Capatalism has long been accepted as the best model for the development of society - universally since the fall of Communism.
Um, no. Capitalism is the simplest method (that I know of) to promote unrestrained economic growth and a motivational factor for individuals to put themselves above their peers and society as a whole. Capitalism orients a society towards capital - money - period. If something adds to your ability to make more money, it's beneficial. Conversely, if something is of dubious monetary value (or actually reduces monetary returns) then it is detrimental.
There's a reason the chinese don't believe in Intellectual Property rights - IP is fundamentally a capitalist construct. If your goal is to aid in the development of society - by which I mean add to the social, physical, and philosophical wellbeing and richness of a culture - making ideas freely available is the best means to achieve your goal. If your goal is to make money, you will do everything in your power to exploit your 'right' to knowledge. If others want to use it, you impose a use tax. While they may be benefitting, and society may be benefitting, you are benefitting in the only way that matters in a capitalist society.
The american dream is to become one of the elite, and the only way most people have of understanding a path to being one of the elite is through money. Research institutions and schools for higher learning are just following the natural progression of all institutions in end-stage capitalism. Read some Marx and Engel - note that true socialism evolves from end-stage capitalism, not from the overthrow of a monarchy.
We just might find ourselves in a socialist state in a few hundred more years. (which is not to say I think that'll be any better or worse - just interesting.)
The judge returned the case to the district court for review because the US now allows export of strong encryption. The only reason this case was ruled as it was is because what he did is no longer illegal. This does not challenge the constitutionality of the DMCA circumvention clauses and (unfortunately) will quite probably not affect other source code suits in progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, Diamond makes the Diamond Rio.
Creative makes the Nomad.
They're competitors. :)
Um, no. Capitalism is the simplest method (that I know of) to promote unrestrained economic growth and a motivational factor for individuals to put themselves above their peers and society as a whole. Capitalism orients a society towards capital - money - period. If something adds to your ability to make more money, it's beneficial. Conversely, if something is of dubious monetary value (or actually reduces monetary returns) then it is detrimental.
There's a reason the chinese don't believe in Intellectual Property rights - IP is fundamentally a capitalist construct. If your goal is to aid in the development of society - by which I mean add to the social, physical, and philosophical wellbeing and richness of a culture - making ideas freely available is the best means to achieve your goal. If your goal is to make money, you will do everything in your power to exploit your 'right' to knowledge. If others want to use it, you impose a use tax. While they may be benefitting, and society may be benefitting, you are benefitting in the only way that matters in a capitalist society.
The american dream is to become one of the elite, and the only way most people have of understanding a path to being one of the elite is through money. Research institutions and schools for higher learning are just following the natural progression of all institutions in end-stage capitalism. Read some Marx and Engel - note that true socialism evolves from end-stage capitalism, not from the overthrow of a monarchy.
We just might find ourselves in a socialist state in a few hundred more years. (which is not to say I think that'll be any better or worse - just interesting.)
The judge returned the case to the district court for review because the US now allows export of strong encryption. The only reason this case was ruled as it was is because what he did is no longer illegal. This does not challenge the constitutionality of the DMCA circumvention clauses and (unfortunately) will quite probably not affect other source code suits in progress.