That's absolutely true. Our modern society offers individuals nearly limitless, but ultimately meaningless choices, to disguise the fact that, for things that really matter, there is no choice at all.
I was hoping someone would bring up the paradox of choice, I even worded my post to encourage it. We are all afraid of suffering the buyer's remorse, and the more choices we have, the more likely we are to make the wrong one, and end up wishing we had made a different choice. Being able to choose your own life path out of billions of possible ways of being human is satisfying, and an expression of free will. Having to choose one out of thirty nearly identical brands of ketchup is annoying, not satisfying, and not really an expression of free will at all.
Tat being said, I don't think this fork really counts as being 'too much choice.' The fork in this case is the only choice. Anyone familiar with open source will see that.
Does it really "flood the marketplace and make it harder to choose" or is that just what people who don't like open source say, before turning around and pointing to the million brands of breakfast cereal, dozens of makes and models of cars, and infinite housing designs as proof that the free market provides consumers with more choice.
Wait, you are saying that choice is a bad thing? Having more choices is bad, how?
I do not think that Linux distributions experience a drop in demand as potential customers have more money. Do you have any sort of data to prove your position?
By the definition of 'substitute' Windows/OSX are just as much 'imperfect substitutes' for Linux as vice versa.
How are these projects in "monopolistic competition?" Here is the definition you point to:
Somewhere between PERFECT COMPETITION and MONOPOLY, also known as imperfect competition. It describes many real-world markets. Perfectly competitive markets are extremely rare, and few FIRMS enjoy a pure monopoly; OLIGOPOLY is more common. In monopolistic competition, there are fewer firms than in a perfectly competitive market and each can differentiate its products from the rest somewhat, perhaps by ADVERTISING or through small differences in design. These small differences form BARRIERS TO ENTRY. As a result, firms can earn some excess profits, although not as much as a pure monopoly, without a new entrant being able to reduce PRICES through COMPETITION. Prices are higher and OUTPUT lower than under perfect competition.
You are saying there are fewer open source firms than in a perfectly competitive market? but weren't you just complaining about too many forks, too many choices? Which is it?
Where are the barriers to entry discussed in the definition you reference?
Perhaps you are referring to potential authors of said software as the resources these firms fight over? But this is open source, working on one project does not preclude working on another, and if you are referring to the fact that we have finite amounts of time to spend on things, well, that is just as true for any type of project, but less true for open source because of the possibility of code re-use.
In short, I'm either not following your line of reasoning at all, or your line of reasoning leads to nowhere intelligible.
Right, given Oracle ownership I'd say starting a fork is the safest option to keep the project alive at this point. But maybe Oracle will surprise us all and do the right thing. I doubt it.
How, exactly, have you been left high and dry? Do you not understand how open source works? Nobody can sell out. They can try, but this is what happens. The sell out has absolutely no power to coerce anyone else into selling out, and no power to block them from moving forward without him. For example, see, uh, this very story.
Why is 300 variations a problem? If the free market provided 300 different options in a market, economists would be lauding said market for providing customers with so much choice. Would we complain that efforts were being split 300 ways? Would we ask why we need 299 inferior versions of said product? No, we would not. When open source provides consumers with choices, people complain, and they do not even think about the hypocrisy of that position, as they would never complain about choice in a free market.
Please explain how having 300+ variations of something impacts you personally in any negative way. And how in the world would you consider Linux or Open Office 'unfinished?'
This is not merely a matter of a few people being disgruntled and splitting a project for trivial reasons. This is a mater of a fundamental difference between the corporate culture of Oracle and the culture of open source. You can't just buy yourself a seat in the clubhouse, Ellison. You need to play by our rules if you want to play with our toys. Otherwise, we will take them and go home, leaving you the box they came in.
Frugality and genuine good ideas make the rich assholes who steal them from you rich. Show me one scientist or engineer, who was not a rich asshole and primarily a 'businessman' rather than a techy, who got rich from their ideas.
Bullshit, the apparatus of the state serves the rich. The state is not the problem, wealth and power disparity are. The state is the only mechanism for doing away with hose wealth and power disparities. The rich and powerful like the Koch brothers fund libertarian causes, to get rid of the state, because, while they can partially corrupt the state apparatus, they will never have total control over it.
Good question. One requiring creative thought and fearless action. There is no one answer, and it is very unlikely any of the real solutions will yield results in a single human lifetime. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
They have what you want, ergo, they make the rules.
What do I want? Equality of opportunity. I don't WANT to make the rules, I want US, all of us, to agree to the rules, together. The same rules for everyone.
Vast disparities in wealth are incompatible with democracy and civil society. You can't have either when one small group of people gets to play by a completely different set of rules than everyone else. Given that you, personally, are more likely to get hit by a meteor and then struck by lightning than you are to accumulate your own vast wealth, and given that you, personally, benefit immensely from living in a democratic civil society, you, personally, should be against vast disparities in wealth. This applies to the 99.99 percent of people who will never accumulate more than a million in assets in their lifetime. Why let that.01 percent make the rules? They are making the rules, but you are the majority, meaning, you are letting them make the rules. You don't have to let them do that.
You had furniture in your school? We had to make do with moldy cardboard boxes for desks and sharp piles of rusting scrap metal for chairs, and we had to collect the scrap metal ourselves from train yards and storm drains. But try telling that to kids these days, they won't believe you!
You find this with may crimes or infractions of rules, where the detection of the infraction if difficult, the punishment is more severe, in order to create the proper deterrent effect. If everyone knows they are unlikely to be caught, they will cheat, but if they know that when they are caught, they will have their accounts canceled, all of a sudden, there is real deterrence.
If I want to quote Mike Godwin, you quote-Nazis aren't going to stop me. All he said was, the longer an Internet discussion goes on, the more likely it is that someone will mention Hitler. Well, duh.
Everyone loves achievements these days. Gamer's profiles proudly display the various achievements they have unlocked. These are meaningful only if they are generally accepted as cheat proof. If you want to cheat in single player, go right ahead, do it in offline mode, skip getting the achievement and be happy. What you do not get to do is cheat in single player and have your accomplishements respected the same as those of real players.
Someone has to enforce sportsmanship. No one likes the referee, but he is necessary. Because Blizzard wants their games to be seen as sports, they need to enforce sportsmanship.
Again, if you want to cheat, do it offline and skip the achievement. No problem, no ban.
I just looked up the EIC, and it only applies to people making under ~$21,000. Back when Reagan first implemented it, which would have been about the only time it would have applied to me, it was tiny.
Well, it is nice to know we are doing something to help the poor, but I think a single payer health care system would be a better use of the money.
Uh, I just looked this stuff up, and I think maybe you are cheating on your kids taxes. Married with kids and a 40k income pays ~$3,000 in Federal taxes annually. You should maybe hire a tax professional, I think you might be in for an audit.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahah, good one, Larry. We will see, won't we?
That's absolutely true. Our modern society offers individuals nearly limitless, but ultimately meaningless choices, to disguise the fact that, for things that really matter, there is no choice at all.
I was hoping someone would bring up the paradox of choice, I even worded my post to encourage it. We are all afraid of suffering the buyer's remorse, and the more choices we have, the more likely we are to make the wrong one, and end up wishing we had made a different choice. Being able to choose your own life path out of billions of possible ways of being human is satisfying, and an expression of free will. Having to choose one out of thirty nearly identical brands of ketchup is annoying, not satisfying, and not really an expression of free will at all.
Tat being said, I don't think this fork really counts as being 'too much choice.' The fork in this case is the only choice. Anyone familiar with open source will see that.
Does it really "flood the marketplace and make it harder to choose" or is that just what people who don't like open source say, before turning around and pointing to the million brands of breakfast cereal, dozens of makes and models of cars, and infinite housing designs as proof that the free market provides consumers with more choice.
Wait, you are saying that choice is a bad thing? Having more choices is bad, how?
I do not think that Linux distributions experience a drop in demand as potential customers have more money. Do you have any sort of data to prove your position?
By the definition of 'substitute' Windows/OSX are just as much 'imperfect substitutes' for Linux as vice versa.
How are these projects in "monopolistic competition?" Here is the definition you point to:
Somewhere between PERFECT COMPETITION and MONOPOLY, also known as imperfect competition. It describes many real-world markets. Perfectly competitive markets are extremely rare, and few FIRMS enjoy a pure monopoly; OLIGOPOLY is more common. In monopolistic competition, there are fewer firms than in a perfectly competitive market and each can differentiate its products from the rest somewhat, perhaps by ADVERTISING or through small differences in design. These small differences form BARRIERS TO ENTRY. As a result, firms can earn some excess profits, although not as much as a pure monopoly, without a new entrant being able to reduce PRICES through COMPETITION. Prices are higher and OUTPUT lower than under perfect competition.
You are saying there are fewer open source firms than in a perfectly competitive market? but weren't you just complaining about too many forks, too many choices? Which is it?
Where are the barriers to entry discussed in the definition you reference?
Perhaps you are referring to potential authors of said software as the resources these firms fight over? But this is open source, working on one project does not preclude working on another, and if you are referring to the fact that we have finite amounts of time to spend on things, well, that is just as true for any type of project, but less true for open source because of the possibility of code re-use.
In short, I'm either not following your line of reasoning at all, or your line of reasoning leads to nowhere intelligible.
Right, given Oracle ownership I'd say starting a fork is the safest option to keep the project alive at this point. But maybe Oracle will surprise us all and do the right thing. I doubt it.
How, exactly, have you been left high and dry? Do you not understand how open source works? Nobody can sell out. They can try, but this is what happens. The sell out has absolutely no power to coerce anyone else into selling out, and no power to block them from moving forward without him. For example, see, uh, this very story.
Yes, there is a dead fork and a live fork. Oracle owns the dead one.
Why is 300 variations a problem? If the free market provided 300 different options in a market, economists would be lauding said market for providing customers with so much choice. Would we complain that efforts were being split 300 ways? Would we ask why we need 299 inferior versions of said product? No, we would not. When open source provides consumers with choices, people complain, and they do not even think about the hypocrisy of that position, as they would never complain about choice in a free market.
Please explain how having 300+ variations of something impacts you personally in any negative way. And how in the world would you consider Linux or Open Office 'unfinished?'
This is not merely a matter of a few people being disgruntled and splitting a project for trivial reasons. This is a mater of a fundamental difference between the corporate culture of Oracle and the culture of open source. You can't just buy yourself a seat in the clubhouse, Ellison. You need to play by our rules if you want to play with our toys. Otherwise, we will take them and go home, leaving you the box they came in.
His name is 4Q2. Yeah, 4Q2, buddy.
Ah, thanks. I know of Minecraft, but I'm currently addicted to Dwarf Fortress and Minecraft just seemed like DF lite to me.
Money is power. The state need not confer excess power on anyone, if it does, you will find the root cause is money, not the state.
Uh, color me stupid, but what does "notch" mean?
Frugality and genuine good ideas make the rich assholes who steal them from you rich. Show me one scientist or engineer, who was not a rich asshole and primarily a 'businessman' rather than a techy, who got rich from their ideas.
Bullshit, the apparatus of the state serves the rich. The state is not the problem, wealth and power disparity are. The state is the only mechanism for doing away with hose wealth and power disparities. The rich and powerful like the Koch brothers fund libertarian causes, to get rid of the state, because, while they can partially corrupt the state apparatus, they will never have total control over it.
Good question. One requiring creative thought and fearless action. There is no one answer, and it is very unlikely any of the real solutions will yield results in a single human lifetime. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
They have what you want, ergo, they make the rules.
What do I want? Equality of opportunity. I don't WANT to make the rules, I want US, all of us, to agree to the rules, together. The same rules for everyone.
The Simpsons? Really? That's what you think I was quoting? What episode? When did The Simpsons rip off Monty Python?
Vast disparities in wealth are incompatible with democracy and civil society. You can't have either when one small group of people gets to play by a completely different set of rules than everyone else. Given that you, personally, are more likely to get hit by a meteor and then struck by lightning than you are to accumulate your own vast wealth, and given that you, personally, benefit immensely from living in a democratic civil society, you, personally, should be against vast disparities in wealth. This applies to the 99.99 percent of people who will never accumulate more than a million in assets in their lifetime. Why let that .01 percent make the rules? They are making the rules, but you are the majority, meaning, you are letting them make the rules. You don't have to let them do that.
You had furniture in your school? We had to make do with moldy cardboard boxes for desks and sharp piles of rusting scrap metal for chairs, and we had to collect the scrap metal ourselves from train yards and storm drains. But try telling that to kids these days, they won't believe you!
I'm guessing AC's evidence amounts to "I keep losing, therefore, cheating must be rampant."
You find this with may crimes or infractions of rules, where the detection of the infraction if difficult, the punishment is more severe, in order to create the proper deterrent effect. If everyone knows they are unlikely to be caught, they will cheat, but if they know that when they are caught, they will have their accounts canceled, all of a sudden, there is real deterrence.
If I want to quote Mike Godwin, you quote-Nazis aren't going to stop me. All he said was, the longer an Internet discussion goes on, the more likely it is that someone will mention Hitler. Well, duh.
Everyone loves achievements these days. Gamer's profiles proudly display the various achievements they have unlocked. These are meaningful only if they are generally accepted as cheat proof. If you want to cheat in single player, go right ahead, do it in offline mode, skip getting the achievement and be happy. What you do not get to do is cheat in single player and have your accomplishements respected the same as those of real players.
Someone has to enforce sportsmanship. No one likes the referee, but he is necessary. Because Blizzard wants their games to be seen as sports, they need to enforce sportsmanship.
Again, if you want to cheat, do it offline and skip the achievement. No problem, no ban.
I just looked up the EIC, and it only applies to people making under ~$21,000. Back when Reagan first implemented it, which would have been about the only time it would have applied to me, it was tiny.
Well, it is nice to know we are doing something to help the poor, but I think a single payer health care system would be a better use of the money.
Uh, I just looked this stuff up, and I think maybe you are cheating on your kids taxes. Married with kids and a 40k income pays ~$3,000 in Federal taxes annually. You should maybe hire a tax professional, I think you might be in for an audit.