economy

Pedal cleats

image

These cleats have been with me for over a year. They got worn smooth from walking on them. The previous pair I left in for two years and I had to drill one of them out. Advice for cleats: use some white lith grease on the bolts when you apply them. Use a long handled hex wrench or ratchet to tighten them. When removing them, drip on some light oil like TriFlow to work into the seams. Wait at least ten minutes for the oil to work in. Take something g sharp like  n awl or a pocket knife or the tip of a new drywall screw to dig out all the crap in the bolt head. Even after that prep, you might not be able to fit your hex bit in. Next try a Torx bit of the same size. The wear on the bolt head might have screwed up the insides of the bolt head, but if you can mallet a torx bit in there, it should grip long enough to use a ratchet to back it out. Otherwise you will want to go to the screw-reverser bit in your drill.

Lesson: use that white lith grease first when applying new bolts!

Net Neutrality | Electronic Frontier Foundation

FTA:

The FCC has a poor track record of getting net neutrality right. In January 2014, a federal court rejected the bulk of the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet order. The rules that the court threw out, however, were deeply flawed. Protecting net neutrality is a hard problem, with no easy solutions. … [W]e are asking folks to contact both the FCC and Congress and send a clear message: It’s our internet, we won’t let you damage it, and we won’t let you help others damage it.

via Net Neutrality | Electronic Frontier Foundation.

When will we get true civilian Internet? — “Internet’s Own Boy” Briefly Knocked Off YouTube With Bogus DMCA Claim – Slashdot

This is why we need copyright reform, and we need to invest in truly civilian Internet spaces. Things like youtube are entirely taken for granted but they live at nothing more than the whim of corporations, with no actual rights of free speech on them.

The whole Google and “right to be forgotten” drama is another case where civilian government is unable to form a basis for a search engine for a search engine ruled by civilian law. We act as if Google is a utility…and while it might be a de-facto utility, it is not, and it is ephemeral and as temporary as its stock price lives well.

“Internet’s Own Boy” Briefly Knocked Off YouTube With Bogus DMCA Claim – Slashdot.

Losing Net Neutrality Is The Symptom, Not The Problem: Now Is The Time To Focus On Real Competition | Techdirt

This is a really great point because national broadband providers act not only as utility monopolies (Internet service) but also as content providers. This should be considered conflict of interest. A logical role for municipalities to adopt would be to become local broadband providers by buying out the POTS copper lines that the telcos are actually selling off and ripping out when installing FIOS (optical fiber to the curb). This is a logical way of increasing competition and bolstering local economies.

 

Losing Net Neutrality Is The Symptom, Not The Problem: Now Is The Time To Focus On Real Competition | Techdirt.

Naomi Klein: How science is telling us all to revolt

This is a good fresh take on why our planet is about to boil: capitalism. How do you change capitalism? Social resistance: uprising.

So it stands to reason that, “if we’re thinking about the future of the earth, and the future of our coupling to the environment, we have to include resistance as part of that dynamics”. And that, Werner argued, is not a matter of opinion, but “really a geophysics problem”.

Fancy words for: people who are telling us to “be reasonable” are making money ruining the earth.

He isn’t saying that his research drove him to take action to stop a particular policy; he is saying that his research shows that our entire economic paradigm is a threat to ecological stability. And indeed that challenging this economic paradigm – through mass-movement counter-pressure – is humanity’s best shot at avoiding catastrophe.

via Naomi Klein: How science is telling us all to revolt.

Too Many Linux Distros? And Does Progress Justify Injustice?

Are there too many Linux distros? Michael Dominick, in Episode 23 of Coder Radio clearly says that there are too many distros. This is not a fresh dilema, and I’ve written about it in the past. It is a basic point: in any community where proficiency is valued and lumber is free, you will never find two carpenters who build the same chair. The thousands of Linux distributions we find today are an evolutionary explosion submitting solutions to the needs of the few in the long, long tail of possible requirements. And there will never be a tangible method to restrict this growth.

Commercial vendors have always had trouble with what they viewed as a slithering mass of mostly academic and hobbyist level distributions. Clearly, Redhat, SuSE and Debian/Canonical have been the most stable presence in this realm. Software availability is more ubiquitous, more consumer focused, and more competitive than ever. The Linux Standard Board has always been a watered down standard that never lead the distros, but merely tailed them. And now when OS vendors tend to proffer “blessed” software development paths, the LSB has yet to address this, or even think ahead to application development life-cycle standards. This is a failure in stewardship of Redhat, Novell, and Canonical in general.

Long has it been clear that each large Linux vendor has their own software architecural style. Seeing how much effort software developers put into competing with iOS and Android requirements, developing desktop software for Linux is only going to be more neglected if these vendors don’t provide a unified approach to for desktop application development. Just having a pretty desktop is insufficient. Just having an app-store is insufficient.

Providing a reference-distribution application development life-cycle and a stable reference desktop application API is crucial for Linux to be competitive in the network-enabled software market. This is a vision that Sun took a stab at, Trolltech, RealBasic and Bryan Lunduke have all taken their own stabs at, but seems roundly ignored by the large distribution providers. I think that Bryan Lunduke’s Illumination Software Creator was an earnest answer, as well has been Qt, and Java to this problem (at various points in time). Michael Dominick articulates these issues very clearly on Coder Radio.

What kind of compromises are necessary for this to happen? Will distros need to focus less on architectural evolution and more on community economic development? Would the most indignant and proud developers have to get a) offfended b) dismissed and c) ignored in favor of the vanilla approach?

And is this an unjust route? Michael Dominick and Chris Fisher were discussing Alan Cox’s upset over the Nvidia kernel code sumissions, and it reveals a core tenant of the Free Software and Open Source origins of Linux: progress made in spite of the licensing of the progress is fundamentally damaging to the rights and mores of the project and its license. The wholly opposite side, but on the same axis or licensing and rights is the realm of DRM. If Nvidia’s patches are unacceptable and have to only live on as tainted modules or binary blobs, is progress actually lost? Which is the greater loss, if by accepting proprietary property into a code-base you open the door to other corporate exceptions to a community effort? I can see both sides and clearly there must be some compromise possible.

Linux, Free Software and Open Source have deep academic roots as well. The merits of the “more correct language” and the “more refined approach” have always held sway within many of the developer communities that provided many of the packages present in all Linux distros. What happens to this varied set of rarefied projects, hardly even a community by many standards, if Canonical and RedHat unexpectedly decide that desktop applications need to standardize on Qt…and that any other languages may not be available thru app-stores on both their distros? Many would likewise call this unjust as well. Would it actually be progress? Would it also be unjust? Would focusing on enrolling developers by restricting choice raise Linux adoption?

I think that there will always be a libre-Linux ecosystem on the internet. The benefits of providing a competitive similar commerce-oriented (if not commercial, and certainly not proprietary) desktop/mobile software platform on Linux might never be known if it is never attempted, however. Isn’t it possible that the LSB could define a fully featured language, development- and deployment-life-cycle that can enrol or even entice developers and shops presently producing titles for iOS, Windows and Android?