Re: History

Hi Brent & Adeel,

Brent - imo you're not 'rambling'. it seems you're engaging in good faith,
the best you can, and i'm learning from it...

with thanks.

I note:
-
https://medium.com/webcivics/the-semantic-inforg-the-human-centric-web-reality-check-tech-50e2fa124ed4

-
https://medium.com/webcivics/au-cyber-infrastructure-ai-semantics-3968a60e6888

as two of the many 'socially encrypted' documents i've written, linked, to
my notion of 'human identity' as is required for 'good' from my
perspective.  Its a great deal different to, an identifier alone.


On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 at 06:03, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I do suspect that there are people that would very much like to build,
> maintain, wealth and power and have everyone else be like pawns in the
> game. But what can one do....just innovate silently...and I guess don't
> think there is something under every rock...I try to do that. I cannot say
> I do my best.
>
> -Brent Shambaugh
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:53 PM Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think I'm rambling, but I'm adding to this thread:
>>
>> I don't know. Sometimes I suspect that due to professionalization* that
>> the same group gets all of the spoils regardless of where the innovation
>> actually originated.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professionalization
>>
>
One of the long-term issues i've had, is that i left school & home young,
into unstable housing, years with friends on their couches and an array of
other experiences.  Young, i was good with computers, so i was supported by
various families and their friends, in an affluent part of AU (whilst
caring at times for people about my age then, young people, in the worst
parts of town); whereby the families provided me opportunities, as i made
so many mistakes.  So, i went to lectures for behavioural science,
philosophy and other diciplines without being able to enroll.  I had jobs
in computer stores, fixing computers at the homes of executives, or
businesses - mid to late 90's. i ran the 'dial up internet' stuff; where i
ended-up building the PCs to get the sales out the door, going to set them
up for customers; had customers, like the medical board of Victoria, where
i installed and supported the board members (like judges for medical
malpractice) learn how to use computers...  figure out problems, etc.

later i wanted a PC that worked on my TV, and as i'd worked for a PC
hardware distributor, I went about building one; making a spec, then
seeking to do my first start-up.  This led to alot of work, building upon
my 'ibank' concept ( http://webcivics.org/iBank.html ) to focus on media (
http://webcivics.org/Basedrive.html ); i worked with leaders, very young,
but later found it to be important to go build a business incubator for
homeless youth to figure out how to get themselves / their lives, moving
forward rather than being dependent upon social workers; which is why i was
in the paper in 2004 (the headline in another article said '8m goes to
youth').

point of the story is; recognition of prior learning has never been very
good.  I was doing / helping to 'invent' 'video on demand' and related
systems, long-before there was a university course for it.  This is similar
for many other things i've been involved with overtime; and once they
become a 'thing' HR people, look for 'qualifications' on CVs that honestly
shouldn't exist prior to latter parts of the innovation cycle (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations ) similarly and
recently; its been the same with 'educational credentials' alongside other
aspects.

so the point here is - one of the things I really wanted to 'get done' was
a means to better assess a persons skills; and thereafter, better append to
the gaps that likely exist, if they didn't learn those skills via expensive
institutional education schemes.

"Professionalization <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professionalization>"
as you put it - can act to 'lock-out' the innovators of a thing, because,
they made it and others commercialised courseware around it;
notwithstanding a linked problem, in that people who go commit their time /
lives towards a particular task, don't necessarily get an understanding (or
education) of all the various elements linked to standardised educational
material / qualifications.   I think, engineering groups are seeking to
professionalise software development and related fields as to be provided
'engineers certifications' - linked to insurance cover, etc.  not sure
that's good.  Indeed, i think this will become an emerging problem within
the domain of 'AI' as they understand what that concept means, for them
($$$).

SO, the underlying hope of ensuring people can understand what people did
when, how, to what effect, etc.  that seemingly isn't progressed as much as
i'd hoped.  this complicates situations where the documentation level (ie:
in 'free work' communities) is poorly defined, as a result of people
attempting to provide some care for themselves in seeking to be elected for
funding / support, to bring good work to marketable (and profitable)
outcomes.

NB:
- https://medium.com/webcivics/skills-social-activities-2124e52bd877
-
https://medium.com/webcivics/universitas-doctrina-et-sapientiae-47ed33d91dc2



>>
>> I'm all for an egalitarian culture where you don't have to be employed by
>> X, or certified by Y to get recognition for a good idea. One can get into
>> one's head after many months and years working for free (especially if it
>> is something that is niche not yet recognized by broader society). How much
>> is true, I don't know. One can really get into one's head.
>>
>
yeah - all broken, but there are legal definitions that do apply, if the
person in poverty finds some means to apply it - which is not going to
happen, because they're poor.

which is part of the point of a 'knowledge bank', it can employ lawyers who
then go prosecute objective opportunities to generate income in association
to how its members are treated in relation to the useful derivatives of
their work; but this is not the only 'knowledge banking' related,
consideration linked to the broader conceptual schema; not better
developed, as yet.


>> I developed EISPP** as a concept many years ago.
>>
>
I haven't gone through all the videos, but looks useful to me! thankyou!



> Although I got some enthusiasm online, and even early on locally, it was
>> not sustained and I got into my head and grew afraid and worn out financing
>> $1000 trips so I could travel to get more support, and working on a passion
>> project for free.
>>
>
My sum of 'help' is probably, taking into account moral debts, much
higher.  7 figures, at a guess.  sadly those who helped didn't benefit much
at all; those who were exploitive bad people, made quick wins, at the cost
of many; but i didn't have anything to do with them afterwards, so i don't
know what happened after any such 'quick wins' were gains - notwithstanding
the difference between actors who did the wrong thing, but weren't really
intentionally and with sound mind intentionally malicious; vs. the others,
who may have just been caught-up with other issues they may or may not have
said anything to me about or whatever other situation that kinda mediates
the differences in relation to an exacting point-form situational
position.  (ie: context is important, overall).



> Hindsight 20/20, I should have. I should have bought a ton of crypto
>> currency too so my focus wasn't split between worrying about my financial
>> future and thus worrying about many people's interests and building
>> something out. Maybe too I could hire people who have similar interests but
>> are also worried about their financial future so feel pressured to choose
>> something else.
>>
>
I didn't buy crypto because i thought the energy use profile was immoral;
sadly, i think this was a mistake. i still think the energy use profile is
immoral, i just didn't study or understand the alternatives well enough to
better put the decision into context.  i think, if i had of bought lots;
then i'd be compromised with the interest of seeking the value of the
crypto to increase, and i don't know when i would have sold / converted
into currency in anycase.

nothing in life is free. that's simply not how it works. yet we do not
build ledgers to better reflect the costs of works that are later employed
for gainful purposes by whomever down the track.

>
>> Fortunately, I'm liking the ceramic network.
>>
>> * (then again I could have easily bought ethereum and bitcoin and XRP
>> when they were newer....not my idea...but definitely crossing the desk).
>> **
>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbVZNfQhcZ3eG_nbgKbC1KKtMXlIjnEsd
>> \\
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:26 PM Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>
Hi Adeel!

Quick point; the underlying context is to look at, what i'd call,
causality; and to do so through the lens of commercial or 'work' activities
(nb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day - therein, not recreation
or sleep); as to better understand, for various socioeconomic reasons - the
real-world 'cost' of things... / outcomes...

Therein - there are various distinctions and complexities.  I think this is
a complex thing to do, and i'm very much interested in progressing works in
this field with a group of willing contributors, unto particular rules
about human dignity, moral economy, etc.

i previously started on

summary doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oie2eEzb2MTJ1drqFzAv2hsmrDCkTisZGRXUT7o9pEY/edit?usp=sharing

BRD:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H6IOYUm5n2_-VsVjwoC9RZDkymVJZRyzqpsZ1ja20vM/edit?usp=sharing


*and an array of others over sometime (earliest work, probably about 2005?
but most done since 2010).*

*Permissive Commons*
*- *https://medium.com/webcivics/permissioned-commons-7fc33a1ce23e
*- *https://medium.com/webcivics/tech-for-permissive-commons-c0961b77249e

*Knowledge clouds*
*- *https://medium.com/webcivics/knowledge-clouds-f3f5ef1990d9

I started hacking a UI Kit: https://webcivics.github.io/CooperativeProjects/
- But my whilst my HTML linked skills are ok, my NodeJS or Py or PHP
skills, ain't any good.  so need help, to make something useful; no one
showed interest...  (so far).

there's other links; but, i think i've kinda overloaded the post enough
already... so - if there's a project raised, on good ('human centric'
terms) happy to get stuck into it.

>
>>> So, from measuring the productive output for review across the value
>>> chain how would it equate to:
>>>
>>> Each-project could become a ledger in and of itself for accounting /
double accounting purposes.  there's an ontology, ideally grown to take
into account various socio-economic considerations (minimum wage,
agreements, terms, etc.) and a definition of what the project sets out to
do.  the project may allow for dual licensing (ie: creative commons +
commercial), and may allow elements to be acquired (ie: icons, or whatever)
for other projects; the underlying process is that there's a calc engine,
that's figuring out the calcs and allowing others to go negotiate if
required, to reduce calcs.

rather than 'open source' (free / web-slavery at times) vs. commercial (pay
in perpetuity); point was about creating a financial system a bit like a
cap-table, where different groups may make different contributions at
different stages (growth, etc.); and that, this may all be recorded as
contractually binding expectations; often people, doing human rights stuff
for example, just want to be paid; they don't want to necessarily tax the
minds of all of humanity because they did an important thing, but they
don't want to be sacrificed for having done it for the betterment of
humanity, without consideration for their own human rights related needs;
as such, lots of legals involved and stuff, that's not simply about
'coding' (or a lack of comprehension about corporate governance, politics,
etc.)

1) contributor1 published some creative work as a commit (would the commit
>>> in itself create the value or the push to master?)
>>>
>>
Contributor makes something, might refer to other aspects; particularly
therein - a mandate that says project requires this thing done (similar to
project management software); agent does it, submits work, gets denied /
accepted, etc.  there's project managers who are involved in managing the
ledger.  some aspects may become useless overtime and become mute in terms
of value, others may become instrumental when others claimed it was
worthless; its not temporally defined in a similar way, at least not
necessarily, to how these sorts of things are done now; due to, an ability
to do tracking / #RealityCheckTech.

But moreover; i guess, its a bit like IP licensing via 'api' (although,
DLTs & RDF are v.different to traditional APIs.  it is intended to support
a form of knowledge fabric, which is different to purely information based
BS.

> 2) contributor2 publishes a bug to solve contributor1 creativework then
>>> commits (how would that get tracked through the value chain?)
>>>
>>
i think focus in this example is 'code' - but overall, yeah.  they lodge a
bug, they might say they can sort it out; it gets done, they submit it for
review, not just code but also time/costs, etc. it gets accepted or
rejected.

licensing schemas have alot to do with it.  i thought, that could be done
via ontological concepts / frameworks; noting, differences in
socio-economic ontological concepts between regions, world-wide; which
in-turn, provides fodder for lawyers looking to maintain a wage.
(although, only really useful once something starts making money; perhaps
at that point, legacy issues may take it under, depending on whether its
been made as part of a process linked to 'moral economy' or something else,
people would prefer to remain hidden #RealityCheckTech).

> 3) lead comes along and does a scheduled merge this causes a summary of
>>> certs to be produced across the value chain (who gets the credit, because
>>> in the merge commit it overrides every other contributor on the chain that
>>> has previously had made a commit?
>>>
>>
Curated by participants principally; imo, but i guess, there's different
rules / schemas that could be applied organisationally, and those getting
involved can decide whether or not they want to be involved.

4) how do you validate the distributed contributions from overriding merge
>>> commits?
>>>
>>
not just 'commits' but rather 'contributions'?

overall - i think tasks would be allocated (melvin did alot of work on
'taskify' which i thought was an awesome piece of early work); there's got
to be a curator, but if the curators make bad decisions, that'll still be
evident in the graphs (in such a way, that could end-up with complaints
taken to courts.  #RealityCheckTech).

> 5) when the full website product is produced for distribution will there
>>> be 4 contributors tracked or 1 with the summary cert?
>>>
>>
moreover in my modelling; the point was, taht you'd be storing your
information and trusting a 'semantic agent' of a particular 'knowledge
bank' that may have millions of customers (maintaining confidentiality
consequentially, etc.); therein, we don't want monthly fees for storing our
data, this would be a dangerous outcome for humanity; so, they way the
'knowledge banks' make money; is via knowledge related fudiciary services,
like lawyers; who might go enquire with that company you went to see, who
said 'we're doing it all, already' and a few months later release a product
similar to the thing you presented to them (ie: under NDA); the 'knowledge
bank' may then, make an enquiry on behalf of its customers, perhaps with
other knowledge banks around the world; just to ask for the provenance of
they're work they've got on file, just to show it was in-fact they're work,
not something they decided to take without compensation from the parties
who would ordinarily be harmed without means for lawful remedy - because,
we don't use our systems today, to support democracy or the rights of
citizens in that sort of way; which impacts, who it is we support to become
our leaders.

6) how would you track work output from an unquantifiable work output like
>>> training/mentoring contributors on the value chain, something that is
>>> abstract like code review, proofreading someone's work vs something that is
>>> quantifiable like writing code, documentation or writing an article?
>>>
>>
Yup.  by agreement is the really simple answer, but more broadly; this is
something that would need to be worked through, and is enormously
important.  Similarly, are cases where people say they're contributing, but
for no reason asked of them; spend enormous amounts of 'reported hours'
doing research, that is seemingly unnecessary / unproductive. I've tested
concepts many times over the years, there are various forms of exploits;
that do need to be considered, developed upon, etc.

Yet, fundamentally; whilst 'alliance' is an approach that has enormous
merit (rather than duplicating / replicating other people's work, like
we're in an industrial era factory); each project is thought of as a
different ledger, etc.

the owners / stewards of a project; do not necessarily need to incorporate
a company together, manage shareholding; or even investment (ie:
https://slicingpie.com/the-grunt-fund-calculator/ ) some people may really
like the idea of a project, and like kick-starter; provide capital; which
may mean people can be paid upfront, leading to a reduced benefit overtime
if the project is outrageously successful.


Part of the underlying problem i was trying to solve; was that, with 'Web
Civics' work; IMO, we need a bunch of 'for humanity' work to be done, but
those who do it should be paid to do it (not necessarily in perpetuity) and
there needed to be some way to provide dignity for those who work so hard,
to build infrastructure that is so critical to the provision of dignity for
all others...

Fundamentally; when people spend an enormous amount of time, or indeed any
time at all, working on something that is good for humanity...

the idea, that because they didn't focus on money; they're then able to be
victimised without available legal remedy?  that's a design, i think,
distinguishes people from those who have a good heart.  If you're doing
good, putting your life on the line, doing what needs to be done to make
something; that ends-up becoming part of the world in a really meaningful
way...

the least the least that should occur is to ensure that time is
appropriately paid, as the alternative is called slavery, or far worse.

yet, in my designs (not simple stuff); the underpinning concept was that
there's this thing called a knowledge banking industry; and that industry
is funded in connection to what people do in life (work). presently,
there's minimal moral support in fields such as ICT.   save, the kool aid
factories and linked consumers.

Hope that helps?

Tim.
My Threema ID: https://threema.id/89NNAP2X


>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Adeel
>>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 20:05, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Couple things,
>>>>
>>>> History informs choice, or perverts it....depending on what character
>>>> traits societies want to promote or punish, choices are made.
>>>>
>>>> quick bit of history (still a little irritated).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: ValueChain.jpg]
>>>>
>>>> image source
>>>> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1oUsSlPEh8erOdkQJCLzFHBaqp7AYOJCqDw82YrCg9f4/edit
>>>> (NB found: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01227529/document )
>>>> https://slicingpie.com/the-grunt-fund-calculator/ is good too...
>>>>
>>>> always good to check dates; hopefully, it'll become easier, in future...
>>>>
>>>> Manu went about engaging in a contract pursuing educational
>>>> credentials.  It then appeared that he needed SBIR funding. We spoke about
>>>> it, but he complained that he needed resources to even go after the
>>>> grants.  I kinda understood this due to a former business partner (2000-2)
>>>> who did similar things (gov grants, biz plans, etc) locally (
>>>> https://bsi.com.au/ ); but didn't know how it went in the US, so I
>>>> asked someone I thought would know.
>>>> (per below).
>>>>
>>>> Whilst Manu later got SBIR funding, and I wonder if these actions led
>>>> to "Respect Network" becoming more involved with credentials; it's still
>>>> presently not as clear as could be useful for future purposes.
>>>>
>>>> The history of how that came about would be great to chart out...
>>>>
>>>> In anycase, See below...
>>>>
>>>> IMO: it is important to fill in the gaps.
>>>>
>>>> I know what I did in past to support the growth of knowledge banking
>>>> systems, #RealityCheckTech - cyber support for #RuleOfLaw.  And I know I
>>>> have an archive that goes back some 20+ years on my work, with so much done
>>>> over the last decade...  i know and am mindful of the sorts of conside
>>>> rations that went into "verifiable claims" (rather than, 'identity
>>>> credentials').
>>>>
>>>> I don't think Victor knows it's now being used to power vaccine
>>>> passports globally...
>>>>
>>>> But I also don't really want to follow-up with him about it, for
>>>> various complicated reasons that go back to old issues, more than a decade
>>>> overall; key to why the 'access to justice' use cases, the use cases where
>>>> I wanted to record an environment via any media, then transcoded / phonetic
>>>> analysis, all the stuff I first knew about from NMXS back in 2001
>>>> (transcoding digibetas & making them searchable, for cable tv distribution
>>>> in the US) + so much more; to ensure, human rights of kids were easily able
>>>> to be protected in a court of law.
>>>>
>>>> Just show the judge what happened... have the means to present the
>>>> digital evidence when it matters most.  Rather than letting immoral people
>>>> assault kids, in darkness, with no evidence, for profits, for income;
>>>> Income that is all too often, government paid (only caring about the next
>>>> promotion, kinda people) - so i thought, build capability for low-cost
>>>> truth telling in courts of law. fix problems, rather than engage in
>>>> 'fairy-tale narrative' warfare, like a bunch of creatives on the astroturf
>>>> late at night at the standard hotel in LA...
>>>>
>>>> Yet, knowing that wasn't something people here would have invested
>>>> their time in solving; it was convenient that it fit into an ecosystem,
>>>> what I called the knowledge banking ecosystem, and if it worked; it would
>>>> solve that problem I cared most about in this generation of adults, not the
>>>> next.
>>>>
>>>> So much progress since, but verifiable claims as 'vaccine passport',
>>>> has very little to do with the protection of the human rights of kids.
>>>> Indeed even providing verifiable claims in the sex worker industry (ie;
>>>> mental health check, ensuring they're able to voluntarily make choices
>>>> about their own lives & "of sound mind", etc.) to protect against human
>>>> trafficking, na...  Can't do that yet either...  Not as profitable as
>>>> helping out pharma, like we're all experts in pathology...
>>>>
>>>> "He thought he could build a secure system for people to access their
>>>> personal computer functions, plus their favourite TV programs, movies, any
>>>> kind of media, over the internet.  "It was a* Bill Gates
>>>> take-over-the-world platform*," he says. It sounds like a young man's
>>>> grandiosity, but some of Australia's leading IT figures looked at his idea
>>>> and liked it."
>>>>
>>>> Source June 19, 2004 -
>>>> https://www.theage.com.au/national/start-me-up-20040619-gdy1tc.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In anycase: I think if the claim is that only coders are useful or that
>>>> other similar statements made are going to be considered; then, I can keep
>>>> providing more insights overtime about good faith work done in past and
>>>> perhaps we can better clarify what happened, prior to those court hearings
>>>> globally re: vaccine passports and related globalist affairs linked to mass
>>>> toilet paper shortages and other amazing illustrations of ideologically
>>>> compliant moral flexibility by some of our colleagues.
>>>>
>>>> There's alot of none coders who want to know what happened, and some of
>>>> those noncoders have stockpiles of toilet paper to protect their health, as
>>>> a consequence of the work done by so few here...
>>>>
>>>> (Population went up last year?)
>>>>
>>>> As noted, fairly irritated.
>>>>
>>>> I hope the underlying problems can be appropriately addressed as to
>>>> optimise real-world productivity (/quality of life) throughout the western
>>>> world (& elsewhere generally also), asap.
>>>>
>>>> As a consequence of this line of enquiry (per below) back in 2015, I
>>>> then ended up doing a bunch of work on community tv, which is on the list
>>>> around that time; a man called Tony Scott helped me with some financial /
>>>> proposal works, extending from the aforementioned work with "Alex" amongst
>>>> others...
>>>>
>>>> Tony later died tragically.  RIP Tony Scott.
>>>>
>>>> Alot of big changes happened in AU law relating to modern slavery,
>>>> domestic violence, anti-money laundering & related improvements around
>>>> protections against financial crimes, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, part of what verifiable claims is suppose to help with; is
>>>> KYC/AML. (Anti money laundering).
>>>>
>>>> I guess they're planning on upgrading the use cases for vaccine
>>>> passports once implemented; I'd guess, they'll be plugged into prominent
>>>> silicon valley global platforms, where they'll be managing the AI to help
>>>> eradicate Content about particular subjects, whilst selling as much toilet
>>>> paper as the climate change politics will allow.
>>>> (Zombies).
>>>>
>>>> As noted; my work, is on #realitychecktech
>>>>
>>>> I found the cognitive AI CG, I think it makes more sense to look at how
>>>> that layer is intended to work; then backfill.
>>>>
>>>> history below...
>>>>
>>>> Timothy Holborn.
>>>>
>>>> re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Perton
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: Victor Perton <redacted>
>>>> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015, 6:55 am hi
>>>> Subject: Re: SBIR Writer
>>>> To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, Anton Nekic <redacted>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Anton and Tim, maybe the two of you could collaborate on this
>>>> project.  Vic
>>>>
>>>> Anton, Tim write to me saying "*Looking for someone US based, ideally
>>>> in or near MA; or, VIC. Australia, to help with a U.S. Application
>>>> around http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246440
>>>> <http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246440>"*
>>>>
>>>> *Vic*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Victor Perton*
>>>> *Adviser, Advocate and wise Counsel*
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1616303&authType=name&authToken=w8kb&trk=hp-feed-member-name>
>>>> *Senior Adviser, Oppeus International <http://www.oppeus.com/> - **“Finding
>>>> and Supporting Great Leaders”*
>>>> *Principal, Victor Perton Global Partners*
>>>> *Board Member, Australian Government's Council on Australian Latin
>>>> American Relations (COALAR)
>>>> <http://www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/foundations-councils-institutes/coalar/pages/council-for-australia-latin-america-relations-coalar.aspx>*
>>>>
>>>> *Steering Committee, Griffith University's Global Integrity Summit
>>>> <http://integrity20.org/about/team/>*
>>>> Redacted
>>>>
>>>> *Connect to Victor via Social Media*
>>>> Linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/in/victorperton> Facebook
>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/victor.perton> Twitter
>>>> <https://twitter.com/victorperton> Pinterest
>>>> <http://pinterest.com/victorperton/>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Timothy Holborn <
>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Hi Victor,Looking for someone US based, ideally in or near MA; or,
>>>>> VIC. Australia, to help with a U.S. Application around
>>>>> http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246440
>>>>> <http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246440>Tim.*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>