Open Source is Tech’s Explosive Organic Movement

Via The Daily Bell

Written for The Daily Bell by Bill Ottman, Co-Founder of & Schuyler Brown, Futurist.

It’s hard to believe the Food Revolution has only been in effect for about ten years. In that time, we’ve seen drastic changes in the way citizens of the world choose to buy food for their families. What was once considered a pricey preoccupation of the body- and health-conscious has risen to become a major industry, topping $42 billion in 2014.

Why? Because people woke up. We woke up to the fact that most of the products on our supermarket shelves are atrociously mislabeled and composed of artificial and genetically modified ingredients. This is not food; at best, it’s maybe food-like. We woke up to the reality that many of America’s most popular and beloved food brands — Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Post, Pepperidge Farms, Nestle — are making products that aren’t good for us. We also woke up to the realization that the government isn’t looking out for us when it comes to our food, so policing it is our personal responsibility. Thus, we can no longer afford to be negligent or apathetic in a food environment that has become corrupt and toxic.

We’re now understanding the truth behind that age-old saying: You are what you eat. We literally become what we consume, on both genetic and epigenetic levels, and we don’t want diabetes for ourselves or our children, or to be exposed to unnecessary hormones and antibiotics. We want food made with integrity, not just for our well-being, but for the health of the earth. Conscious food production practices are crucial for long-term sustainability of soil, biodiversity, and many elements of the biosphere.

The explosive growth of the organic food industry represents an ethical response to the conventional agro-chemical world, one projected to continue through 2018 and beyond. But the organic movement doesn’t just stop at food. Let’s consider another thing we consume every day: information.

For anyone who has bought into the food revolution, it’s not much of a stretch to see we’re ripe for an open information revolution. Not one defined simply by the omnipresence of information via the Internet, but one — like the food revolution — in which people demand accountability, transparency, and participation in the dissemination and consumption of information. Likewise, the outcome would be a new set of practices and players contributing to more healthy and sustainable environmental and personal practices.

If information is like food, packaged in technological bits and bytes, then you might say free and open source software is equivalent to organic, labeled products. Just as we care about what we put into our bodies, we should care about what we install in our technology systems. Some of the big players we currently know and trust are, frankly, serving up a bunch of cookies that aren’t great for us. They help advertisers track us, compromise our privacy, and in some cases, make us susceptible to infections in the form of viruses and malware. When you navigate the app market, what do you put in your basket? What are you allowing into your life?

Before the food revolution taught us the importance of scrutinizing our food, many people didn’t think much beyond calorie counts or fat content. Vanity drove the illusion that food was merely an energy source, the flow of which we could control to keep our bodies looking “healthy.” And this was because for a long time, prior to the industrialization of food, food was in fact, just food. And there wasn’t much to worry about. It had integrity.

Similarly, there was once was a day when software was just software. The source code (ingredients) of various programs was always shared with the global development community for the practical purposes of fixing bugs and making improvements. However, financial incentives to alter this system entered the picture in exactly the same way they did with food. Software companies started creating software patents in the same way that Monsanto created seed patents. Thus, greed and corporate possessiveness created a corrupt and toxic software environment, just as they had with food.

And just as the organic movement rose in the food world, free software and the open source movement emerged as a direct response to proprietary and closed-source practices. In a 2008 interview with Paul Kim, VP at Mozilla, Treehugger described how Firefox successfully marketed itself as a “100% organic” browser. Kim said:

“I think for people not in the open source movement, the term ‘organic’ is a lot clearer and immediately graspable…People have a preference for organic produce because it hasn’t been tainted by, say, pesticides. The reason consumers prefer organic goods in part are that they are better for you and your family. In a similar way, what we’re suggesting is that Firefox is better for you because it’s produced in a way that respects the user…Whether you are coding open source software or farming sustainably, you are part of a greater world that needs you to be mindful of your actions and that is a powerful message to send to the powers that be.”

Software’s “organic” movement is starting out just as niche as the real organic movement did many years ago. Though the movement is gaining real momentum, we still have a long journey ahead of us. Of the top 100 Internet companies, for instance, only 2 are open source: Wikipedia, and WordPress.

In order for open source to flourish, we need to destigmatize it. It has traditionally suffered from a shadowy exclusivity owned by the hacker, coder, and programmer backwaters of the Internet — because, for the most part, only the developer community and the very tech savvy have cared about its possibilities. But these are not the only people who stand to benefit from its rise. Just as you don’t need to be a food scientist to benefit from organic, you don’t have to be a developer to care about open source; in fact, you don’t even need to be particularly tech savvy. The values of the movement will speak to anyone who cares about social consciousness, freedom of information, privacy, transparency, community, the commons, and a more fair and equitable world on the whole.

We need to communicate with and help educate users about the free and open source software movement, which is predicated on four essential freedoms. These are similar to the freedoms granted when films, media, and documentation are put into the public domain or licensed under Creative Commons. They are as follows:

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.

Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing so you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

These freedoms are similar to food labeling initiatives and certifications, but potentially even more powerful because their effects spread so quickly through our shared neural network: the Internet.

Like anything new, open source may seem strange at first. Its protocols and invitations to participate can be daunting. And admittedly, the interface and features aren’t always as smooth or seamless as those developed by programmers working for big corporate entities. But it’s a bit like finding a worm in your organic strawberries — these little quirks serve to illuminate the organic essence of open source software. What’s incredible is how natural the process is; it’s imperfect, yet inspiring.

Oftentimes, the discussion surrounding open source can make it seem like a black-and-white issue, like either you’re with us or you’re against us. But the reality is there’s no reason for this kind of stringency. The shift to open source will likely be gradual, like easing into a new diet. It might start as simply as including an open source app alongside others on your phone or using WordPress over Squarespace. Like buying organic or removing animal products from your diet, this is a values-based decision; it doesn’t have to be all-or-nothing.

Persuading humanity of the critical need for transparency in every aspect of global culture is no easy task, and certainly not one that will happen overnight. Just as the re-imagining of our global food system still has a long way to go before it serves the needs of everyone, so will the software revolution unfold, little by little, one step at a time. It will take the same kind of awakening we experienced with food; an awakening to the real dangers that lie dormant and almost hidden in the current system. We’ve already seen the cracks in the rosy facade of the Internet: stolen credit cards, stolen identities, civilian surveillance, government contracts with consumer brands, and ever-more-creepy ad targeting.

This is not to say that an open source world would be completely crime-free. But the difference is that innovation would explode because the blueprints for the best technologies are accessible, and people will retain the right to control their information and technology. Tesla understands this and has open-sourced its batteries to build the market, though it has not yet opened up its car OS. MongoDB, the multibillion dollar database company, uses a free software license. So the transformation is already underway.

Self-driving cars will be everywhere on the roads soon, Kurzweil’s nanobots will be entering bloodstreams, and we are already seeing just how susceptible the Internet of Things is to hacking. In fact, we’re on the road to just about everything being subject to hacking. This needs to be discussed, openly and by everyone. Society is entitled to peer-review these technologies, as they pose major public health risks without open-source software and encryption. A cyber attack could crash 100,000 cars or more in one fell swoop, for instance.

A key challenge is that open source projects aren’t always as feature-rich as proprietary versions, mostly due to lack of funding and widespread adoption. It’s a classic catch 22: we need more people supporting the projects in order to bring in funding, but we need that funding to improve the user experience and attract new users. For this reason, even setting up an account on these platforms can be a helpful way to show your support, even if you don’t use them. That micro-movement matters immensely and is what creates the critical mass necessary to effect bigger change.

At the end of the day, not all of us are going to be growing our own food or programming our own apps. But potentially all of us can be contributing to the growth and spread of these organic practices by purchasing and using these foods and apps whenever possible. In case you don’t know how to tell if an app is open source or not, there will usually be a link in the footer of the company’s website pointing to source code or their Github repo.

From food justice and free Internet to politics and water rights, the onus is on us to shape the future we want to become reality. We have to ask ourselves: do we want to create a future where fundamentals like food, water, energy, and media are controlled by a few multinational companies, or one in which they are available to everyone? The answer seems obvious.

If this sounds like a vision you want to buy into, don’t wait to be persuaded. The invitation — like the technology — is open.

Bill Ottman

Bill founded Minds in 2011 with the goal of bringing a free, open source and sustainable social network to the world. He co-founded multiple viral media organizations, holds a fellowship at Boston Global Forum and serves on the Advisory Board of Code To Inspire, a non-profit building coding schools for women in Afghanistan. He graduated from University of Vermont with a BA in English.

Schuyler Brown

Schuyler Brown is a communications advisor and trends analyst who has worked with leading global brands including Facebook, Microsoft, Sony Pictures, and Levi’s. She started her career as a branding consultant at Landor Associates, then moved into advertising at Euro RSCG (now Havas WW), where she was a managing director of trends and strategic insights. During that time, Schuyler built the agency’s buzz marketing practice, collaborated on the book, Buzz: Harness the Power of Influence and Create Demand (Wiley, 2003), and was a contributor to Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz, and Word of Mouth Revolution (Taylor & Frances, 2005). In 2006, she started Skyelab Consulting in order to pursue projects aligned with her vision to be active in the emergence of a new age of conscious commerce. She now carries that mission through to her new company, Sightful, a strategic design agency, co-founded with Micah Spear. She teaches in the Design for Social Innovation masters program at the School of Visual Arts (SVA) in NYC, is a founding member of the NYC chapter of Conscious Capitalism, and writes around the internet. Schuyler has been called a “brand therapist” and brings a supremely human touch to her collaborations with clients. She lives with her husband and daughter in Brooklyn, NY.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Alananda Sat, 03/24/2018 - 16:45 Permalink

Schuyler Brown is a communications advisor and trends analyst who has worked with leading global brands including Facebook, Microsoft, Sony Pictures, and Levi’s.

Thank you, all I need to know. 

Monsanto and other earth-friendly corpses buy up non-GMO and organic food producers, distributors and retailers.  Why not?  Now we have consultants to software and media corpses speaking to "open source" and an "organic movement".  Right. 


GeezerGeek Luc X. Ifer Sun, 03/25/2018 - 13:42 Permalink

As one who is quite familiar with all those names, and uses some of them daily (and I don't simply mean Firefox), I can safely say that we are far from the point where open source software will make or keep us safe.

The prime example of this is the Heartbleed vulnerability discovered in the OpenSSL open source code. OpenSSL was widely used as a part of implementing network communications using Secure Socket Layer protocols. Despite its widespread use, or perhaps because of it, just about no one using OpenSSL actually looked at the code, which - if I recall correctly - was developed by a small group and supported by an even smaller group. The code was never properly vetted and contained vulnerabilities because the error handling - something coders such as myself -  tend to ignore when we're not getting paid to write code. We want programs that do what we want and ignore the possibility of it doing what we don't want. Only when I get paid do I attend to that latter part.

Further examples are seemingly endless. Scarcely a day goes by where my various Linux machines don't receive fixes for the OS itself or for some of the open source programs and libraries I use.

Therein lies another problem with open source code. Looking at the code itself, whatever the language (other than assembler) is all well and good, but one cannot say, with absolute certainty, that the library functions used by that open source code are safe. Who, after all, is going to examine every library of functions used, and determine what compiler settings were used? Yes, even certain compiler settings can introduce security holes.

Open source code is not the ultimate cure. Perhaps some day someone will create a perfect program that detects all flaws in other code. Until then...well, I won't hold my breath.

In reply to by Luc X. Ifer

VWAndy Sat, 03/24/2018 - 17:29 Permalink

 I like the right to repair movement. Open source it all! That stunt VW pulled never could have happened if we had the access to the ecu in our own cars.

GeezerGeek VWAndy Sun, 03/25/2018 - 13:52 Permalink

Let me break it to you gently: it is already possible to access the ecu in cars. It's not easy to actually figure out what is going on, but I've helped my son wade through tons of web pages as he tried to modify the code in his 2003 M3, looking for ways to make the supercharger we installed run better. There are programs available that allow a laptop to be connected to your car and modify the programming - or more precisely, modify the operating parameters. Actually modifying and updating the base software probably requires specialized hardware to reflash ROMs and stuff like that. There has been an active market in 'replacement computers' to provide more power in cars, so someone knows how to do that.

It should also be pointed out that many VW drivers preferred the extra power due to the 'cheating' done by VW at the expense of emissions control. It has always been thus. Early attempts at emissions controls were often the subject of workarounds, and that happened when most such controls were mechanical in nature, not electronic.



In reply to by VWAndy

VWAndy GeezerGeek Sun, 03/25/2018 - 14:27 Permalink

 It was fully encrypted in 93. We still dont know just how weaponized it is for sure. But now that we do know it was used in a criminal manner its a fair question. Not that it ever was not a fair question.  Its not just our cars thats affected either.

 One aspect that is of concern to me is my property rights. If I own it? Its mine and that includes everything in it including the coding. I want it all because its mine.

In reply to by GeezerGeek

New_Meat Sat, 03/24/2018 - 17:53 Permalink

Bill, really?  $42BB in a world economy?  Significant how?  Not even in the U.S. budget.

Please tell us when Richard Stallman and the EFF and gang dive in on the "open source" movement.  I'll be waiting...

It doesn't move because the small ideas are really good and they don't last longer than a gnat's life.  In fact, there are gnu that last longer than a lot.

Anybody Sat, 03/24/2018 - 21:27 Permalink

Food is food and software is software.

Don't know why you need to market it this way.


When I think of "open source" I think of gnu and Richard Stallman.


And a whole bunch of pioneers that have already died.

vietnamvet Sat, 03/24/2018 - 22:55 Permalink

The problem with "open source" anything is that unless you are a competent programmer willing to waste time delving into code bowels, things like fixing bugs, locating proper documentation, or integrating with other software is just a minefield.  

Automatic Choke vietnamvet Sun, 03/25/2018 - 00:08 Permalink

yes, it can be, and we've all been there.

however, if the source code is clean and well documented and well debugged in the first place, then inspecting it is not difficult, and making slight modifications for your altered purposes can be quite easy.    just because there are some sloppy programmers doesn't mean that all programmers are sloppy.


In reply to by vietnamvet

OverTheHedge Luc X. Ifer Sun, 03/25/2018 - 07:55 Permalink

Are there sufficient programmers with both expertise and time, to review all the open source software currently available? At no charge, obviously. Now we want to expand open source to cover the majority of software? 

I'm a big fan, but I am concerned that the theoretical safety provided by open source is purely theoretical, just because there are already too many lines of code and not enough hours in the day. Once it goes mainstream, the NSA will almost certainly start churning out open source software - how could they restrain themselves?

(I run Linux, but also android, so I am between two stools, as it were? Proud to say I have not yet seen windows10, but I'm sure they moved everything, just to make it look different. That is what a Microsoft release does, n'est Pas?)

In reply to by Luc X. Ifer

GeezerGeek Automatic Choke Sun, 03/25/2018 - 14:12 Permalink

The problem is - as I pointed out in another post - much of the open source software started as a project by one or a few guys who needed something that didn't already exist. So they built it to do what they wanted, and put in some rudimentary error handling. The error handling is where many projects fall short, and to be honest if one is doing it on one's own time (or dime) with no expectation of remuneration those nooks and crannies go unaddressed. The same goes for documentation.

I've written both commercial and private software, and I guarantee that I'd prefer to create four 'quick and dirty' modules that did things I needed done rather than one that was as close to bulletproof as I could get it. And if someone might borrow my code,  it would be up to that person to perform due diligence. There is a difference between writing a program, say for an Arduino, that can turn on a light bulb and one that can both turn on a light bulb and make sure it doesn't start a fire as a by-product.

When talking open source code, never expect perfection. When taking someone else's code for a commercial purpose (and I don't mean reselling it) one should test it exhaustively. But that is because there is potential money there, and money provides the rationale for spending all that extra time. Even this, of course, doesn't always happen, and that can cause problems.

Consider the world of IoT devices. I haven't worked with them myself, but from my understanding, many include an embedded Linux kernel and use a web server to communicate with the outside world. First, Linux is constantly being updated with security fixes in its PC versions, but cannot be updated in an IoT device. (There may be some, but certainly not all can be.) Second, many web servers in these cheap devices are not locked down to provide only those communications needed. (Think of a light bulb that can be configured and controlled by a smart phone.) If the web server is not properly locked down, bad actors may be able to hijack it for nasty purposes, such as DDOS attacks. But how much time and effort (meaning money/costs) does a company put into a $5 device?

The old saying "you get what you pay for" ought to be applied to open source software. Hope for the best, but be vigilant for the worst.


In reply to by Automatic Choke

DEMIZEN vietnamvet Sun, 03/25/2018 - 02:56 Permalink

there are many pretty decent programmers that don't like the pace pressure or do something else for the living but do some decent self-paced work.  Open source development is no longer dominated by socialist co-op leaning hippies holding half gallon coffee mugs and Che Guevara swag.

Linux developers are well funded. It's an alliance of big developers that prefer open platforms and don't like to be pushed around by 3 big OS names just to have access to their SDK kits. they also have a different idea about PC marketing with no intentions to enter a free lunch paradise. no sane person works for free.

I 've been beta testing new Ubuntu LTS and I feel Ubuntu deserves a larger OS share and will become a serious competition as most of applications and software developers move deeper into clouds. Latest LTS comes with gnome desktop and looks and feels really good. Mozilla Firefox was kinda losing the edge in last years but is back in the game now and is preferred choice in most Linux distros. 50+ versions improved a lot indeed.

I still believe Windows 10 has the best GUI all around and a great productivity suite but will have to do something about the kernel, probably lay their next windows  X over Linux.  If Apple doesn't get their shit together and does something about the OSX compatibility maze it will be pushed aside by Windows X and Linux distros rather sooner than later.


In reply to by vietnamvet

ConnectingTheDots vietnamvet Sun, 03/25/2018 - 10:57 Permalink

You misunderstand how open source can help you even if you have no idea of writing or reading code.

A community of people who do have the skills are studying and  dissecting the code to be sure that there are no back doors, malware or other unwanted code embedded in the software. Since it is a community doing this overview, the chances of such malware is very small, so when the average user downloads open source, they can be confident that the software has a very high chance of being "clean".

In reply to by vietnamvet

Money_for_Nothing Sun, 03/25/2018 - 09:09 Permalink

If this guy's beliefs were true Trump would have never been elected. Sounds like "our grand children can all be artists" Pelosi. See Mike Rowe for mind cleansing of both her and Bill Ottman.

"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

I've read Coke and Pepsi were originally created to fix what ailed people. New boss same as old boss. No evidence that Modern Medicine or Modern Nutrition Science is anymore than a business just like Planned Parenthood (body parts) or Ratheon (expensive weapons). Or AGW (Government Grants with the hope of NWO AKA Bush Doctrine).

two hoots Sun, 03/25/2018 - 09:11 Permalink

Fake food, fake news is just the surface.  The Information Age will open our eyes to a reality we may not be ready for.  We will soon learn if ignorance is bliss. 

aspen1880 Sun, 03/25/2018 - 09:22 Permalink

this article is utter horseshit.  it calls into question everything on zh - which i look to for helping me understand things that i'm not expert.  if crap is told in an area where I am an expert, I assume that the odds are high that the articles are crap in areas where I'm a newB.  we have to call-out crap when we see it.

ConnectingTheDots Sun, 03/25/2018 - 11:06 Permalink

It is a shame that more people are not using open source and aware of its benefits.

I used to have an OLD laptop running Windows Vista that was so slow it was actually painful to use. I could literally start the computer, go have breakfast so I would not have to wait for it to boot.

I did some basic research, and loaded Linux Mint onto the same computer, and it is now a little speed demon. Linux Mint looks almost the same as Windows so the learning curve is really easy. The only speed bump was getting the wireless to work. A little more research and downloading the correct driver solved that.

Linux Mint came with Libre Office that reads and writes to Microsoft Office, Word, Excel, Power Point, and Access. In fact, since I had an old version of Office that did not read .docx files, Libre Office solved that issue as well for me, as it read the files perfectly and also allowed me to save it in the older .doc format to share with others who did not have the newer versions of Office.

Open Source is the way the world should be working, people cooperating with each other. Since I do not have the skills or time to scour the software code, or participate in the forums that support users, I choose to donate to the groups so that I also am a contributing member of the open source community.

green_dog Sun, 03/25/2018 - 11:34 Permalink

I'm a programmer and use open source software all the time (Ubuntu et al.) but I just don't understand the financing.  I've been working on an open source project for years, but it's all on my dime, paid for by my "real job".  If I had had external funding, it would have been my full time occupation and the project would be way further ahead.  It's scientific software and I'm doing it because it's useful and worth doing, not because anyone will pay me for it. Scientists want it for free; they don't want to pay, though they're ready and willing to report bugs and expect free advice on how to use it.

Is free software just another example of Free Shit Army expectations?  Or is there a gigantic gap in my understanding of how things work, and how I could have been paid to create software that lots of people are interested in using but no one is interested in buying for money?  I believe that free and popular software like R (statistical/plotting) is created by people at publicly funded universities who wrote it on the side or as part of their regular work day. Am I wrong about this?  Is there some honey pot in the cupboard that I don't know about?

GeezerGeek green_dog Sun, 03/25/2018 - 14:38 Permalink

Many open source projects make money by offering paid support services. Red Hat is like that. PfSense is like that. FreeNas is (or was; I haven't looked at them lately). Some just ask for donations. Others aren't necessarily open source and only provide free software, but charge for support. Think vmware and Oracle. Microsoft charges for their main software and charge even more for support. And as you pointed out, some software is free because it came from some university. R and BSD fall into that category.

And then there are those free apps where your personal data is the price of admission, but that's another story.



In reply to by green_dog

DEMIZEN green_dog Sun, 03/25/2018 - 18:01 Permalink

consider ubuntu a piece of infrastructure funded by the big server-side developers. there are tons of jobs in flyover area but the work environment is toxic and the pay is often offensive, that's what I hear.

if you are not a well connected, highly skilled kickback con artist your chances to get into universities circle of trust equal zero.
Even if your company manages to score on a promising contract, you will have to lawyer up or you will get paid 3 years later if ever.  Pseudo public universities are run by gangsters grazing on the public money and using shrewd schemes to privatize profits. they are no fools and linked with the top of deep state tools in all .gov branches of your state.

Universities have centralized software purchase offices and have legal teams that scan user agreements and ensure nobody infringes IP rights created by their employees before they bulk license your tool and put it on a list of approved gear.
Additionally, the user (scientist in your case) has to make or save money to justify your software expense if allowed to bypass central purchase office.  the time has no value to a budget maximizing public employee, so if your software saves time only is basically worthless to a scientist. your software has to put money in his pocket or he has no incentive to use it, unless is free.

 Most "public" universities keep IP rights for resale, so scientists market their work in very peculiar ways, grant award schemes are fucked up beyond any corruption scheme in the 3rd world.

talking from experience, it would stay away from the public sector. make it a hobby, market your stuff to end user, or don't market and go for IPO or join a bigger pack.


In reply to by green_dog

Lucretius Sun, 03/25/2018 - 11:40 Permalink

Advisory Board of Code To Inspire, a non-profit building coding schools for women in Afghanistan.

Seriously? Sounds all warm and fuzzy, really super sweet, and fk'n stupid! Ya, I'd bet that would be a non profit venture, without even trying.

Left Gates' garbage long ago, never used any Jobs' crapple, nice idea, best of ingredients, but insanely priced and rather cultish following.

Peace, L.

One of We Sun, 03/25/2018 - 12:04 Permalink

I need some custom firmware for my:

-car/truck - to make them shut up and deliver as much power to the drive train as the engine is capable of producing.  I also want to be able to toggle any network access with a switch requiring physical access to the vehicle

-phone - too make it shut up and do only what I want when I tell it to.  It should also have a physical on/off switch that can't be over ridden remotely

-home wireless router - with the ability to monitor and selectively block what my household has access to with a simple GUI.  All built-in parental controls suck and I have tried everything I can find.  I am paranoid but I know good parental controls are not available because someone wants kids exposed to filth.

I want open source firmware so the code can be inspected by a large group of programmers and my car won't suicide me or drive me nuts, my phone won't listen to me or share my info when I don't want it to, and I can have some piece of mind when I allow my kids to use the internet.  

I would be more than happy to pay quite a bit for these features.  Until then I'm stuck with a '91 Suburban, a '97 Dodge Cummins, a phone I hate, and pissed off kids who think I am controlling while they are being preyed on by perverts every time they grab an IP address. 


GeezerGeek One of We Sun, 03/25/2018 - 14:56 Permalink

You certainly don't want much, do you?

There are (or at least were; I haven't looked lately) places that sell replacement computers for cars/trucks that deliver more power. They may be illegal in some, if not all, states. Caveat emptor.

Toggling your car's network access on and off I haven't heard of, but if you can get circuit diagrams and are handy you may be able to find the connection to your vehicle's antenna. Splicing in a switch would then be relatively simple, I'd guess, but the way cars are packaged today it may be difficult to isolate that wire.

Phone on/off switch? NSA won't allow that, although some phones allow the battery to be removed. Just get a case for it that blocks radio waves. [This is speculation on my part. I don't carry one.]

Home wireless router? Many consumer grade routers do allow firewall rules to be created. That requires some degree of knowledge. You want monitoring, too? Most don't, to the best of my knowledge, support a live monitor. For something like you're suggesting, you might have to go to a system like a PC running pfSense and Snort. Then you're getting well into geekdom. Blocking IP addresses: if you know which you want to block and know their URLs, that can be done on individual PCs. Change the HOSTS file to send offending URLs to localhost. 

I strongly believe some of what you want is prohibited by law or a violation of some EULA crap. Some of us just don't care and do it anyway.



In reply to by One of We

VWAndy Sun, 03/25/2018 - 13:56 Permalink

 Id like to hear what Karl Denninger has to say about open source.

  Where should the line be drawn between intellectual property and public interests. Id take the other side. That would be a debate worth having. Its a win win thing.

ThanksIwillHav… Sun, 03/25/2018 - 16:04 Permalink

Two examples where I moved back to non-opensource apps: 1) From Firefox to Safari because Firefox on MacBook Pro burns thru battery on many active websites; 2) stopped using DD-WRT because too buggy.   The problem with open source is it is oriented to programmers and there is no customer urgency.   Neither model is the best.  LibreOffice does Open Source right...why I don't know.   Pick what works for you...that's freedom.   

GreatUncle Mon, 03/26/2018 - 06:14 Permalink

You are not allowed to plan and craft a future for yourself ...

You are however a globalist economic slave and will be ordered what to do. Trying to break orders will result in legislation being passed to make you comply and so you can be punished.

This is on every concept immaginable ... wanna take a shit? ... only when ordered will you shit and if you fail to do so you will be penalised with a fine for not shitting. Some people will be able to buy permits to shit when they want but these are for the piviliged ones often working in alphabet type agencies. The ones that shit everywhere because of the entitlement.

That's the truth ...


biffula Tue, 03/27/2018 - 12:28 Permalink

Promoting things that are open for all to use that aren't owned by any person or organization is just to soften people up for socialism.