Support the YODA bill!

This looks like a tremendously important bill!

“A bill introduced Sept. 18 would make clear that consumers actually owned the electronic devices, and any accompanying software on that device, that they purchased, according to sponsor Rep. Blake Farenthold’s (R-Texas).

The You Own Devices Act (H.R. 5586) would amend the Copyright Act “to provide that the first sale doctrine applies to any computer program that enables a machine or other product to operate.”

[taken from Own Your Own Devices You Will, Under Rep. Farenthold’s YODA Bill, by Tamlin Bason]

I just learned about YODA from reading the link via this   G+ post by Charles Hofacker.  The link points to the article

How an eBay bookseller defeated a publishing giant at the Supreme Court, at Ars Technica.

From this article:

Ted Olson stepped to the podium on behalf of Wiley and launched into an argument that Congress had amended the copyright law in 1976 in part to stop unauthorized importation of copyrighted works. Soon he began facing questions that put him on the defensive:

Justice Breyer: Now, under your reading…the millions of Americans who buy Toyotas could not resell them without getting the permission of the copyright holder of every item in that car which is copyrighted.

Olson seemed to have difficulty with the question, answering “that is not this case.” Justice Breyer continued to press:

Justice Breyer: Now, explain to me, because there are… millions of dollars’ worth of items with copyrighted indications of some kind in them that we import every year; libraries with three hundred million books bought from foreign publishers…; museums that buy Picassos… and they can’t display it without getting permission from the five heirs who are disputing ownership of the Picasso copyrights….

Again Olson tried to deflect the question, arguing that “we’re not talking about this case…” But Justice Anthony Kennedy wasn’t satisfied.

Justice Kennedy: You’re aware of the fact that if we write an opinion… with the rule that you propose, that we should, as a matter of common sense, ask about the consequences of that rule.

Olson countered that the “parade of horribles” was exaggerated. Justice Breyer observed wryly that “[s]ometimes horribles don’t occur because no one can believe it.”


With Justice Breyer authoring the majority opinion, the Court decided that the phrase “lawfully made under this title” wasn’t intended by Congress to impose a “geographical limitation.” Regarding market segmentation, the Court found no support for the notion that copyright “should include a right to divide markets or… to charge different purchasers different prices for the same book…”



Now you see why this is very very interesting.




Where’s the ship? (lots of questions part II)

I explain in Lots of questions, part I how Plato and Brazil made me want to switch from math to biology.  Eventually it seems I ended in fundamentals of computing, but there is this strange phenomenon. I can’t figure it how it works, or why, or even if is widespread or rare. I think is widespread, but I don’t have clear evidence about it other than the old saying that people don’t change.

So Plato+Rio gives geometry+biology gives artificial chemistry+distributed computing.


I don’t get how this functions.

Makes no sense.

Now I have a hint that we are the computation,  we execute ourselves during our lifetime, our brains are just part of the seed, part of the program. We don’t really have billions of neurons and cells, everything is just the state of a computation.  Part of the seed is our genetic inheritance, other part of the seed is our geographical and more largely cultural inheritance. We are not separated from the external medium, there is no external medium, exactly like there is no me and the Net, only many actors interacting asynchonously and locally according to some protocols. In the case of real life the protocols are casted in   real molecules, at a finer scale only emerging phenomena of a much faster and wider computation going on, of a geometrical nature. But the principle is scale independent, that is how we manage space (perception and interaction) in our brains.

So we don’t change.

Take this blog, I make from time to time some counts. For the last 3 months gives this. There are 491 posts on chorasimilarity. In the last week 78 of them have been read, last month 219, last quarter 331. This series makes no sense unlese there are very long range relations between the posts, relations which are perceived by enough readers of this blog.

Oh, great!

Two mysteries. The first is that I have no idea why exactly there long time correlations arrive in my writing. The second mystery is why do you perceive them too.

So there is this strange phenomenon, which I can’t explain.

I remark though that there has to be something starts the new computation cycle, the new turn of spiral, the new chamber of the snail shell.

It is stimulation.

Last time was Plato and Rio.

I feel that I lack something in order to tell you more and for me to learn more in the absence of enough external stimuli.

I know I can build really new and also classical stuff, but I loose interest in time without stimuli. That is why I change every few years what I do. It is not rewarding for me to see that after I left a field somebody picks an idea and makes it stronger, it is not rewarding to see that I was right when nobody believed.  Maybe I just have a nose for good ideas which float in the air and I detect them before many others, but I don’t have the right spce and culture position to make them grow really big. You know, just an explorer who comes back home after a lonely expedition and tells you about blue seas and wide skies with strange constellations. Yeah, OK creep. But then, after some years the trend is to go to bath in those blue seas. And where is the creep? Just coming home, telling about that new jungle and the road from there to the clouds.

Stimulation. Trust. New worlds await. Need my ship, now.




The clients of publishers. Before: readers. Now: authors.

There are two services offered by any publisher:

  • to help you learn what others have written
  • to help you show to others what you have written.

These are the two sides of the publishing business.

A long time ago, the main reason for the existence of publishers was to spread knowledge, i.e. to offer the first service. They used to multiply the author’s work  and to distribute it to libraries and bookstores.

Libraries and bookstores offered the space for the books to be examined by the people. Some of the books sold well, some not. Some books impressed a selected few, who then wrote other books which sold well. And so on and so forth.

Publishers, libraries and bookstores used to be a very efficient medium of spreading and selecting viable info.

But now, when publish is a button, it looks like the second service is more wanted. Now the publishers offer to authors the service of giving an authority stamp to … anything an author writes. The publishers seek the profit from their main clients, the authors.

Libraries and bookstores, the previous partners, try to find a way to survive.  Because publishers no longer need readers.



Mol language and chemlambda gui instead of html and web browsers gives new Net service?

The WWW is an Internet system, based on the following ingredients:

  • web pages (written in html)
  • a (web) browser
  •  a web server (because of the choice of client-server architecture)

Tim Berners-Lee wrote those programs. Then the WWW appeared and exploded.

The force behind this explosion comes from the separation of the system into independent parts. Anybody can write a web page, anybody who has the browser program can navigate the web, anybody who wants to make a web server needs basically nothing more than the program for that (and the  previously existing  infrastructure).

In principle it works because of the lack of control over the structure and functioning.

It works because of the separation of form from content, among other clever separations.

It is so successful, it is under our noses, but apparently very few people think about the applications of the WWW ideas in other parts of the culture.

Separation of form from content means that you have to acknowledge that meaning is not what rules the world. Semantics has only only a local, very fragile  existence, you can’t go too far if you build on semantics.

Leave the meaning to the user, let the web client build his meaning from the web pages he can access via his browser. He can access and get the info because the meaning has been separated from the form.

How about another Net service, like the WWW, but which does something different, which goes to the roots of computation?

It would need:

  • artificial molecules instead of web pages; these are files written in a fictional language called “Mol”
  • a gui for the chemlambda artificial chemistry, instead of a web browser;  one should think about it as a Mol compiler & gui,
  • a chemical server which makes chemical soups, or broths, leaving the reduction algorithm to the users;

This Mol language  is an idea which holds some potential, but which needs a lot of pondering. Because the “language” idea has bad effects on computation.



Hindley-Milner for chemlambda

 Some notes about Hindley-Milner in #chemlambda . It turns out that is pretty simple to do something very intuitive.
The starting point is the mol file which encodes a graph molecule.
Let me recall how this works.
The ingredients of a molecule are some nodes, which have ports. Nodes can be red, green, yellow or blue (until now, but you are free to add your own) and they appear as, say, 4px atoms with various colors.
Their ports are yellow if they are “in” ports and “blue” if they are out ports.
There is more.
Because the trivalent nodes (i.e. nodes with 3 ports) are always either with two “in” ports and 1 “out” port, or the other way (invert “in” with “out”) there is a need to differentiate the two “in” (or the two “out”) ports of a trivalent node, that is why one is at “left”, represented by a 2px atom.
So, for example, the application node appear as
A [ , in, out]
and in the mol file is represented by a line which looks like this:
A 14 abc 3
where the first argument is “A” (application) and 14 is the value of the port, abc is the value of the port in and 3 is the value of the port out.
A mol file is a list of such lines, which satisfies the condition that every port value appears at most twice, and if it appears twice then it has to be once in a in port and one in a out port.
That’s it.
Oh, maybe is good to say that the L (lambda) node has one in port and two out ports (and not two in ports and one out port!) and it appears as
L a b c
where a is “in”, b is “left.out” and c is “out”. For example if you want to write Lx.T then probably the L node will appear as
L a x y
and “a” will be a port value which appears as the out port value of “T”, whatever that means in your particular example.

Two colors are enough to distinguish the main nodes

  • A green, two ports in one port out
  • FO green, two ports out, one port in  (that’s a fanout node)
  • L red, two ports out, one port in
  • FI red, two ports in, one port out (that’s a fanin node)

When represented in the chemlambda gui, you don’t see any port variable, and they indeed not matter, their only scope is to represent an edge from a port in to a port out or a free in edge, or a free out edge.

Now, let’s go to types. In the previous post  I gave a link to

where is explained a simple procedure. Just take a graph (on graphic lambda calculus, therefore easily to translate into chemlambda) and give labels to all the edges, then use the “function” constructor -> and express relations between the edge labels according to the rules at each node. You get a magma, with the operation -> and generators the edge labels. If the magma is free then the term represented by the graph is well typed.

With the nodes FI and the FOE which are present in chemlambda, one has to use a FUN constructor, as previously, and a PAIR constructor.

The edge labels (which are type names, repeat: names, not types, so there is no problem related to polymorphism)  are of course, exactly the port variables from the mol file which represents the graph.

So the first thing to do is to translate the mol file into another file, line by line. Like this: use the same style and introduce the “type node”

FUN in out

(which represents c=a->b like this: FUN a b c)

and the “type node”

PAIR in out

(which represents c=(a,b) like this PAIR (a,b,c) )

Use also the FO node as previously.

Then translate

  • A a b c  >> FUN b c a
  • L a b c  >> FUN b a c
  • FI a b c >> PAIR b a c
  • FOE a b c >> PAIR b c a
  • FO a b c >> FO a b c

and delete all other nodes (like T, termination, or FRIN or FROUT)

The translation changes some properties of the ports, in the sense that some ports which were “in” become “out” ports, and conversely.

So what happens is that even if each port value appears at most twice in the new file, the following are possible for those values “a” which appear twice:

  • if it appears once as a “in” and once as a “out”, do nothing more
  • if it appears twice as a “in”, then delete the two occurrences and replace them by new names a1 and a2 and add “FO a a1 a2” to the file
  • if it appears twice as a “out” then add a new 2 valent node, call it
    EQ in , so add  “EQ a a”

EQ nodes represents relations between generators, the generators are  the port values.

By this simple procedure starting from the mol file, the rest consists only in giving the local moves for the new graphs obtained.

Which can be these local moves other than the translations of the old moves of chemlambda? That is the essence of the HM algorithm, as seen in chemlambda, of course. (Mind that in chemlambda may not stop, because chemlambda molecules are not representing lambda terms in general, even if any lambda term has a correspondent in chemlambda).

Lots of interesting things may happen, even if restricted to molecules which represent lambda terms. If the term has no normal form, of course the algorithm does not stop, for example.

Wait, what algorithm?

The algorithm has two ingredients:

  • the moves, which are translations of the chemlambda moves (that’s pretty intriguing, that even if the translation is bad, i.e. non invertible, the translated moves are still good, in the sense that it does not happen that for the same left pattern there are two different right patterns proposed)
  • and the reduction strategy which is left at your choice, from “stupid” (the one I’m currently using) to more intelligent artificial chemistry style or Actor Model ones, as described here.

The meaning of this is that one can imagine a whole lot of different HM kind of algorithms for (a limited) type inference, which can be as sequential or as concurrent as you want.

What could be the purpose of this HM like algorithm for chemlambda?

It is a mean to extract some very limited “objective” information from the molecule, even if in the process of reduction. Usually it will make no global sense (meaning that the algorithm will not stop, roughly) and moreover the algorithm will not be much less resources consuming than the reduction algorithm itself (which shows that already, theoretically, the chemlambda reduction algorithm, whichever variant of the reduction strategy you choose, should be very fast in it’s class).

I shall come back to this with lots of pictures and details, recurrently.
If you don’t make sense about what I’m talking about then go visit the chemlambda github repo and follow the links.

Putem sa ne organizam mai bine decat partidele

Orice ai fi, revolutionar, politician,  afacerist sau ONGist, e ceva ce nu iti permiti sa ignori: costul organizarii.

Toate formele de organizare, de la #unitisalvam, la partide politice, la grupari religioase, la fabrici, afaceri, scoli, sindicate, academii, toate acestea sunt grupuri de oameni care se organizeaza. Or, nu este usor sa te organizezi. Costa timp, nervi, bani.

In 1937 un economist american, Ronald Coase, a scris o lucrare foarte influenta, “The nature of the firm”, in care explica de ce oamenii prefera sa se organizeze in grupuri (firme, partide, etc) in loc sa se multumeasca cu intelegeri intre persoane individuale. Motivul e simplu: orice grupare de oameni se ocupa in principal cu organizarea.

Daca vorbim de un partid atunci e vorba de organizarea in teritoriu, de mentinerea ei la nivelul activistilor, de armonizarea activitatii de exercitare a puterii si de control, de la varf, a acesteia.

Daca vorbim de o fabrica, atunci este vorba despre organizarea procesului de productie, de minimizarea timpului pierdut, de sincronizarea muncitorilor si a liniilor de productie, de managementul resurselor necesare pentru productie si de vanzarea produselor.

Organizarea costa mult si de aceea partidele sunt mult avantajate fata de noi, indivizii. Pentru mine, costul organizarii e asa de mare incat nu imi permit sa il platesc.

Sau mai precis, asta era adevarat inainte de generatia Facebook.

Sa vedem care e cel mai vulnerabil punct al organizarii intr-un partid. E o organizare piramidala, sau mai bine spus ca un arbore cu radacina sus si crengile jos. Ca sistemul de directoare intr-un calculator.  Puterea e cu atat mai mare cu cat esti mai aproape de radacina. De acolo se conduce. Dar pe de alta parte, se poate conduce, se poate organiza pentru ca fiecare (radacina, creanga sau frunza a arborelui) stie cum poate comunica cu oricine altcineva din structura. Vrei instructiuni, atunci asteapta-le de la sef, vrei sa comanzi, atunci comunica subalternilor. (De aceea, de altfel, orice calculator are organizate fisierele intr-o structura de arbore).

Structura asta piramidala, pe care partidele o folosesc cu atat succes, e o inventie extraordinara, pentru ca permite o buna organizare.

O organizare care ne tine astazi prizonieri. O organizare de care nu mai e nevoie pentru ca in ziua de azi ne putem permite costul organizarii.

Lucrul asta se vede deja de cativa ani in politica lumii. Acum s-a vazut bine si la noi. Generatia Facebook exista numai pentru ca se foloseste de Net pentru a se organiza.

Deci, sa renuntam sa ne organizam in partide. Nu avem nevoie de aceasta forma de organizare depasita.

Dar sa cerem si sa luam puterea. Nu mai trebuie sa facem greseala de acum  25 de ani si sa credem in bunavointa altora, pe care ii delegam sa ne reprezinte.

Concret, pentru ca ne putem organiza pe Net, nu mai avem nevoie de partide.  Dar legea privilegiaza partidele, asa ca ce e de facut?

Ce cred eu: putem sa facem un partid pe hartie,  o scoica goala pentru a multumi generatia birocratilor, care inca face legile in Romania.

Vreti partid? Hai sa facem o aplicatie cu harta Romaniei, pe judete si orase, si sa cerem adeziuni pe Facebook sau twitter sau cum vreti, astfel incat fiecare (membru al acestei grupari fictive sau nu) sa poata vedea avansul constructiei acestui asa zis partid.

Avem o tinta de N filiale teritoriale, cu cel putin M membri fiecare, ce, nu gasim pe Net doritori?

Odata ce criteriile stabilite de lege (invechita dar in vigoare si deci de respectat) sunt satisfacute, avem nevoie de cativa juristi care sa ne ajute sa ne inscriem structura pentru competitia electorala, sau pentru exercitarea puterii.

Noi putem sa discutam mult mai bine intre noi, si sa ajungem la oarecare consens, dinamic si nuantat. Putem reactiona mult mai aproape de strada decat partidele invechite. Putem sa ne folosim de transparenta discutiilor noastre pentru a le face mai drepte, pentru ca suntem toti oameni si pentru toti conteaza parerea altora despre noi.

Daca vreti, pentru ca oricum calculatoarele si ideile din spatele lor ne-au intrat in singe, daca vreti putem sa facem deja, numai sa vrem, lucruri inca mult mai interesante.

Putem sa facem un partid care sa faca noi partide.

Putem sa facem un partid al celor care vor sa joace jocul politic.

Sa vorbim acum despre ideologie. Ce ar fi un partid fara o ideologie? Cum adica, sa privim in jur. Nici un partid din cele vechi nu isi mai respecta ideologia. Si au dreptate sa faca asa. Iata de ce.

Inainte de vremea cand era greu sa te organizezi, ideologia era un fel de eticheta scurta, sau un fel de virus, un fel de gripa de care ori te imbolnaveai, ori erai imun. Pentru ca oamenii nu puteau sa vorbeasca unii cu altii decat daca erau fizic aproape, era nevoie de acest vehicol de raspandire, ideologia. Ai luat gripa, esti racit si vorbesti despre ce medicamente sa iei. N-ai luat gripa, nu te intereseaza.

Puneti impreuna structura piramidala de organizare si ideologia, ce iese?  Ideologia se propaga ierarhic de sus in jos (n-ai luat gripa, atunci la revedere, frunza, du-te unde vezi cu ochii). Daca e vorba cumva de o structura parazitata de un partid (cum ar fi un minister), atunci e la fel: se schimba partidul, se schimba ideologia, cine nu e cu noi e impotriva noastra. Si mai rau, daca vorbim de ministere: ajung sa fie in structura numai persoane imune la orice ideologie de partid, care se ocupa doar de lume lor fictiva de hartie si de propria ideologie.

Deci, pentru ca putem comunica asa usor, pentru ca ne putem organiza asa bine, cu costuri foarte reduse, inseamna ca nu avem nevoie de ideologie.

De idei avem nevoie, nu de propaganda. Ideologia e doar un vechi virus care si-a pierdut din forta. Idei bune exista peste tot, si la stanga, si la dreapta. Ca si idei proaste de altfel. De ce trebuie sa preluam partea buna la pachet cu partea proasta? Nu trebuie.

Si aici putem sa procedam ca si cu partidul pe hartie. Vreti o ideologie? Hai sa o negociem intre noi. Poate anul asta ajungem la consensul ca unele idei de stanga sunt bune, sa fim, ca membri ai partidului pe hartie, de stanga. Poate la anul invatam din lipsuri si excese ca avem nevoie de cateva idei de dreapta, acum suntem mai mult de dreapta.

Poate si mai mult: unele lucruri de la stanga ne plac, altele de la dreapta. De ce nu?  De ce, daca sunt student, artist, cercetator sa profesor, sa trebuiasca sa ma duc mai la stanga, pentru ca (pe hartie, nu si in realitate) stanga e traditional mai inclinata spre colaborare sociala fara profit pe termen scurt? De ce, daca sunt afacerist, corporatist, jurist, notar, medic, trebuie sa ma duc mai la dreapta, pentru ca (iar pe hartie) nu vreau ca statul sa ma suga si sa dea rezultatele muncii mele unor trantori?

Nu trebuie, fireste. Avem nevoie si de colaborare sociala atunci cand e vorba   de proiecte pe termen lung (educatie, cercetare, arta, medicina), cu conditia sa nu ni se puna in carca piramida invechita a smecherilor.  Avem nevoie si de reactia rapida si orientata spre profit imediat a afacerilor, care nu trebuie sa fie calarite de stat si la randul lor sa nu calareasca statul (mituind varfurile ierarhiilor piramidale invechite).

E asa de simplu, desi fireste ca nu trebuie sa ne asteptam la ceva perfect. Perfectiunea nu exista, dar mai binele da, exista.

Usurinta comunicarii dintre noi duce la usurinta organizarii.

Avem nevoie sa ne organizam si sa pretindem puterea, pentru ca suntem multi si educati.

Comunicam transparent, iar transparenta aduce un plus de responsabilitate. Nimanui nu ii place sa faca porcarii pe fata, de frica celorlalti.

Reactionam mai repede decat partidele traditionale, si mai in interesul celor de pe strada, pentru ca de pe strada suntem noi si pe strada ramanem.

Ce credeti?


In continuare reproduc un text care mie mi-a deschis ochii si a servit ca sursa de inspiratie pentru textul de mai sus. E scris de Cory Doctorow, in For the Win,  incepand cu pagina 103. E foarte accesibil, veti recunoaste aceleasi idei.

“Whether you’re a revolutionary, a factory owner, or a little-league hockey organizer, there’s one factor you can’t afford to ignore: the CoaseCost.

Ronald Coase was an American economist who changed everything with a paper he published in 1937 called “The Nature of the Firm.” Coase’s paper argued that the real business of *any* organization was getting people organized. A religion is a system for organizing people to pray and give money to build churches and pay priests or ministers or rabbis; a shoe factory is a system for organizing people to make shoes. A revolutionary conspiracy is a system for organizing people to overthrow the government.

Organizing is a kind of tax on human activity. For every minute you spend *doing stuff*, you have to spend a few seconds making sure that you’re not getting ahead or behind or to one side of the other people you’re doing stuff with. The seconds you tithe to an organization is the CoaseCost, the tax on your work that you pay for the fact that we’re human beings and not ants or bees or some other species that manages to all march in unison by sheer instinct.

The fact is, everything you do is collaborative — somewhere out there, someone else had a hand in it. And part of the cost of what you’re doing is spent on making sure that you’re coordinating right, that the cheese gets to your fridge and that the electricity hums through its wires.

You can’t eliminate Coase costs, but you can lower it. There’s two ways of doing this: get better organizational techniques (say, “double-entry book-keeping,” an Earth-shattering 13th-century invention that is at the heart of every money-making organization in the world, from churches to corporations to governments), or get better technology.

So what? Why should anyone care how much it costs to get stuff done? Because the CoaseCost is the price of being *superhuman*.

Back in the old days — the very, very old days — your ancestors were solitary monkeys. They worked in singles or couples to do everything a monkey needed, from gathering food to taking care of kids to watching for predators to building nests. This had its limitations: if you’re babysitting the kids, you can’t gather food. If you’re gathering food, you might miss the tiger — and lose the kids.

Enter the tribe: a group of monkeys that work together, dividing up the labor. Now they’re not just solitary monkeys, they’re groups of monkeys, and they can do more than a single monkey could do. They have transcended monkeyness. They are *supermonkeys*.

Being a supermonkey isn’t easy. If you’re an individual supermonkey, there are two ways to prosper: you can play along with all your monkey pals to get the kids fed and keep an eye out for tigers, or you can hide in the bushes and nap, pretending to work, only showing up at mealtimes.

From an individual perspective, it makes sense to be the lazy-jerk-monkey. In a big tribe of monkeys, one or two goof-offs aren’t going to bankrupt the group. If you can get away with napping instead of working, and still get fed, why not do it?

But if *everyone* does it, so much for supermonkeys. Now no one’s getting the fruit, no one’s taking care of the kids, and damn, I thought *you* were looking out for the tigers! Too many lazy monkeys plus tigers equals lunch.

So monkeys — and their hairless descendants like you — need some specialized hardware to detect cheaters and punish them before the idea catches on and the tigers show up. That specialized hardware is a layer of tissue wrapped around the top of your brain called the neo-cortex — the “new bark.” The neo-cortex is in charge of keeping track of the monkeys. It’s the part of your brain that organizes people, checks in on them, falls in love with them, establishes enmity with them. It’s the part of your brain that gets thoroughly lit up when you play with Facebook or other social networking sites, and it’s the part of your brain that houses the local copies of the people in your life. It’s where the voice of your mother telling you to brush your teeth emanates from.

The neocortex is the CoaseCost as applied to the brain. Every sip of air you breathe, every calorie you ingest, every lubdub of your heart goes to feed this new bark that keeps track of the other people in your group and what they’re doing, whether they’re in line or off the reservation.

The CoaseCost is the limit of your ability to be superhuman. If the CoaseCost of some activity is lower than the value that you’d get out of it, you can get some friends together and *do it*, transcend the limitations that nature has set on lone hairless monkeys and *become a superhuman*.

So it follows that high Coase costs make you less powerful and low Coase costs make you more powerful. What’s more, big institutions with a lot of money and power can overcome high Coase costs: a government can put 10,000 soldiers onto the battlefield with tanks and food and medics; you and your buddies cannot. So high Coase costs can limit *your* ability to be superhuman while leaving the rich and powerful in possession of super-powers that you could never attain.

And that’s the real reason the powerful fear open systems and networks. If anyone can set up a free voicecall to anyone else in the world, using the net, then we can all communicate with the same ease that’s standard for the high and mighty.

And the people who have the power aren’t going to sit still and let a bunch of grunts take it away from them.”


I just arrived home from the street. A beautiful thing happened today

Since more than two years, I have again the feeling that I’m not alone in my country, that many other fellows refused to adapt to the imposture and corruption which still reign here. Today we learned that we are a majority, not a minority, even if are still lead by old secret police and new opportunists, who try to replace their lack of competence and character with an obedient and sneaky posture. We have been sparred from   the shame to be represented at the highest political level by a symbol of duplicity. The help came from the Romanian diaspora who gave us hope and example to come and vote, even if the odds for a victory seemed to be very small.

We won the first battle against generalized corruption and incompetence.

There is a shine of hope.