As I understand it, Marx' point was that free market leads to what you call 'corporatism'. It starts with seeing human work-hours as a commodity, and naturally leads to dehumanization.
What we have now in eg. Denmark is a soft sort of socialist tradition, where we try to be capitalists and fix the problems that naturally arise (have a free market without 'corporatism'). It doesn't work, of course, and Marx could have told you that...
No - though he might be so left-wing as to suggest noone should be allowed to make 'big bank' to the degree that their power exceeds that of government control mechanisms or dictates the lives of millions.
especially on software,
No - though he does not believe ownership relations on code is necessary to earn money on coding (in other words, he is not a complete idiot, and is able to differentiate between work hours and work product).
and most especially on software he wants to use.
No - he does not give a crap about the amount of money you made on the software he uses, he just wants to be able to use it fully and freely.
Although I do not expect my rendering of his views to be perfect, I have absolutely no clue about how you came upon your ideas of them. Are you sure you are not talking about the imaginary Stallman conjured up by the real Stallman's political opponents?
Mine is that just because they haven't evolved the way he dreamed up back when Duke was 'innovative' doesn't mean they haven't.
I did completely miss that.
I do not recall Wild claiming that the problem is they have not innovated in the exact way which Duke Nuken innovated (which would be kind of contradictory, actually).
I do not recall you telling us any examples of how innovation has occured.
Wild's argument quite clearly goes that 'technical advances in themselves does not innovation make'. If you actualy agreed with this, but believed that there are plenty of innovations since (which I agree with, except perhaps the 'plenty' part), then I (foolishly?) assumed that you would say so and give examples of such innovation. Instead of just denigrating the innovation that did occur in Duke Nukem...
We aren't in the STNG world of holodecks and AI characters so believable that they come to life and take over the ship. But we don't have to be for the games that are being made now to be GOOD games.
You are right, they don't. In order to be great games, though...
We are just saying that innovation in gameplay and immersion is more than technical and graphical breakthroughs.
Noone is saying the way to do that is more aliens on toilets, or interactive dust-flakes. We are just saying we want innovation, and insisting that good enough is, in fact, only good enough and in no way worthy of praise, nor to be commended for pushing any envelopes.
You are completely missing the point here.
"Wild Q" is using examples of previous innovation to _exemplify_ the kind of _unexpected_, out-of-the-box thinking he would like to see in games instead of just better graphics.
And you are accusing him of wanting only more of those same things?
I think you are either trolling or simply refuses to read his actual posts.
Portal was innovative, it had a new game mechanic (I know it was not 100% new, it just worked better this time round) and a new-ish storyline (a non-story line of going through chambers, which turns into a real storyline; with a psychopathic and/or moronic AI to boot).
Now - did I claim that Portal was a good game for thinking up something new and executing it well, or did I claim Portal was good for having a portal gun and GLADoS?
If you think the latter, read my post again until you realize you were wrong. Then do the same for "Wild Q..."'s posts.
Arguing that good enough is good enough is rather redundant, when the claim your are arguing against is that good enough is not innovative!
'Of course, the real question is whether they decay faster than they can grow.'
IAMAP, but another 'real question' that would make this one moot is whether such events happen all the time anyway...
A couple of billions years of being fine is a pretty good indicator that the procedure is safe. So the real question is whether these mini-black holes occur in nature.
Just like with cars, some people are mechanics, some people just change oil and filters and others just drive the car. It's a shame the linux community can't understand the same thing about computers.
I generally agree with you here - the woman is in no way to blame for not being able to use Ubuntu, nor for not knowing what it is.
But she did order a computer with an OS which she did not know what was! And she did let herself be convinced to keep it! And she did not get help from faculty tech, classmate or friend who could tell her how to use Ubuntu or what it would entail for her to keep trying.
She just dropped out when it did not work. And then she went to the press to complain, basically, that Ubuntu is not Windows. Ubuntu and the linux community should not be ashamed that Ubuntu is not Windows - but we should not attack her for not being able to use Ubuntu as if it was, either.
We should remind her (politely) and the journalist (a bit more pointedly) that this is not a problem with Ubuntu, but with using the wrong software for the wrong job/person:
If you let yourself be convinced to buy a car needing more maintanance than you can handle, blame yourself and the slick salesman. And seek out a mechanic - don't go to the press about your mistake and blame the car manufacturer for making another car than the one you really needed.
I used twitter to tell my friends I was going to see a movie and asking if any wanted to join.
Now we are 7 people catching dinner, and a movie. That doesn't seem so useless to me.
(And no, I would not call, text or email all my friends for something like that - but those that happened to see the message replied.)
But why anyone would share their grocery-going-abouts with anyone is beyond me...
If you want to use force to impose your will on someone else, the burden of proof for the necessity of doing so lies with you.
And if a company or individual enjoys the benefit of a society, then that society can 'impose burdens' equal to those benefits.
Such as a tax to pay for those roads you use. Or a fix for that economy you are enjoying...
I am not really sure where you are going with this...
I get that some people have a hard time seeing the high ideals - and it is precisely for this reason that I would ask them to consider why a given math formula can be free to use (and free as in speech).
I am not saying that software, nor math, arises from thin air. Just that there exists a lot of free (x2) pieces of software, and math.
Society does pay for its mathematics, primarily through education. It should pay for software in the same way, to escape the roadblocks we never suffered from with math - and which we are now feeling the squeeze of with software.
To put this as politely as possible, some people need to get their liberal heads out of their asses and realize that the danger of terrorism is very real in some countries, and protection is absolutely required.
You misunderstand the comment, methinks.
The problem is not that we do not believe in terrorism, or that it is a Bad Thing (tm).
What we are saying, from within our 'liberal asses', is that clamping down on the freedom to know where one is will do nothing to stop terrorism.
Therefore, we are arguing that one should not clamp down on that freedom.
In fact, some of us outrageous 'liberals', have this odd idea that _whenever taking away some freedom will do nothing or next to nothing to prevent some harm, that freedom should not be taken away_.
If you are concerned about the death toll, take away the freedom to drive cars over 10 mph. Then we can talk about the next thing to go...
Dang it!
And here I thought I was being all gnu/linux-like with the gnu/linux crowd...
As a philosopher, though, I am not too sure god is root - but that is a semantic point, nothing wrong with the syntax but my understanding of it.
The industry spokesman:
"The UK music business is a complex community that binds performers, songwriters, promoters, managers, agents, record labels, publishers, distributors, manufactures and retailers.
No one part of the business can function without the other."
The slashdot summary author (mjasay) appears to see the world through a lens which makes the developers of open source software victims of some nasty MBA conspiracy.
Funny, I see it as proof that such a 'conspiracy' exists. Research is being done on how to make people chose something which is not in their interest to chose - such as proprietary software - of course the capital/powers that be protects its revenue stream and of course they are doing it in morally dubious ways.
One method to build value is to increase switching cost through lock-in.
Which is inherently a bad thing - restricting peoples choices through the power you wield over the market. I do not care why you do it (though improving one's corporation's bottom line is hardly a noble goal to begin with), it is, in a word, wrong.
I am not particularly outraged at the researchers, more than I am at MS employees, but I do find it interesting/scary/proof of sick societal system that money is being funneled into researching how to best keep customers away from getting stuff for free.
Free software is better because:
* It's mode of production, patching, etc. is better than proprietary models. This does not meant that products, such as those you mention, cannot exist which are proprietary and better - just that their development was less efficient.
* It is, all other things being equal, better for the customer - for reasons of freedom and customizability. Photoshop would be a better product if it were free, because that would allow more people to build extensions more efficiently, etc.
Even when it hurts consumers, and basically everyone besides the company bottom line?
This is a level of faith in the 'invisible hand' which is, quite frankly, disturbing. (Incidentally, did you know when Smith explained how the invisible hand would secure justice for all, or which of his students did? Didn't think so.)
Hiring assasins to kill rival CEOs is not a good thing, though it may be good competition.
Lying, suing tactically and locking customers to a proprietary product are not good things either, despite how good it is for the company.
Agreed.
Furthermore, projects are rarely 100% 'done'. So it does matter if someone wraps up a free project in restrictive licenses and continues development beyond the capabilities of the original writer - the restrictive fork may very well win out, to the detriment of all and against the original writers wishes. A project is not truly 'finished and free forever' if some corp ensures its incompatibility tomorrow - then there is work to be done, and work which _necessitates knowing what they did_!
Please explain how that example is based on some obsession with code over project...
Re. 'viral', then yes it is and thank god. Bear in mind that contagion is always deliberate...
I was actually throwing around this semi-SF super-short story idea were people would be chained to the seat in front of them when flying - seems the morons out-scienced me on that one!
I think we should just give in and let them tag and bag us. Collars, listening devices, everything - fighting it is just way too much hassle.
This is how democracy ends, not with a bang...
Hm... I totally agree that the government is the real culprits here. It is not lawyers, though, who are convincing me of anything - I myself am actively applying knowledge from social science, history and philosophy in identifying fascism.
However, unless a citisen is in real and immediate danger, he is not guilt-free from his illegal actions - not even if it was the government who threatened him (which leads into the interesting area of law about whether the government can, qua being the government actually do so or whether it ceases to be a government at the least at the specific time it orders such things).
I would love for the Bush administration to waive sovereign immunity. But I will settle for throwing everyone in jail who allow the government to do wrong. AT&T should have immediately announced the illegal order to the world - anything less is treason. That congress is too apathic or corrupt to ensure that we can also prosecute the higher-ups in this whole sorry affair for the same crime is not a reason to give immunity to more people.
PS: Corporations do have armies and prisons, these days. They just need a government contract to use them - if they are allowed to do so with immunity before the law, the government becomes able to do so by proxy. This removes all checks and balances and the goverment is no longer forced to be "for the people" - again, fascism.
In the case of telecomm immunity, we're really arguing about whether or not a corporation can be sued for complying with a government surveillance request. How this helps anyone is utterly beyond me... Uhm - if they can't, that means you live in a fascist state. Fascism does not equate directly to 'more government control over eg. taxes' but to government and big business working so tightly together that it really makes no sense to differentiate.
Being able to try those in big business who act illegally on orders from the government is absolutely necessary. Not for the lawyers, but for the sake of justice - otherwise, government and whoever helps them will be above the law. And THAT, my friend, is fascism.
Applying fascist charges to Enron, Halliburton, et al is left as an exercise for the reader.
---
- AMD, SCO patent MP3 over TCP/IP, sue ATI, EA. Microsoft probably responsible somehow.
Check out:
http://www.bookofparagon.com/
It has what seems to be a fuller explanation of this "idea":
http://www.bookofparagon.com/Mathematics/PerspexMa chineVIII.pdf
My 2c: I am no math-genius, but unless he comes up with some new way to actually use this "nullity", I do not for the love of God understand what he has done that merits even 5 secs of fame...
And here's the new and interesting bit, our friend James Anderson of Reading has apparently also solved the problem of how mind relates to matter:
It is something about a perspex, which is "a simple physical thing that is both a mind and a body", "a particular kind of matrix", "a physical shape, a physical motion, an artificial neuron, and an instruction for a machine that is more powerful than the Turing machine".
It is also: "an instruction for a perspex machine that is more powerful than any theoretically possible digital computer".
And of course, "...[a] perspex machine operates in a 4D space of perspexes called perspex space." And it "can describe any aspect of the universe we live in, and can be built from any part of our universe."
Now I have actually read philosophy but that gets me nowhere with this guy. He seems to have swallowed some Leibniz and is trying to mix it with material realism, and further believes that eg. two discrete software programs can change continuously into another - while retaining the ability to use the same stored data (I am going to make miniscule changes to my OS after writing this, with a magnet, and see if it won't still be able to run my programs).
What does help me understand him, however, is having tidied up in wikipedia and this seems a case of "things made up in school" and... well, nut-job-theries.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, Marx' point was that free market leads to what you call 'corporatism'. It starts with seeing human work-hours as a commodity, and naturally leads to dehumanization. What we have now in eg. Denmark is a soft sort of socialist tradition, where we try to be capitalists and fix the problems that naturally arise (have a free market without 'corporatism'). It doesn't work, of course, and Marx could have told you that...
Stallman believes that HE should make big bank
No
, but no one should be able to make big bank,
No - though he might be so left-wing as to suggest noone should be allowed to make 'big bank' to the degree that their power exceeds that of government control mechanisms or dictates the lives of millions.
especially on software,
No - though he does not believe ownership relations on code is necessary to earn money on coding (in other words, he is not a complete idiot, and is able to differentiate between work hours and work product).
and most especially on software he wants to use.
No - he does not give a crap about the amount of money you made on the software he uses, he just wants to be able to use it fully and freely. Although I do not expect my rendering of his views to be perfect, I have absolutely no clue about how you came upon your ideas of them. Are you sure you are not talking about the imaginary Stallman conjured up by the real Stallman's political opponents?
Actually, you are missing a number of points.
Mine is that just because they haven't evolved the way he dreamed up back when Duke was 'innovative' doesn't mean they haven't.
I did completely miss that. I do not recall Wild claiming that the problem is they have not innovated in the exact way which Duke Nuken innovated (which would be kind of contradictory, actually). I do not recall you telling us any examples of how innovation has occured. Wild's argument quite clearly goes that 'technical advances in themselves does not innovation make'. If you actualy agreed with this, but believed that there are plenty of innovations since (which I agree with, except perhaps the 'plenty' part), then I (foolishly?) assumed that you would say so and give examples of such innovation. Instead of just denigrating the innovation that did occur in Duke Nukem...
We aren't in the STNG world of holodecks and AI characters so believable that they come to life and take over the ship. But we don't have to be for the games that are being made now to be GOOD games.
You are right, they don't. In order to be great games, though... We are just saying that innovation in gameplay and immersion is more than technical and graphical breakthroughs. Noone is saying the way to do that is more aliens on toilets, or interactive dust-flakes. We are just saying we want innovation, and insisting that good enough is, in fact, only good enough and in no way worthy of praise, nor to be commended for pushing any envelopes.
You are completely missing the point here.
"Wild Q" is using examples of previous innovation to _exemplify_ the kind of _unexpected_, out-of-the-box thinking he would like to see in games instead of just better graphics.
And you are accusing him of wanting only more of those same things?
I think you are either trolling or simply refuses to read his actual posts.
Portal was innovative, it had a new game mechanic (I know it was not 100% new, it just worked better this time round) and a new-ish storyline (a non-story line of going through chambers, which turns into a real storyline; with a psychopathic and/or moronic AI to boot).
Now - did I claim that Portal was a good game for thinking up something new and executing it well, or did I claim Portal was good for having a portal gun and GLADoS?
If you think the latter, read my post again until you realize you were wrong. Then do the same for "Wild Q..."'s posts.
Arguing that good enough is good enough is rather redundant, when the claim your are arguing against is that good enough is not innovative!
'Of course, the real question is whether they decay faster than they can grow.'
IAMAP, but another 'real question' that would make this one moot is whether such events happen all the time anyway...
A couple of billions years of being fine is a pretty good indicator that the procedure is safe. So the real question is whether these mini-black holes occur in nature.
Just like with cars, some people are mechanics, some people just change oil and filters and others just drive the car. It's a shame the linux community can't understand the same thing about computers.
I generally agree with you here - the woman is in no way to blame for not being able to use Ubuntu, nor for not knowing what it is.
But she did order a computer with an OS which she did not know what was! And she did let herself be convinced to keep it! And she did not get help from faculty tech, classmate or friend who could tell her how to use Ubuntu or what it would entail for her to keep trying.
She just dropped out when it did not work. And then she went to the press to complain, basically, that Ubuntu is not Windows. Ubuntu and the linux community should not be ashamed that Ubuntu is not Windows - but we should not attack her for not being able to use Ubuntu as if it was, either.
We should remind her (politely) and the journalist (a bit more pointedly) that this is not a problem with Ubuntu, but with using the wrong software for the wrong job/person:
If you let yourself be convinced to buy a car needing more maintanance than you can handle, blame yourself and the slick salesman. And seek out a mechanic - don't go to the press about your mistake and blame the car manufacturer for making another car than the one you really needed.
I used twitter to tell my friends I was going to see a movie and asking if any wanted to join.
Now we are 7 people catching dinner, and a movie. That doesn't seem so useless to me.
(And no, I would not call, text or email all my friends for something like that - but those that happened to see the message replied.)
But why anyone would share their grocery-going-abouts with anyone is beyond me...
Freedom doesn't require justification.
Correct.
If you want to use force to impose your will on someone else, the burden of proof for the necessity of doing so lies with you.
And if a company or individual enjoys the benefit of a society, then that society can 'impose burdens' equal to those benefits.
Such as a tax to pay for those roads you use. Or a fix for that economy you are enjoying...
...this man needs to be convinced that free things can exist without exploitation of a company.
I agree, obviously.
Just pointing out how sad that quote is - especially since it is true of so many people...
I am not really sure where you are going with this...
I get that some people have a hard time seeing the high ideals - and it is precisely for this reason that I would ask them to consider why a given math formula can be free to use (and free as in speech).
I am not saying that software, nor math, arises from thin air. Just that there exists a lot of free (x2) pieces of software, and math.
Society does pay for its mathematics, primarily through education. It should pay for software in the same way, to escape the roadblocks we never suffered from with math - and which we are now feeling the squeeze of with software.
Ask him if mathematic formula are free, or if there was some crime behind them too...
To put this as politely as possible, some people need to get their liberal heads out of their asses and realize that the danger of terrorism is very real in some countries, and protection is absolutely required.
You misunderstand the comment, methinks. The problem is not that we do not believe in terrorism, or that it is a Bad Thing (tm).
What we are saying, from within our 'liberal asses', is that clamping down on the freedom to know where one is will do nothing to stop terrorism.
Therefore, we are arguing that one should not clamp down on that freedom.
In fact, some of us outrageous 'liberals', have this odd idea that _whenever taking away some freedom will do nothing or next to nothing to prevent some harm, that freedom should not be taken away_. If you are concerned about the death toll, take away the freedom to drive cars over 10 mph. Then we can talk about the next thing to go...
Hence the `#'.
Dang it!
And here I thought I was being all gnu/linux-like with the gnu/linux crowd...
As a philosopher, though, I am not too sure god is root - but that is a semantic point, nothing wrong with the syntax but my understanding of it.
You must be root to do that!
The industry spokesman:
"The UK music business is a complex community that binds performers, songwriters, promoters, managers, agents, record labels, publishers, distributors, manufactures and retailers. No one part of the business can function without the other."
Now that is hilarious!
The slashdot summary author (mjasay) appears to see the world through a lens which makes the developers of open source software victims of some nasty MBA conspiracy.
Funny, I see it as proof that such a 'conspiracy' exists. Research is being done on how to make people chose something which is not in their interest to chose - such as proprietary software - of course the capital/powers that be protects its revenue stream and of course they are doing it in morally dubious ways.
One method to build value is to increase switching cost through lock-in.
Which is inherently a bad thing - restricting peoples choices through the power you wield over the market. I do not care why you do it (though improving one's corporation's bottom line is hardly a noble goal to begin with), it is, in a word, wrong.
I am not particularly outraged at the researchers, more than I am at MS employees, but I do find it interesting/scary/proof of sick societal system that money is being funneled into researching how to best keep customers away from getting stuff for free.
I think this is obfuscating the issue.
Free software is better because:
* It's mode of production, patching, etc. is better than proprietary models. This does not meant that products, such as those you mention, cannot exist which are proprietary and better - just that their development was less efficient.
* It is, all other things being equal, better for the customer - for reasons of freedom and customizability. Photoshop would be a better product if it were free, because that would allow more people to build extensions more efficiently, etc.
Competition is good?
Always?
Even when it hurts consumers, and basically everyone besides the company bottom line?
This is a level of faith in the 'invisible hand' which is, quite frankly, disturbing. (Incidentally, did you know when Smith explained how the invisible hand would secure justice for all, or which of his students did? Didn't think so.)
Hiring assasins to kill rival CEOs is not a good thing, though it may be good competition.
Lying, suing tactically and locking customers to a proprietary product are not good things either, despite how good it is for the company.
One is illegal, both are immoral.
PS: The answer to the invisible hand question is that noone has answered yet. Unhindered competition has been shown, theoretically and empirically, to lead to pretty bad consequences. See http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/downs.htm and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster, respectively.
Agreed. Furthermore, projects are rarely 100% 'done'. So it does matter if someone wraps up a free project in restrictive licenses and continues development beyond the capabilities of the original writer - the restrictive fork may very well win out, to the detriment of all and against the original writers wishes. A project is not truly 'finished and free forever' if some corp ensures its incompatibility tomorrow - then there is work to be done, and work which _necessitates knowing what they did_! Please explain how that example is based on some obsession with code over project... Re. 'viral', then yes it is and thank god. Bear in mind that contagion is always deliberate...
I was actually throwing around this semi-SF super-short story idea were people would be chained to the seat in front of them when flying - seems the morons out-scienced me on that one!
I think we should just give in and let them tag and bag us. Collars, listening devices, everything - fighting it is just way too much hassle. This is how democracy ends, not with a bang...
Was reading wikipedia because I have no idea why this is important, but need to know enough to impress my friends (and by that I mean, alienate).
Story of my life...
Hm... I totally agree that the government is the real culprits here. It is not lawyers, though, who are convincing me of anything - I myself am actively applying knowledge from social science, history and philosophy in identifying fascism.
However, unless a citisen is in real and immediate danger, he is not guilt-free from his illegal actions - not even if it was the government who threatened him (which leads into the interesting area of law about whether the government can, qua being the government actually do so or whether it ceases to be a government at the least at the specific time it orders such things).
I would love for the Bush administration to waive sovereign immunity. But I will settle for throwing everyone in jail who allow the government to do wrong. AT&T should have immediately announced the illegal order to the world - anything less is treason. That congress is too apathic or corrupt to ensure that we can also prosecute the higher-ups in this whole sorry affair for the same crime is not a reason to give immunity to more people.
PS: Corporations do have armies and prisons, these days. They just need a government contract to use them - if they are allowed to do so with immunity before the law, the government becomes able to do so by proxy. This removes all checks and balances and the goverment is no longer forced to be "for the people" - again, fascism.
---
please-pluck-my-frequency-from-the-timestream.com
Being able to try those in big business who act illegally on orders from the government is absolutely necessary. Not for the lawyers, but for the sake of justice - otherwise, government and whoever helps them will be above the law. And THAT, my friend, is fascism.
Applying fascist charges to Enron, Halliburton, et al is left as an exercise for the reader.
---
- AMD, SCO patent MP3 over TCP/IP, sue ATI, EA. Microsoft probably responsible somehow.
Check out: http://www.bookofparagon.com/ It has what seems to be a fuller explanation of this "idea": http://www.bookofparagon.com/Mathematics/PerspexMa chineVIII.pdf
My 2c: I am no math-genius, but unless he comes up with some new way to actually use this "nullity", I do not for the love of God understand what he has done that merits even 5 secs of fame...
And here's the new and interesting bit, our friend James Anderson of Reading has apparently also solved the problem of how mind relates to matter:
It is something about a perspex, which is "a simple physical thing that is both a mind and a body", "a particular kind of matrix", "a physical shape, a physical motion, an artificial neuron, and an instruction for a machine that is more powerful than the Turing machine".
It is also: "an instruction for a perspex machine that is more powerful than any theoretically possible digital computer".
And of course, "...[a] perspex machine operates in a 4D space of perspexes called perspex space." And it "can describe any aspect of the universe we live in, and can be built from any part of our universe."
Now I have actually read philosophy but that gets me nowhere with this guy. He seems to have swallowed some Leibniz and is trying to mix it with material realism, and further believes that eg. two discrete software programs can change continuously into another - while retaining the ability to use the same stored data (I am going to make miniscule changes to my OS after writing this, with a magnet, and see if it won't still be able to run my programs).
What does help me understand him, however, is having tidied up in wikipedia and this seems a case of "things made up in school" and... well, nut-job-theries.