of the tithe (crop taxes).
With time, banks offered their services to portions of the public to safely store their wealth for a price.
The next consequence was the exploitation of lending and debt. To lend people other people’s money, and to expect more back in return that was loaned.
The two sides of the coin are : lending for trade (which will hopefully produce a surplus) or deliberately lending for debt (to trap people in debt, such that they can never hope to repay what they spuriously owe).
Which tactic do you think the word’s nations are taking with Africa. Which tactic do you think the transnational elite are taking with the world’s nations? (It’s a rhetorical question, by the way)
The Wealth Divide
Here’s a quick diagram taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/apr/12/eurozone-crisis-live-italy-approaches-debt-markets showing wealth divides in Europe… unsurprisingly, as the most medieval state in the modern world, Britain has by far the largest divide – underlining the modern day existence of a powerful and well networked upper class:

If you notice, the national average between Germany and the UK is actually quite close, which really shows how unfairly the pie is being shared.
The erosion of justice
Long before the “Devils under the bed” (Paedophiles and Terrorism) Britain had already removed any meaningful access to legal aid which might be used to challenge its changes in legislation. Since the (now a decade old) symbolic attacks against centers of Military, Political and Financial organisation (Sept. 11th) by a Saudi funded ex-U.S. trained and funded guerilla fighter… we have seen the removal of habeus corpus as and when the government desire, state sponsored kidnapping, torture, and assassination becoming more commonplace, just recently another attempt by the Tories (the party of the rich) to extend mass surveillance into the hands of their most lowly and ill trained state agents (the police) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/03/nick-clegg-open-hearings-surveillance and now a parallel attempt to extend the use of secret courts. http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/04/human-rights-committee-hidden-justice
Pop Up Manufacturing
A very, very important idea!
Boston Dynamics do it again with the Sand Flea!
Why walk around, or climb up obstacles when you can (temporarily) fly over them? Reinventing what evolution has already happend across!!!
British Class Inertia and its Economic Consequences
The majority of land in the U.K. is owned by, and benefits only, a few thousand families (the upper class). The majority of income derived from the world’s second largest “offshore secrecy jurisdiction” aka. the “state within a state” of the City of London benefits only the same few thousand families (for whose sons the compulsory bankers bonuses are intended – it looks marginally better than a tithe enforced by the sword after all)…
Almost all the institutions which took over 150 years for the labor movement to win over to ownership “by the people for the people” under democratic control, have been returned within the space of thirty years to the “private sector” which effectively means (through chains of ownership which disappear once again into the CoL) the upper class.
What happens to the rest of the country – as long as they stay, and are kept, in the their place – really doesn’t matter.
The structure of the country as it is now – which has remained unchanged for far too many centuries – will only gravitate back either to another attempt at military empire, or an impoverished country of serfs being ruled by a distant elite. I doubt it is capable of anything else given its dynamic of ownership and self-interest.
For all their many faults, by comparison, the Germans have moved on politically and structurally (thanks to the postwar political theorists from the U.K. and U.S. who couldn’t get their ideas implemented at home!)… they are sharing more of the wealth, more of the information, more of the power. Anybody who spends some time living there can witness the robust, fault-tolerant, innovative country they are developing through careful tending of laws with the interests of all at heart, a ceaseless political discourse, and a voting system which allows alternative viewpoints to rapidly emerge and be aired.
We could be there now as well, and probably doing even better thanks to our openness as a people,
if we’d had a revolution a hundred years ago.
I don’t want to feel so hopeless about the situation, but it is hopeless. Isn’t it?
P.S. rather than providing endless links to support all the facts above… if they seem fishy to you go and do your research, it’ll be a very interesting process of discovery.
Consequences of Fukushima
While traveling in Japan several weeks ago, Fairewinds’ Arnie Gundersen took soil samples in Tokyo public parks, playgrounds, and rooftop gardens. All the samples would be considered nuclear waste if found here in the US. This level of contamination is currently being discovered throughout Japan. At the US NRC Regulatory Information Conference in Washington, DC March 13 to March 15, the NRC’s Chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko emphasized his concern that the NRC and the nuclear industry presently do not consider the costs of mass evacuations and radioactive contamination in their cost benefit analysis used to license nuclear power plants. Furthermore, Fairewinds believes that evacuation costs near a US nuclear plant could easily exceed one trillion dollars and contaminated land would be uninhabitable for generations.
Visit the excellent fairewinds.com sites for more updates
The fiction of an ever present enemy is useful
An interesting article on the entrapment of U.S. Muslims by agent provocateurs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant
In domestic U.K. politics it is often the same depressing story. The Unions in the 60′s, at the peak of their power? Thoroughly infiltrated. The high command of the I.R.A. in the eighties? Thoroughly infiltrated. The Eco movement of the 90′s? Thoroughly infiltrated. The state is too often the instigator, both of the cause of the conflict, but also the atrocities which follow. Sure, other states play the same game… but lets focus on our own for a moment.
How can I say something so cynical, without being an idiot?
Given that the grounds for conflict with the U.S./U.K. in the last couple of hundred years have (with very few exceptions) revolved around the U.S./U.K. stealing resources from others, occupying their territories, or meddling (usually by propping up tyrants in their countries) in the politics of other states – and given that these countries are both ruled by a well connected elite – those who are controlling the show (it is important to recognise that the “representatives” we elect are just that… our (increasingly toothless, corrupt, and ill informed) representatives in government, not the government itself) obviously have an incentive to keep the organs of the state just where they are, doing just what they are doing. Steady as she goes!
What better way of preventing any public debate about whether they ought to be there, doing what they’re doing – than encouraging a little low level terrorism. It keeps everybody in line – for those who are reaping the financial rewards to remain above the law, above public attack, so they may continue doing so.
A copy of the article (taken from the Guardian) is below for posterity. Occasionally I have seen online articles being watered down retrospectively… and that would be a shame in this case.
Craig Monteilh says he did not balk when his FBI handlers gave him the OK to have sex with the Muslim women his undercover operation was targeting. Nor, at the time, did he shy away from recording their pillow talk.
“They said, if it would enhance the intelligence, go ahead and have sex. So I did,” Monteilh told the Guardian as he described his year as a confidential FBI informant sent on a secret mission to infiltrate southern Californian mosques.
It is an astonishing admission that goes that goes to the heart of the intelligence surveillance of Muslim communities in America in the years after 9/11. While police and FBI leaders have insisted they are acting to defend America from a terrorist attack, civil liberties groups have insisted they have repeatedly gone too far and treated an entire religious group as suspicious.
Monteilh was involved in one of the most controversial tactics: the use of “confidential informants” in so-called entrapment cases. This is when suspects carry out or plot fake terrorist “attacks” at the request or under the close supervision of an FBI undercover operation using secret informants. Often those informants have serious criminal records or are supplied with a financial motivation to net suspects.
In the case of the Newburgh Four – where four men were convicted for a fake terror attack on Jewish targets in the Bronx – a confidential informant offered $250,000, a free holiday and a car to one suspect for help with the attack.
In the case of the Fort Dix Five, which involved a fake plan to attack a New Jersey military base, one informant’s criminal past included attempted murder, while another admitted in court at least two of the suspects later jailed for life had not known of any plot.
Such actions have led Muslim civil rights groups to wonder if their communities are being unfairly targeted in a spying game that is rigged against them. Monteilh says that is exactly what happens. “The way the FBI conducts their operations, It is all about entrapment … I know the game, I know the dynamics of it. It’s such a joke, a real joke. There is no real hunt. It’s fixed,” he said.
But Monteilh has regrets now about his involvement in a scheme called Operation Flex. Sitting in the kitchen of his modest home in Irvine, near Los Angeles, Monteilh said the FBI should publicly apologise for his fruitless quest to root out Islamic radicals in Orange County, though he does not hold out much hope that will happen. “They don’t have the humility to admit a mistake,” he said.
Monteilh’s story sounds like something out of a pulp thriller. Under the supervision of two FBI agents the muscle-bound fitness instructor created a fictitious French-Syrian altar ego, called Farouk Aziz. In this disguise in 2006 Monteilh started hanging around mosques in Orange County – the long stretch of suburbia south of LA – and pretended to convert to Islam.
He was tasked with befriending Muslims and blanket recording their conversations. All this information was then fed back to the FBI who told Monteilh to act like a radical himself to lure out Islamist sympathizers.
Yet, far from succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County’s Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency.
Monteilh does not look like a spy. He is massively well built, but soft-spoken and friendly. He is 49 but looks younger. He lives in a small rented home in Irvine that blends into the suburban sprawl of southern California. Yet Monteilh knows the spying game intimately well.
By his own account Monteilh got into undercover work after meeting a group of off-duty cops working out in a gym. Monteilh told them he had spent time in prison in Chino, serving time for passing fraudulent checks.
It is a criminal past he explains by saying he was traumatised by a nasty divorce. “It was a bad time in my life,” he said. He and the cops got to talking about the criminals Monteilh had met while in Chino. The information was so useful that Monteilh says he began to work on undercover drug and organised crime cases.
Eventually he asked to work on counter-terrorism and was passed on to two FBI handlers, called Kevin Armstrong and Paul Allen. These two agents had a mission and an alias ready-made for him.
Posing as Farouk Aziz he would infiltrate local mosques and Islamic groups around Orange County. “Paul Allen said: ‘Craig, you are going to be our computer worm. Our guy that gives us the real pulse of the Muslim community in America’,” Monteilh said.
The operation began simply enough. Monteilh started hanging out at mosques, posing as Aziz, and explaining he wanted to learn more about religion. In July, 2006, at the Islamic Center of Irvine, he converted to Islam.
Monteilh also began attending other mosques, including the Orange County Islamic Foundation. Monteilh began circulating endlessly from mosque to mosque, spending long days in prayer or reading books or just hanging out in order to get as many people as possible to talk to him.
“Slowly I began to wear the robes, the hat, the scarf and they saw me slowly transform and growing a beard. At that point, about three or four months later, [my FBI handlers] said: ‘OK, now start to ask questions’.”
Those questions were aimed at rooting out radicals. Monteilh would talk of his curiosity over the concepts of jihad and what Muslims should do about injustices in the world, especially where it pertained to American foreign policy.
He talked of access to weapons, a possible desire to be a martyr and inquired after like-minded souls. It was all aimed at trapping people in condemning statements. “The skill is that I am going to get you to say something. I am cornering you to say “jihad”,” he said.
Of course, the chats were recorded.
In scenes out of a James Bond movie, Monteilh said he sometimes wore a secret video recorder sewn into his shirt. At other times he activated an audio recorder on his key rings.
Monteilh left his keys in offices and rooms in the mosques that he attended in the hope of recording conversations that took place when he was not here. He did it so often that he earned a reputation with other worshippers for being careless with his keys. The recordings were passed back to his FBI handlers at least once a week.
He also met with them every two months at a hotel room in nearby Anaheim for a more intense debriefing. Monteilh says he was grilled on specific individuals and asked to view charts showing networks of relationships among Orange County’s Muslim population.
He said the FBI had two basic aims. Firstly, they aimed to uncover potential militants. Secondly, they could also use any information Monteilh discovered – like an affair or someone being gay – to turn targeted people into becoming FBI informants themselves.
None of it seemed to unnerve his FBI bosses, not even when he carried out a suggestion to begin seducing Muslim women and recording them.
At one hotel meeting, agent Kevin Armstrong explained the FBI attitude towards the immense breadth of Operation Flex – and any concerns over civil rights – by saying simply: “Kevin is God.”
Monteilh’s own attitude evolved into something very similar. “I was untouchable. I am a felon, I am on probation and the police cannot arrest me. How empowering is that? It is very empowering. You began to have a certain arrogance about it. It is almost taunting. They told me: ‘You are an untouchable’,” he said.
But it was not always easy. “I started at 4am. I ended at 9.30pm. Really, it was a lot of work … Farouk took over. Craig did not exist,” he said. But it was also well paid: at the peak of Operation Flex, Monteilh was earning more than $11,000 a month.
But he was wrong about being untouchable.
Far from uncovering radical terror networks, Monteilh ended up traumatising the community he was sent into. Instead of embracing calls for jihad or his questions about suicide bombers or his claims to have access to weapons, Monteilh was instead reported to the FBI as a potentially dangerous extremist.
A restraining order was also taken out against him in June 2007, asking him to stay away from the Islamic Center of Irvine. Operation Flex was a bust and Monteilh had to kill off his life as Farouk Aziz.
But the story did not end there. In circumstances that remain murky Monteilh then sued the FBI over his treatment, claiming that they abandoned him once the operation was over.
He also ended up in jail after Irvine police prosecuted him for defrauding two women, including a former girlfriend, as part of an illegal trade in human growth hormone at fitness clubs. (Monteilh claims those actions were carried out as part of another secret string operation for which he was forced to carry the can.)
What is not in doubt is that Monteilh’s identity later became public. In 2009 the FBI brought a case against Ahmad Niazi, an Afghan immigrant in Orange County.
The evidence included secret recordings and even calling Osama bin Laden “an angel”. That was Monteilh’s work and he outed himself to the press to the shock of the very Muslims he had been spying on who now realised that Farouk Aziz – the radical they had reported to the FBI two years earlier – had in fact been an undercover FBI operative.
Now Monteilh says he set Niazi up and the FBI was trying to blackmail the Afghani into being an informant. “I built the whole relationship with Niazi. Through my coercion we talked about jihad a lot,” he said. The FBI’s charges against Niazi were indeed later dropped.
Now Monteilh has joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against the FBI. Amazingly, after first befriending Muslim leaders in Orange County as Farouk Aziz, then betraying them as Craig Monteilh, he has now joined forces with them again to campaign for their civil liberties.
That has now put Monteilh’s testimony about his year undercover is at the heart of a fresh legal effort to prove that the FBI operation in Orange County unfairly targeted a vulnerable Muslim community, trampling on civil rights in the name of national security.
The FBI did not respond to a request from the Guardian for comment.
It is not the first time Monteilh has shifted his stance. In the ACLU case Monteilh is now posing as the sorrowful informant who saw the error of his ways.
But in previous court papers filed against the Irvine Police and the FBI, Monteilh’s lawyers portrayed him as the loyal intelligence asset who did sterling work tackling the forces of Islamic radicalism and was let down by his superiors.
In those papers Monteilh complained that FBI agents did not act speedily enough on a tip he gave them about a possible sighting of bomb-making materials. Now Monteilh says that tip was not credible.
Either way it does add up to a story that shifts with the telling. But that fact alone goes to the heart of the FBI’s use of such confidential informants in investigating Muslim communities.
FBI operatives with profiles similar to Monteilh’s – of a lengthy criminal record, desire for cash and a flexibility with the truth – have led to high profile cases of alleged entrapment that have shocked civil rights groups across America.
In most cases the informants have won their prosecutions and simply disappeared. Monteilh is the only one speaking out. But whatever the reality of his year undercover, Monteilh is almost certainly right about one impact of Operation Flex and the exposure of his undercover activities: “Because of this the Muslim community will never trust the FBI again.”
The “Paying for Online Content” problem
Options
1) Pay at the point of access
Works well for physically secure installations. Customers buy tokens at the door (or beforehand) which they exchange to get access to view the performance. Difficult to reproduce that performance with high-fidelity and “steal” it.
Have similar models online (e.g. newspaper “paywalls”, or website “subscriptions”). As digital content is moved onto the local machine, however, it is far simpler to clone/copy the content and then re-distribute it to others who do not pay e.g. pirate bay.
For this reason, one approach for musicians is to distribute “near to free of charge” online but to charge for concerts / physical appearances. The disadvantage to this is that many performances and performers are not suitable for, or willing to, give live performances.
2) Pay a general tax and get content for free
e.g. in France/Germany (to a degree) empty media for copying is taxed. This is used to fund artists. There is also a component whereby artists must be able to proove that the content they produce is actually being consumed by others.
The downside is that popularity isn’t fairly or accurately rewarded.
3) The Kickstarter approach.
Artists/producers build their reputation (by working for free) until they can collect, in advance, sufficient funds from the general public to complete a work. Thereafter the work is (generally) made freely available. This is an interesting model, but does not reward long term usage/significance of a produced work, although it does make it more likely that the successful producer will have future projects funded. This model “by public subscription” has had many periods throughout history where it has worked effectively (think the Statue of Liberty, paid for by public subscription in France!), albeit, in bursts and starts. (This approach is even getting legal support from the U.S. Senate http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/US-Senat-verabschiedet-Crowdfunding-Gesetz-1478729.html)
Here, we will consider options 1 and 2.
Enforcement :
Given that people who produce films (albeit, under the suspicion that their enormously inflated budgets and losses are a vehicle for money laundering) or music, or books, do need to make money to eat…
The dominant current model is 1. How can this be enforced in the digital world?
1.1) A portion of your media hardware is placed “outside your ownership” with “Digital Rights Management” hardware which prevents your own machine from playing content you have not purchased.
1.2) Mass surveillance of file transfers across the internet, with fines for the (suspected) transfer of media which is not owned by the transferrer or transferee. Disadvantages here are a massive business penetration into the private sphere of millions of internet users, increasing privatisation of state legal functions, the lack of accountability of accusers, a chilling effect on freedom of speech as bandwidth providers are increasingly obliged to also automatically scan and remove content.
1.3) Auditing your private machines! This would be the final logical conclusion of (1). A state or industry built rootkit (along the lines of the one distributed by Sony in 2005, or that of the German secret police) which (most likely with the collusion of operating system vendors) constantly scans and monitors file and stream activity upon your machine and connected drives.
1.4) Shutting down/seizing/blocking websites and distribution platforms which are not in compliance. This is an option which does not directly affect the individual, but places massive powers of censorship in the hands of the authority, and damages/kills the emergent “content curation” culture on the web (filtering content for specialist sub-groups, essential for dealing with the content overflow!).
An alternative. A modern upgrade to option 2:
Tax funded media organisations (such as the BBC) generate a huge income.
“Between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011 the cost was £145.50 – the equivalent of £12.13 per month or just under 40p per day.” source
That’s 2,351 Million GBP spend on television, 604 Million spent on radio, 199 Million for online media, and 406 Million for investment and running costs.
Now imagine a system which distributes a generally collected tax more fairly than existing approaches to producers of content – without sacrificing individual liberty to the same extent as the draconian enforcement mechanisms needed to enforce an approach (1) which is ill-aligned with the fundamental nature of the computing to be good at copying things!
A Scheme :
All content is free of charge to the end user.
Every tax payer is registered with an independent token issuing body (TIB) which distributes an unlimited number of tokens to the tax payer. While unique, it is possible to show that these tokens belong to the same “group” i.e. consumer. The tokens issued are *not* linked to the identity of the consumer, anonymity must be legally and procedurally guaranteed.
Using cryptographic hardening (in a similar manner as pioneered by BitCoin) tokens generated by the TIB are unique, impossible to forge (i.e. to generate new unique tokens which belong to the same group) within the year for which they are valid.
As consumers access content, they must supply a TIB token (which, remember, are free and unlimited).
On a microsecond/daily/monthly/yearly basis content producers hand in their tokens to the TIB.
The TIB assigns that period’s revenue on the basis of the number of tokens collected by that content provider, where the value of each token is divided by the number of other tokens belonging to that user which have been used in the same period… i.e. users who are massive consumers of content do not skew the system against those who would rather view less content but are very particular about quality.
A disadvantage is that the TIB must be closely monitored against creeping control by third-parties (whether the state and its organs (police/political police e.g. “special branch” in the U.K., “Dept. of Homeland Security” in the U.S.) or by industrial interests). Another is that elements of 1.4 would still be necessary for enforcement internationally (assuming that not all nations switch to the system). It also implies that everybody wanting to consume content from producers who wish to take part, must be registered tax payers.
Would this provide a respectful and fair access to content in a modern manner, which accountably rewards both popularist content producers, but also specialist niche content producers for their efforts?
Note: an incentive to cheat this system comes on the part of the producer (to fake consumer interest in their content). This makes legal enforcement much simpler as the group of potential infringers is commensurately smaller. Techniques for spotting infringement can be purely statistical, without impacting individual users (e.g. watching payment trends, trends in the types of tokens submitted, clashing tokens (where tokens have been copied – where are they commonly clashing, that’s a point of suspicion) and so on.
A further incentive to cheat comes on the part of those who do not pay the tax. This, again, becomes dramatically more enforceable as the number shrinks over time. This brings the disadvantage that infringing sites may need to be blocked (extra-nationally).
These TIB tokens would essentially be a form of alternative, and complementary currency, existing within a fair legal framework, only useful in the context of media consumption, ultimately exchanged for national currency ring-fenced from taxation for producers of content.
The novelty is the manner in which the tokens are generated in time constrained, anonymous, but grouped fashion, in order to balance anonymity and freedoms against meaningful analysis of usage.
This would not be the only way producers could earn money, of course. It would, however, secure an online income for those who choose to distribute in that medium.