Nope, it's _bad_ laws that do that, not laws in general.
We need less laws not more.
Nope we need better laws. More or less laws is irrelevant. Laws are just tools.
The day they treat companies as a living entity is the day it all went wrong.
Nope, the day it all went wrong was the day that we forgot how to control government and got so delusional that we thought that fighting government instead of controlling it would be the way to freedom.
And as to the score of your post (+5 interesting), the only thing interesting about it is that you can get this score here on/. by simply repeating the libertarian mantra.
A monopoly is a company that gets exclusive market rights from the government.
If you define monopoly like that it just means that we have to find another word to describe what is going on, which is that Microsoft has a _very_ powerful market position.
If you don't like IE, use [... etc]
The fact that they don't have absolute power doesn't mean they have no power at all. The reason why Microsoft is so influential is that they control so many standards and it is mostly because their control over these standards and not the exceptional quality of their software that they can charge the prices they charge.
The most obvious consequence is that non Microsoft customers get hit everyday when communicating with outside computers because their software doesn't support the current de facto Microsoft standard and once it does support this standard Microsoft will try to change the standard by introducing new features. Microsoft customers pay far too much for their software to avoid all this.
That said, the EU is going about this the wrong way. Instead of trying to block new Microsoft controlled standards (or any privately controlled standards for that matter) they should set the standards themselves. Right now they are fighting the same losing battle that the US fought.
If it has been established that there is nothing about software that makes it different from other goods, then you must argue that patents in general are a bad idea.
To argue that patents in general are a bad is certainly an option as the costs seem high and only a limited portion of the rewards end up with the actual innovator (if there is one).But there is also an important economic difference between software and many other goods: software is a nonrival good. So I could argue that patents don't work for these type of goods as they do too much damage to offset the possible profits. And I probably would have a case as a software patents can only be exploited if you market them as an exclusive product. So the nonrival product needs to be made rival if the patent is to be of any use. And that rules out the often more efficient Open Source way of software production and distribution. Products that are rival by nature obviously don't have this downside.
My economical argument and your philosophical argument seem to converge here btw:-) Ideas are after all also nonrival, and would have the same problems as software if they were patentable.
I don't think the so called "economic" arguments are even arguments per se. Once you have given up your philosophical ground you have given up.
The justification of software patents is an economic argument so with economic arguments you attack the very root of the software patent legislation.
I don't understand what you see in philosophical arguments. The whole patent system is just a tool to get a job done: promoting innovation. If patenting software is indeed patenting ideas why would you be against it if it had only positive consequences? Or do you think there are other non-economic consequences?
I think the only useful (and powerful) objections to the directive are economic ones.
Amen to that.
Both the free speech angle and the natural rights routine are useless. Even if we assume that the logic of these arguments is correct it still doesn't matter as most of us would happily make an exception for patents if that brought us economic benefit.
If they could provide compelling evidence that patents are good for the economy and that there is no better alternative, than I for one would be all for it. Little chance of that happening though.
To end on a positive note, in the memorandum you linked tells us: [...] each packaged software job creates 2-4 jobs in the downstream economy and 1 job in the upstream economy.
The writer actually seems to think this is something positive! Why change a lightbulb on your own when you can do it with a whole team.
As long as these kind of numbers remain true the future of open source is sunny indeed!
This is a great story. I wish more (local) governments would set up companies in monopoly markets to encourage competition. Can you provide me with a link with some more hard info please?
Only library programmers will usually write things like that. In normal use you just use sort(...) and fill(...) and the compiler will generate the right function for you depending on the arguments. At least that is how it works in C++.
I dont know how good the implementation in Java is, but for C++ everbody I know who learned it, loved it. It is a large part of what makes C++ such a sexy language.
The other problem with templates is that (at least with the C++ implementation) to use them without getting Cobol fingers.
Are you really suggesting that code that makes heavy use of templates is verbose? Have you ever programmed using generic libraries? FYI they tend to be very powerfull (little code == lots of action). C is for fast typers, (modern!) C++ is not, Java is somewhere in between.
The main advantage of templates is the additional compile-time type checking, which arguably is not really needed, if you write tests for the code.
No, they are mostly about speed and reuse of code.
You are being too modest. The reason why Linux became so popular was not because of some lawsuit, or the Linux Technical Elite producing superior software. It was openness---everbody was welcome---and grassroots support that gave Linux momentum and made it such a success.
You are one of the grassroots hero's that made it happen. Be proud and don't let these Slashdot elite wannabees tell you otherwise.
Since you seem to want to talk about 20 things at once I took the liberty to react to some central quotes. I hope you are not too unhappy with my selection.
--suppressing hate propoganda? ya. Whatever they choose to classify as propoganda.
No it's very strictly defined, and even then you can get away with a lot. The european governments usually try to stay away from this kind of thing and will only act on public outcry. The reactions from the people around you will be much more severe. There is little tolerance for people with Nazi sympathies.
[...] their classing the "normalcy" of current communism as somehow 'cool" [...]
Where did you get that idea? You can't get much uncooler than being a communist when it comes to political opinions. If you want to be taken seriously in Europe don't call yourself a communist. (Well for most part, maybe some local communist parties still have some credit left but even these are always so called Euro-communists which effectively means they are just left wing social-democrats.)
[...] some kid putting up an aryan website someplace. [...]
You are aware that these kids are terrorizing whole sections of the population? That they are attacking people, especially immigrants? That people have died in these attacks? Since you like the bbc, why not take a look at these two stories from Germany:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/870086.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/903185.stm
Those "useful idiots" are the second wave mass murdered once a communist named and lead regime takes over anyplace.
Communist revolutions are basically peasant revolutions that always take place in agrarian societies. There simply isn't a powerbase for them in a developed society. So no need to worry about any second wave. Sorry, the Cold War is over.
If you want to know more about this subject checkout this classic: Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democray.
I ask, which is more unfortunate, the European
who is deprived of rights under law but enjoys
the effective liberty of those rights in fact,
Could you tell us where you see "Europeans deprived of rights" but effectively enjoying them? I can't think of any examples.
the American who's rights are protected by law
which is inoperative, disregarded by the system
of established governance, and denied to him in
practice?
As for the American situation, if you analysis is correct then maybe it's time for Americans to drop the struggle for freedom and go after power. After all if you have polical power you can choose your own freedoms.
--the funny part of these "laws" is the selective blinders they use. [...]
See? Pure hypocrisy and triple speak.
The laws are about suppressing hate propaganda, not about blaming people for the deeds of their political ancestors or even blaming people for things that they did themselves. Until you get a grip on your own logic, dont use big words like hypocrisy and triple speak.
Governments lie, they demonize whom they wish to demonize, create a class of "less than humans" so they can go kill them and steal from them.
Yes, nothing new here. But the usual excuses do not include "hate" but rather "enemy of the people", genetic inferiority, or national security.
To combat this kind of thing we have a tool that is called 'democracy'. Used effectively it can be used to control state elites, economic elites and every other elite for that matter. Unfortunately libertarians like you dont have a clue how to use this tool, that is why you lot are losing every major political battle.
Everything is obvious once it's been done, isn't it?
It certainly isn't. If things are obvious (several) other people will come up with the same idea independent of the first patenter. This has happend here and that is why the idea is obvious.
Obviousness is not 100% objective but it is certainly not as subjective as you make it out to be.
The idea is to show with this absurd logic the absurdity of a closely related statement: guns dont kill people; people kill people; so guns are ok. Or in other words: good tools dont matter.
[I] run out into the street with my letter-opener and stab 11 random people to death
heh, exactly my point: if you are doing fine with a letter-opener why do you need a gun?
I dont have any strong views about guns btw, I am just poking holes in a dumb argument.
There are no local pies, the world economy is one big pie. And you are right, even when the world economy is growing some people in some places still get poorer in absolute terms.
Dont fall in the neo-mercantilist trap, first world charity won't fix third world problems. Countries are poor because they don't use their labour resources efficiently, and they aren't using them efficiently because there are warlords or a kleptocrat elite that will take their profits away anyway.
The economy is not a zero sum game. One person's profit is not another's loss.
You are saying 2 different things here. The first statement is right: the production is (usually) growing every year and so the pie we get to divide is getter bigger every year. Definitely not zero sum.
But this yearly pie can be divided only once. Your income from profits, salary or otherwise determines how big your personal piece of that pie is. This dividing of the pie is a zero sum game. If your employer pays you more he will have less pie and you'll have more. If he is a monopolist he will be able to charge high prices and therefore a get a big piece of the pie while his customers will have to settle for a smaller piece cause they can spend their money only once.
So as consumers/citizen we are in a classic dilemma. On the one side we want to promote productivity by rewarding companies with high profits while on the other side we want them to have low profits as we rather spend that money ourselves. We need to find a balance here of course.
Well they used to be in the shit shovelling (guano) business if I remember correctly. Dunno what they are doing now, but this just might be an improvement. --
As long as there is a significant percentage of consumers with dvd players that won't play other region disks zoning is very relevant.
As long as this is the case retailers in Europe will sell either exclusively region 2 disks or both region 1 and region 2 disks. So the markets are smaller and so there will be higher costs and less competition. And therefore the prices will be higher.
The fact that disks can be cheaper when ordered through inefficient means as mailorder from the States or Jersey tells it all: you are being screwed. Sure a little less than some other people, but you still pay more than you would have to in a market without regions.
--
You can look a CEO in the face and say "fuck you" and walk away if he orders you to do something. A cop does it, you risk going to jail. There is a difference!
Is that what you really want from life? Saying "fuck you" to someone important.
Now think of the things you really want. Perhaps a career? a big house? respect? a beautiful wife? A corporation can help with all that, well sometimes:). So you better do what they want you to or you might end up as a loser.
That is real power, as real as the government power you describe. --
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it's _bad_ laws that do that, not laws in general.
We need less laws not more.
Nope we need better laws. More or less laws is irrelevant. Laws are just tools.
The day they treat companies as a living entity is the day it all went wrong.
Nope, the day it all went wrong was the day that we forgot how to control government and got so delusional that we thought that fighting government instead of controlling it would be the way to freedom.
And as to the score of your post (+5 interesting), the only thing interesting about it is that you can get this score here on
If you define monopoly like that it just means that we have to find another word to describe what is going on, which is that Microsoft has a _very_ powerful market position.
The fact that they don't have absolute power doesn't mean they have no power at all. The reason why Microsoft is so influential is that they control so many standards and it is mostly because their control over these standards and not the exceptional quality of their software that they can charge the prices they charge.
The most obvious consequence is that non Microsoft customers get hit everyday when communicating with outside computers because their software doesn't support the current de facto Microsoft standard and once it does support this standard Microsoft will try to change the standard by introducing new features. Microsoft customers pay far too much for their software to avoid all this.
That said, the EU is going about this the wrong way. Instead of trying to block new Microsoft controlled standards (or any privately controlled standards for that matter) they should set the standards themselves. Right now they are fighting the same losing battle that the US fought.
If it has been established that there is nothing about software that makes it different from other goods, then you must argue that patents in general are a bad idea.
To argue that patents in general are a bad is certainly an option as the costs seem high and only a limited portion of the rewards end up with the actual innovator (if there is one).But there is also an important economic difference between software and many other goods: software is a nonrival good. So I could argue that patents don't work for these type of goods as they do too much damage to offset the possible profits. And I probably would have a case as a software patents can only be exploited if you market them as an exclusive product. So the nonrival product needs to be made rival if the patent is to be of any use. And that rules out the often more efficient Open Source way of software production and distribution. Products that are rival by nature obviously don't have this downside.
My economical argument and your philosophical argument seem to converge here btw
I don't think the so called "economic" arguments are even arguments per se. Once you have given up your philosophical ground you have given up.
The justification of software patents is an economic argument so with economic arguments you attack the very root of the software patent legislation.
I don't understand what you see in philosophical arguments. The whole patent system is just a tool to get a job done: promoting innovation. If patenting software is indeed patenting ideas why would you be against it if it had only positive consequences? Or do you think there are other non-economic consequences?
I think the only useful (and powerful) objections to the directive are economic ones.
Amen to that.
Both the free speech angle and the natural rights routine are useless. Even if we assume that the logic of these arguments is correct it still doesn't matter as most of us would happily make an exception for patents if that brought us economic benefit.
If they could provide compelling evidence that patents are good for the economy and that there is no better alternative, than I for one would be all for it. Little chance of that happening though.
To end on a positive note, in the memorandum you linked tells us:
[...] each packaged software job creates 2-4 jobs in the downstream economy and 1 job in the upstream economy.
The writer actually seems to think this is something positive! Why change a lightbulb on your own when you can do it with a whole team.
As long as these kind of numbers remain true the future of open source is sunny indeed!
This is a great story. I wish more (local) governments would set up companies in monopoly markets to encourage competition. Can you provide me with a link with some more hard info please?
And I have seen so many people explaining you shouldn't put auto_ptr's in containers that I probably bombmail the next one who writes about it.
The STL is very well documented, you just got to pay for the quality stuff. The Josuttis book is your friend.
Only library programmers will usually write things like that. In normal use you just use sort(...) and fill(...) and the compiler will generate the right function for you depending on the arguments. At least that is how it works in C++.
I dont know how good the implementation in Java is, but for C++ everbody I know who learned it, loved it. It is a large part of what makes C++ such a sexy language.
Are you really suggesting that code that makes heavy use of templates is verbose? Have you ever programmed using generic libraries? FYI they tend to be very powerfull (little code == lots of action). C is for fast typers, (modern!) C++ is not, Java is somewhere in between.
No, they are mostly about speed and reuse of code.
You are being too modest. The reason why Linux became so popular was not because of some lawsuit, or the Linux Technical Elite producing superior software. It was openness---everbody was welcome---and grassroots support that gave Linux momentum and made it such a success.
You are one of the grassroots hero's that made it happen. Be proud and don't let these Slashdot elite wannabees tell you otherwise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/870086.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/903185.stm
Communist revolutions are basically peasant revolutions that always take place in agrarian societies. There simply isn't a powerbase for them in a developed society. So no need to worry about any second wave. Sorry, the Cold War is over. If you want to know more about this subject checkout this classic: Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democray.To combat this kind of thing we have a tool that is called 'democracy'. Used effectively it can be used to control state elites, economic elites and every other elite for that matter. Unfortunately libertarians like you dont have a clue how to use this tool, that is why you lot are losing every major political battle.
(2) Where did you get this weird idea that Marx wanted to kill all capitalists? Not from the Communist Manifesto, that is for sure.
It certainly isn't. If things are obvious (several) other people will come up with the same idea independent of the first patenter. This has happend here and that is why the idea is obvious.
Obviousness is not 100% objective but it is certainly not as subjective as you make it out to be.
Good, you noticed. :)
The idea is to show with this absurd logic the absurdity of a closely related statement: guns dont kill people; people kill people; so guns are ok. Or in other words: good tools dont matter.
heh, exactly my point: if you are doing fine with a letter-opener why do you need a gun?
I dont have any strong views about guns btw, I am just poking holes in a dumb argument.
Dont fall in the neo-mercantilist trap, first world charity won't fix third world problems. Countries are poor because they don't use their labour resources efficiently, and they aren't using them efficiently because there are warlords or a kleptocrat elite that will take their profits away anyway.
You are saying 2 different things here. The first statement is right: the production is (usually) growing every year and so the pie we get to divide is getter bigger every year. Definitely not zero sum.
But this yearly pie can be divided only once. Your income from profits, salary or otherwise determines how big your personal piece of that pie is. This dividing of the pie is a zero sum game. If your employer pays you more he will have less pie and you'll have more. If he is a monopolist he will be able to charge high prices and therefore a get a big piece of the pie while his customers will have to settle for a smaller piece cause they can spend their money only once.
So as consumers/citizen we are in a classic dilemma. On the one side we want to promote productivity by rewarding companies with high profits while on the other side we want them to have low profits as we rather spend that money ourselves. We need to find a balance here of course.
LINUX DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN OS. IT USES GNU.
If that is your opinion then call it GNU instead of GNU/Linux and don't steal the name Linux.
The 'Linux' part in GNU/Linux is not there to honor the efforts of the many people involved in the Linux movement. That makes its use unethical.
Personally, I think he's trying to avoid a massive flame war.
Yes that has always been his attitude. Maybe he should be a little more combative and deny the GNU/Linux people the use of his trademark.:)
Now that would be fun!
And without Linux RMS & GNU would be irrelevant.
Well they used to be in the shit shovelling (guano) business if I remember correctly. Dunno what they are doing now, but this just might be an improvement.
--
The reason you got only 4 point instead of the usual 5 is that you forgot the last part of a succesful post:
I know this is gonna hurt my karma but I'll post it anyway. MOD ME DOWN! I DON'T CARE.
--
As long as this is the case retailers in Europe will sell either exclusively region 2 disks or both region 1 and region 2 disks. So the markets are smaller and so there will be higher costs and less competition. And therefore the prices will be higher.
The fact that disks can be cheaper when ordered through inefficient means as mailorder from the States or Jersey tells it all: you are being screwed. Sure a little less than some other people, but you still pay more than you would have to in a market without regions.
--
Is that what you really want from life? Saying "fuck you" to someone important.
Now think of the things you really want. Perhaps a career? a big house? respect? a beautiful wife? A corporation can help with all that, well sometimes :). So you better do what they want you to or you might end up as a loser.
That is real power, as real as the government power you describe.
--