Almost all windows apps can be downloaded for free.

Redykeulous,

Yes, you're right, ALL currencies are fake today. This "worldwide fake money system" is the reason that the system of irredeemable notes lasted as long as it did, 1913-2009.

Soviet union lasted because they shut their border down, therefore preventing their own people from escaping "the paradise". These borders were used as a means of shutting off the alternatives.

This fiat notes of "Federal Reserve" Central Bank, are given the status of "legal tender", meaning that the acceptance of payment in these notes is mandatory, to shut off the alternatives. The legal status is unconstitutional, by the way, as the constitution reserves that only to money, real money, gold or silver. (In other words, the constitution prohibited keeping someone in debt, as long as that person is ready to pay in real money, the payment must be accepted. But, it also prohibited keeping anyone in credit, by specifying that the creditor can refuse all payments, but the one made in real money.)

If there were any alternatives, the system of our irredeemable money would not hold, just as Soviet Union would not stand even a decade without borders shut tightly.

This is why, by the way, the Venus project must reach the worldwide stage, so that there is no alternative, there is no escape for anyone. If worldwide status is not achieved, or the borders are not shut, then the project will fail even faster.

As a rule, all evil things are week for the existence of their alternatives. All good things can exist without borders, anywhere, and only grow from this openness. This could be used as a simple litmus paper test.

As for FDR, why would you considered him being a communist? Absolute majority of us, are trained to judge our leaders by what they say, not what they do, and I wasn't an exception. Someone else had to open my eyes and help me see it logically.

The same goes for Clinton, Bush, Obama. They all are judged by what they are saying. We afford them something we would never afford to a car mechanic. None of us, however well trained, would pay mechanic to receive his car in a worse condition than it was, yet, we do that with politicians all the time. This is because politics is not a science of achieving anything, unlike it's definition might say, but first and foremost a science of lying and deception.

To your question:

Money is necessary to determine how much of any resources should be allocated to any project or any individual. You need to know that, unless you aim at inefficient society that wastes it resources. If you want to have a sustainable society, you must have a way of knowing the answer every time.

You could simply use numbers, and the whole sustainability - efficiency math will work. To this extent, there is no need for any kind of money, anchored in anything valuable. You could use paper notes, or simply abstract numbers.

In fact, in a smaller society of your close friends and relatives, you are using just abstract numbers, to allocate resources. You simply remember, who did what, and who works most, who needs something, and if they truly deserve it. You also know, that if someone previously uses a significant part of family resource and completely failed due to personal character flaws, to not ever allow the family resources to be used by that person again. All this, is presented by quantitative abstracts, similar to number system, and is held in everyone brain, not contested due to family trust. Because you did so good last time you have requested a family resource, and whole family has gotten better for it, you now hold some "money", or simply an evidence of your skills, in for of abstract data held in memories of each family member. You now can spend this abstract credit by taking a resource under your management. Not unlike with money, if you do bad this time, it will be this much less likely that you can request any more of family resources in the future.

Unfortunately, such system can not be used to allocate resources of any larger society than that able to function with prevailing trust of each member to each other member.

Expand it to include me. I don't trust you. You're not my blood, nor my friend. If your family says you should manage recourses because you did so good in the past, I do not trust that. Your currency, manifested in abstracts remembered by your family, no longer has any value, because of my luck of trust.

To make larger than a family or a clan societies more efficient, we need a way to transport the information across "no trust" boundaries.

There are two way to do that. Tyranny and freedom. These two ways represent simply this:

Tyranny, represents the fact that it does not matter if what you saying is true or not, in regards with your past successes. It will be that way, or I will be killed. Everything depends now not on efficiency, but on obedience. Disobey, and everything else will not matter.

An example of such system is any currency worldwide. They all are tyrannic, because they all leave us not to the best alternative, but to only allowed choice, and if we disobey, then nothing will matter to us anyway. If you do not pay specifically in the currency dictated, you will rot in jail until you die. (Note how this is the same thing I have already said earlier, in a previous paragraph).

Freedom, represents a free choice of any instrument of accounting. When free choice is allowed, one instrument is invariably chosen as the most favorite, again, freely, by all the people: current accounting based on (almost) unobtainable representational units. Silver and Gold. These two metals, solve the problem of trust.

If you come from another family, and you want to manage some resource, and you say you have been successful before, you will spend your credit for a previous success, on this new resource. Because everyone is aware that the units you are spending are unobtainable (can not be printed or simply invented), there is a degree of assurance, that what you're saying is true.

In freedom, no one has to use this commonly preferred system, also called "honest money", and can opt for trusting one's word, or to accept other units of account such as sea shells. The system that founding fathers have established, was a free money system, until 1913, when communists succeeded again installing their central bank, and finally in 1933, confiscating preferred gold money accounting units.

In a free world, gold used as units money (we remember that the meaning of money is simply a qualitative evidence of credit with society), precisely because no one, not even the government, can cheat the system by adding units at will, and not as evidence on any work done and added to the system.

Every government since 1913, always wants to keep the accounting of social credits in paper note units, because that way, they get to cheat the people as for their own credits all the time, by simply printing the evidence.

Myths about societies using crap for money, such as sea shells, pepper, grains, stones, are either designed to disinform or simply a results of disinformation. Any an all of such system have failed, precisely because the items used in place of unit of accounting were not unobtainable, and therefore, the system was constantly cheated.

Myths about gold money leading to horrible economic crashed are no different. There were no crashes caused by gold, as there none possible. Such system exist without any society member going unaccounted, or cheating on others. For as long as society exist, such system will provide it with a honest accounting of everything they do for or against the society.



---------------------------------------
Now, if you want to use "no money", you are going to use no accounting. How are you going to insure that everyone receives according to what he brings in?

In your previous "game" question, we talked about a house. Well, I now want the house in Newport Beach, and I want a mansion the size of Newport beach itself. This is how I want it. Why limit oneself to necessary, when I can have desired? I think, that we can achieve that by squeezing all other people of Newport Beach onto a small lot in the desert, or even sending them out to Indiana or some other place.

This is what I will expect from the brave new world.

Will the Venus project be able to give this to me, or not? If not, then waht will stop me from taking it anyway, by force?

This is a very accurate analogy. Except, to be fair, the bowling pin must be very friendly, clean and sexy.

May-be it already is... I just never perceived a soap bar or a bowling pin as of anything sexy, but that's just me.

I see your point.

However, the situation is, I know everything about that idea, and I am even aware of specific problems that the idea in question will fail on.

Therefore, I think you'd approve of me putting it down. After all, it's not like I am putting it down without even knowing what's it all about.

No. "Money", in a real meaning of the definition, were made illegal in US in 1933, by FDR. Since then, Americans were not allowed to have money, until late 60-es. From then and on, Americans are not having or using money any longer, because at large, they have no idea what money is. An entire generation, actually two, have grown up demoralized and brainwashed, and so they simply do not know what is money and what is a perception of money.

If we allow two generations to grow up without having Christmas, then they would never know what it is and how to celebrate it. Individually, a return is possible, but humans are not unlike cattle, in that they do not stray away from the herd.

FDR was a communist. This is why he did what he did. Plank 5 of the communist manifesto demands:

- 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

(The meaning of this is to establish a compulsory fiat money system)

this is because communists need to provide a way for the government to feed off the people's sweat, while the people are thinking that they are more free than in capitalism. So, FDR did this.

What you think of as money, is simply a paper, a fraudulent, counterfeit note. It has no worth, it has no wealth, it is nothing.
While you may have to work to afford say, medical insurance, the government and it's various cronies do not need to do the same. They simply print as much money as they wish,
and then feed it to you, note by note, to keep you serving them.

If you can not realize this point, there is nothing else you will ever understand about what is being done to you, how , and in particular, by which group.

As you can see, (I hope), this has been done by a communist, FDR. Just because he hasn't acknowledge that he is a communist, doesn't mean he wasn't one. You can have a murderer, who is in denial, but it doesn't prevent you from knowing that he is a murderer, by judging the action, not the name or appearance. Thus, if you look at FDR, and judge him by his actions (which was to complete a 5th plank of communist manifesto), you will know that he was a communist, regardless of what he called himself. A lot of brainwashed people these days, will argue with blood on their lips, defending the propaganda about the great depression, and how banning the money was obviously a solution. They are wrong. All they know is what the textbook tells them.

So, the money was banned by a communist. Now, how did it change your life? Would you be better of with money or without?

You see, if you were making money, then you'd be able to afford what you need, and more. You're working, making fake money, and not being able to afford what you need.
This is because there is a constant supply of newly printed fake money from the government. Because it is constantly there, it cheapens your work. Government is able to buy anything they want, just push the print button. You, on the other hand, is able to afford very little, even thought you are the one to create all the material goods that both you, and the government uses.

Had the government have to "obtain" the money somewhere, they would not be able to have a bottomless purse as they have today. Every dollar you make, would be able to purchase about 100 times (this estimate is pretty close to real) more, than it does today. So, you would be able to afford a level of life that is about a 100 times of your yearly income can guarantee today.

So, the communist FDR, had made you 100 poorer, by banning money. Do you realize this? Simply by substituting cheat notes, he was capable of removing 99 cents of every dollar you earn, while having you think, that it is the money, that make you poor.

If there are only two people in the whole world, you and I, and you make clothes and fix everything, while I supply you with meat and fish, we could make a living. But what if I cheat you? What is I supply something that is not scarce, something that does not requires me to work at all? Say I will give you the air to breath, while you do EVERYTHING else, in exchange. Then I will simply sit and enjoy, because you are thinking that every breath you take is worth your labor, while it costs nothing to me, nothing at all.

This is the reason why FDR banned money. To make you work endlessly, for something that cost him absolutely nothing.

I am crossing my fingers, that my explanation is clear enough. It is the perception of money, the paper cheat notes, that you should be blaming.
Had you actually worked for real money, having done this much work by your age, you'd be looking for a charity to spend your money on, not for a government-provided health care.

An interesting thought, thanks, Frenchfry.

Simplicity.

Mac has that, for sure. A question is, however, is simplicity a concept on which a computer should be judged?

IMHO, no.

Like I noted above, sometimes I have to work either on a Mac or a PC (at work). And you know the reason we have Macs? Just to open a customer project! As soon as that is accomplished, we move it onto a real computer (PC), and the real work begins.

None of our graphic designers actually do work on Macs! They all came from Mac, but once they discover what a PC can do, they switch to PC and stay with it.

However, there is a place for simplicity. Macs are good for people who just don't get the computers. There are people like that. I have a relative, and that girl just doesn't get it with PC. "Too complicated".
She doesn't understand the idea that on PC, anything can be done, and can't seem to explore it on her own. I haven't built a mac for her, but am thinking about it.

Once she's gone through the kindergarten stage of computing (MAC), may-be it will be easier to understand how a real machine (with more than one big button on a soap bar mouse) does it.

--------------

And again, I see that a lot of people mix Microsoft windows and PC. Those are two different things. PC runs anything, even mac OC. There is a world of parts to build a PC, a million approaches, processors, and OSes, compare that with Nazism of Apple!

Yeah. When are you going to start hunting?

And while we are on the topic, may-be you should build your own automobile, before you can have one, you know, to earn the privilege.

So, instead of stopping the free ER, you want to figure out how that can be kept?

Sounds like after getting a few nails in your tires, you're ready to consider just riding on the rims.

The cost of health care goes up, because there is an insurance not paid directly by a patient. This numbs the patient as to the costs.

Same as with taxes. The reason that withholding was instituted, is that Americans would revolt long ago, if they had to actually hold the money they send to the Washington party planners, in their hands, before sending it in. That would hurt, even though it is the same money.

Since every proposition regarding the health care, necessarily provides for a situation that a patient not capable of paying for the service, will still be able to receive it somehow, the result then will be the same, the cost will continue to climb. Such a patient doesn't care, since he isn't paying, and therefore the ones like this patient will keep pushing the costs up.

The costs may also be pushed up without prices going up. This, is actually been happening for a while in US, with consumer goods. The quality (i.e. the contained value) keeps slipping, while the price remains the same or not falling down to the same extent as does the quality. A result is a diluted good, which is a good, that is higher priced per unit of its value. If this happens to be the case, then instead of prices going up, the value of services will go down.

Soul,

What is this pompous post about? You want to equate a project led by complete idiots, to something equal of Edison or Da Vinci? Since these two were geniuses, then the Venus project might be, right?

You keep bringing your aspiration for a better society. Who does oppose that? I sure don't.

I oppose a particularly stupid version, which is long known as communism.

You say you aren't able to bring in the details. I understand. I have a life too. But then, why are you discounting my opinion (that the Venus project is bullsh!t), against your opinion that it may be worth a look, when you don't have the research to simply beat that of mine?

How is this fair? You're giving a Venus people a pass, even though so far, you haven't heard a single thing from them that is nearly as detailed as what I have already posted on this topic.

That is not what Edison or Da Vinci would do.

No

I don't see it that way.

I work with both, and I truly hate the time I have to spend on Macs. I haven't seen anything so illogical and plain dumb.

If I had to choose the characters for this cartoon, I would put a corporate guy for pc. Clean, nice, reasonable, knowledgeable. But, not a genus.

For a mac, I would put a hippie, dumb and dirty t-shirt, tattoos, ponytail, may-be even a mullet. Complete lack of common sense, any kind of knowledge. Cannot spell. Smokes dope. Has no plan. Lives in a trailer. Works as a prison guard. But, fun to be with, even if due to his complete lack of any usefulness.

That overweight guy? He is Microsoft, not PC. PC is free platform, unlike the mac, played by a hip guy. There is no freedom with mac.

Because first one wasn't able to finish as the system attempted to crash again.

Makes me want to run memtest and check the hard drive for errors as well.

Yeah. The days of Descent! I am missing flight sims too. I agree with Atlantis on why flight sims aren't made anymore.

I am not so sure I would want to be berried in flight controls of a very realistic sim, but I just miss the 3D flight.

I have the Falcon 4, but have never tried it. May-be I should. Now that Farcry is all done, and new one turned out to be a dud.

Your move?

Tell me this is exactly what the wonderful Venus project will give me.

Ah, yes. Of course. Except, I am a bit too sophisticated to believe in sand castles on the beach.

You want to know your near future if Venus project takes off, and succeeds in remaking the world?

You will be shot dead by the Venus leaders. Because, you are an idealist, and you will be very much disappointed to see what that new world will really look like. After disappointment, you will turn to resentment, because you did not as hell planned to end-up in a labor camp. But, the resentment and dissent, can only exist in free society. Camps do not tolerate any of that.

The trick I am playing? I am saying that Venus will end up being a camp, while you think it wont. The difference here, is that I am being practical. I know it won't work, and I know why. I can also show anyone why it will not work.

Can you do the same? Can you answer my questions I have posted earlier? Can you explain how those particular, specific issues will be solved? I don't think so.

Therefore, you are limited to keep trying to inspire myself and others. Inspiration only, no specific details.

You misunderstand the situation if that is the question you ask.

We do not have money today, this is the reality.
We perceive that we do have money, this is why your plan is to abolish money, which, you think, does all the horrible things.

See what is wrong with your plan? You plan to fight the non-existent money.

Now, I am saying that it is precisely the absence of money, that is the problem.

The difference between your and my statements:

- I am at least pointing out the real situation (there is no money), whether I am correct that bringing money back will solve our economic predicament, or not.

- You, on the other hand, pointing to a nonexistent condition, as a cause of a problem. How can money be a cause if it doesn't exist today? Therefore, what can you hope to change, by removing the non-existent bogey-man?



Money empowers? I did not state that. I might agree or disagree, if you can be more specific about this empowerment.


Why can't I have a house in Newport Beach, California?



Pretty much the whole world. That is what I would buy. Then I would post a sign "Socialists will be shot on sight, survivors will be shot again. Americans (in Jeffersonian understanding), are free to settle."

A complete absence of anyone forcing me to anything, would make me consistently happy. I define taxation to which I do not consent as something forced upon me. Anything I am told to do, goes the same way.

In other words, to make me consistently happy, you must leave me alone, to do whatever I want, as long as I do the same for you. This includes myself causing any harm to myself, as I wish. It also includes you telling me "No, you aren't getting anything free from me".



I am most probably moving to Thailand, in a near future. There is, surprisingly, a lot more freedom and a lot less socialism.

I think we are on the brink of a civil war, thanks to militant socialists. I have a taste to more peaceful ways of spending my time than participating in labor camps.



Being free. This one seem to be my all time favorite.

Money, is an information for economy. It is the "eyes" of every economic decision. Without money, economy can not function. Money conveys an economic information. Money allows us to know who did what and how valuable that work was. Money allows us to properly acknowledge that work with an appropriate amount of goods and services, so that the most valuable member of our society do continue to work for our own common good.

To suggest that an economy is to be repaired by removing money is no different than to suggest that we would be better off without our vision, because the vision corrupts us to see the porn and the blood.

With regards to a perception of having a monetary system:

Imagine we perceive that we have a truck. We only perceive, but not really have it. So, we go and do what we would do with a truck. We grab the load and run around delivering it. We put miles on "our truck".

Sooner or later we realize that we have worn out knees. This is a result of overloading our body, while thinking that "the truck" is doing the work. But the perceived truck can only do a perceived work.

Therefore, whether we accept it as wealth or not, doesn't matter. We still do not have money to use. Because we do not have money, we are not able to solve the scarcity problem, and therefore will *ALWAYS* fail to allocate our resources to their most productive uses. This is precisely what ails our economy right now, and it stems from not using money, but only thinking that we do use money.

Ditto.

Those browsers are not there to help your mom. Instead, there are there to make her computer to stop working, and to compromise her security.

I usually rip all that crap off. Disable messenger. Install Firefox.

What Thomas is saying is true. A knowledgeable person can make those work and behave. Is your mom a knowledgeable person in computers in internet security?

Sojourning_Soul, allow me to point out a mistake in your reasoning.

1)

You're mentioning a monetary system. We do not live under any monetary system presently. We do not use the concept of money today, which is why we are having all the problems.

How can you hope, that to remove what we do not have, is going to solve something then?

I can say that we would live better if we remove the Martian Feudal Lords from our government. But we do not have any, as it is. Therefore, whatever our problems are, they are not derived from the presence of those Lords, however, they may be derived from their absence, although they not have to.

Today, we live in stage 1 communism, where there are already no money, but there is still the perception of money. A perception only.


2)

As an emergency solution, communal organization does work. But that is it. In emergencies only. Famine, war, or poverty. As long as these are present, it will work. But, by using communal organization, you won't be able to ever live better than that.

This is why, the human kind did live in poverty, war, and famine, all the way until the invention of the division of labor, which is impossible without money. This is, the prime benefit of having money, the ability to divide labor.

3)

Rome fell for one reason. It accepted Christianity. You will not find this in approved textbooks, however. It is forbidden to know.

a)It accepted Christianity as step 1.

b)Then it destroyed money as step 2, and a consequence of step 1.

c)Then it fell as step 3 and a consequence of step 2.

d)Then there were so called "dark ages", contrary to what modern textbooks will have you believe, because it was step 4, a consequence of step 2 by Rome, the destruction of money. Without money, it was impossible to support the populations, as they had long overgrown what was possible to support by an inefficient communal system.

We are following these same steps (with a fault being placed on Christianity being a questionable proposition this time around, since Christianity no longer rules the government), while people are guessing about what is wrong with the system.

If we don't know our history, we will be bound to repeat it.

It is simply a fate. Every empire falls by involving itself in more wars than it can take. We're simply following our fate.