A concise explanation of the gray area, with citation of the national park service standard that clearly resulted from significant consideration of how to balance the regulation. An outstanding post. Thanks!
That one says nothing about putting it on government computers, and has these points implying that they are talking about privately owned computers.
These are making the public safe online and ensuring the country is one of the best in the world for online business;
"Building the most resilient cyber defences in the world will not help if you are suffering from intellectual property theft," he said. "Trusted computing underpins security and can underpin growth,..."
Pengelly added that he is now working with a cyber security team in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to work out what incentives the government could provide to encourage the take-up of the relevant standards.
There's no point in it unless the real agenda is to wrest control from users' hands.
I agree. From the article:
"Building the most resilient cyber defences in the world will not help if you are suffering from intellectual property theft," he said. "Trusted computing underpins security and can underpin growth,..."
The "he" in the above quote is Owen Pengelly, deputy director of policy at the Office for Cyber Security and Information Assurance in the Cabinet Office. They are actually being surprisingly forthright about it this time. "Trusted" means that the MAFIAA can trust your computer to not do what you want it to do.
Generally in my practical experience when you find people preaching something other than what they practice one or both of the following is true. They are profoundly lacking in self awareness and understanding of their own situation, or they preaching something that is impractical and often impossible.
One of the things that gets mentioned is using Facebook, when Facebook is a fairly iconic representation of the nouveau megacorp. I think in this case it is the latter of the two possibilities that you suggest; that it is impractical to use anything other than Facebook. Similarly, Apple is trying very hard, using the kleptocratic patent system, to make it impractical to use anything other than an iPad as a tablet computer.
So, yes, it is impractical to do otherwise. And it is that impracticality that is at the heart of what these people want fixed. Concentration of income/power/capital, with a fervently complicit and corrupt government chaperoning the process, is reflected in the rise of megacorps and low-order n-opolies. Low-order n-opolies result in markets with small numbers of alternatives, ie: impracticality of using an alternative. (they also result in shit-house GDP growth, due to lack of competition and innovation, but I digress)
When someone says, "And they're using iPhones to do it!!!", they are pointing out a symptom of the very problem that these people are reacting to.
BTW, this is not to say that the protestors understand all the mechanics above -- I think most of them do not -- but the above is the chain of events that results in a significant percentage of people having an emotional and poorly informed reaction to system bias.
It was only when the worst Fannie and Freddie loans started being packaged that way in the 90's that the rest of the market then saw an opportunity to also offloaded bad loans in the same way, with the idea that the government was now never going to crack down on the practice of rating worthless paper as AAA and further that paper wasnt so worthless if the government was guaranteeing at least some of it.
So it was indeed a market distortion caused by government influences.
Really? The government failing to crack down on malfeasance is a market distortion caused by government influences? I agree they were the right ones to stop it, but failing to stop the banks from crashing the world and being the cause are two different things.
Families that bring home $35K/year know that they cannot afford a fucking $300,000 home. Don't let some twat trying to lay all the blame on the banks tell you differently.
Seriously? You seriously believe that millions of people bought houses that they knew they would not be able to pay for? That millions of people went into it knowing they would be foreclosed? You really believe that such a large number of people -- in fact, a very large percentage of the people who bought between 2004 and 2007 -- would buy a house, fully understanding that it would get foreclosed?
You don't find it slightly more probable that they did not understand the concepts of ARM or reverse amortization? That the banks that were writing the loans had not decided to downplay the risk since they were selling the paper before the ink was dry, and hence faced no risk themselves?
Let me put it in perspective; I'm working on an economic research project relating to maximizing income by maximizing the long-term GDP growth rate. I am consulting with people from a variety of perspectives. Only two have intuitively grasped that maximizing long-term GDP growth is equal to maximizing income. I'm having a hard time explaining it to, among others, a retired investment banker who now teaches economics at a respected business school. And you think the average chucklehead understands reverse amortization?
You think that he understands reverse amortization, and knows he will get foreclosed, but signs on anyway? And that it wasn't just a few hundred, or a few thousand, but millions that did the exact same thing?
You write well, so you are clearly not retarded, but it seems like you haven't taken the time to critically analyze the situation from all angles.
the only way to cut the octopus tentacles away is a constitutional amendment to strip corporations of their "personal" rights. Only then will our government be able to function properly
they don't get big busts when it comes to actual child rapists as it can takes sometimes years to track them down.
That, and there just aren't enough to go around. Child rapists -- especially if you don't include statutory, which doesn't make as good a headline -- are exceedingly rare. They are far less common than murderers, for example, and there are hardly enough of those to ensure that enough prosecutors get to nail one. If you are a D.A. who wants to show that he is making cases against child predators, you simply can't wait around for someone to rape a child. You have to have laws that make more common behaviors illegal to enable those involved in the prosecution of the law to demonstrate their metal.
OK,"No Taxation without Representation" is not exactly what I mean. What I really mean is this: No subsidies without quid pro quo. If we're going to recognize it is a necessity and start handing them our hard-earned money, I want the public to get a big fat return on its money: I want common carrier restored -- the same level of protection from scrutiny and interference, public and private as mail or POTS.
Well, on the public side, the same level we would have if the Bill of Rights were still being observed.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I want a pony too.
How about this: Julius, at least show a little bit of balls here: Trade the money for net neutrality. That is what is really going to piss me off. We're going to give them these new subsidies and they're still going to sue to be allowed to turn the Internet into television.
Now, of course the poor starving movie execs will loose, but they're free to get a job at McD.
All the artists and craftspersons that are actually required should of course get by.
Hmmm, so the current bloodthirsty interpretation of copyright doesn't work, but there is a flaw in eliminating copyright altogether. If only there were some way to secure a limited right for a shorter period of time. Like, suppose copyright lasted for 7 years automatically, then could be re-upped for another 7, and suppose it did not cover copying for educational purposes or satire. That would give enough financial incentive to keep those people who are genuinely passionate about the craft in the game, without creating such an enormous cashflow as to attract all the lawyers and sociopaths (who ultimately wind up drowning out the people who are doing it because they have a genuine gift, or something important to say).
It almost seems like some really sharp people could have figured that out right at the beginning.
I really enjoy the community and the moderation system on Slashdot. The combination of the 2 are working well together,
Hear Hear! This is a well run place, compared to the rest. By a huge margin.
posted with completely false information in the headline or summary, with a 100+ comment conversation
I find if I wait for a bit, the community usually finds the flaws and points them out fairly quickly. Few things a typical Slashdotter likes more than pointing out egregious factual errors. Now, admittedly, an early or surface scan of such a story may look like a wart. But the fact that the community almost always corrects it makes it clear it is a beauty mark (or some better metaphor).
+1 agree -- Javascript is nice for high-interactivity designs. Reading comments is not high-interactivity. Simple works better. Javascript on a discussion forum is like nitrous on a garbage truck.
The moderation system seriously needs thinking and redone.
Name an online community with a more successful moderation system.
it's always clear what kind of comments will be modded up and which down
Lots of people complain about this, but every time I see a story about copyright or Microsoft (two that you mention) there are a number of +5 comments that present the opposition view in an insightful and intriguing way.
I suspect the problem is not with this community, but with the world. Saying "Microsoft is great!" or "We must protect the artists!" garners mindless and citation-less fawning on every pop-media rag from CNN to Time Magazine to Fox. It is only natural that you might assume that mindlessly spewing the conventional "wisdom" would get modded up here. In this place, however, one must say something which is both true and well said (or at least funny) to get modded up, in most cases.
Supporting Microsoft or the RIAA while telling the truth is challenging enough. With the addition of the "interesting and vaguely grammatical" filter, it may be less common to see such posts modded up than you might expect. That does not necessarily show unnatural bias -- it may simply reflect a greater respect for things like empirical evidence and the actual principles of an efficient free market than you are used to observing in the eighth-grade-drooling-idiot-targeted media.
Seriously, it's a strange trend you'll begin to notice if you follow the news--when Democrat politicians do something unpopular, political affiliation is often left unmentioned.
That sounds like a pretty important thing to have some actual data on. If you have skills cutting code, and you sincerely believe that is happening, you should scrape some news sites, run the stats, and hang the documented bias flag around the neck of the culprits.
Short of that, on the other hand, it sounds like you're making unfounded allegations to support one of the two evil political machines. If that is the case, wake up -- they both see you as a subject.
I still have OOo on my Linux box, and switched my Mac to LibreOffice a month or two ago. I don't spend a huge amount of time in Libre on the Mac, but it worked great for one 250 page spec document and a few smaller pieces.
A fine step from very evil to... less evil, but still very evil.
Under House Bill 75, teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it, did not solicit the image and did not send it to someone.
So let me get this straight: A 16 year old's girlfriend sends him a picture, he is guilty unless he reports her to the police?
First, bite my shiny metal ass.
Second, good luck upholding that when it goes to a court above the Florida level.
Third, to expand on item one; holy shit are you a bunch of nasty assholes. Up until a circuit or the Supremes knock this foul law flat on its ass, it is going to put a lot of kids in really nasty quandaries about their obligations to the people they care about versus the state. Honestly, I figure it's safe to assume you will be creating thousands of anti-authoritarians in one stroke of your pen. I'm sure the year 2021 thanks you for the increase in civil disobedience you are creating.
Fourth, they're just body parts. They can't hurt you. How does it make sense to put kids into the ironically named "correctional system" because they received a picture of a breast? You think they are going to come out better people? That it will improve our future? You are bat-shit-looney if you believe that.
This is not about Awlaki. In my opinion, Awlaki is a piece of shit who deserved to die and his death makes the world a better place. A better place for us, for Yemen, for the Middle East, for Islam, and perhaps most of all; a better place for the impressionable kids whose minds he has been twisting. This has nothing to do with whether Awlaki getting capped was a good thing.
This is about us. It is about the principles that we choose to live by, even when it means we can't kill some piece of shit who clearly deserves it.
You are not allowed to punch people who talk on their cell phones in the movie theater. That is clearly bullshit, because people who talk on their cell phones in movie theaters totally deserve to get punched in the face. The reason we do not do it has nothing to do with what that asshole deserves. He deserves to get punched in the face. The reason we do not is because we, The United States and its Citizens, live by principles. Our unwavering dedication to our principles is the bedrock of our moral superiority. The bedrock of our principles is what lets us sleep at night when we must send our children to risk their lives and to kill.
We don't whine, wheedle, and try to figure out angles around our principles. We puff out our chests, point at The Constitution, and with a gleam in our eye declare, "We are just, and we do not sacrifice our principles to our passions. We are better than you." When that bedrock turns to sand, we become the enemy. If we give up our principles, all we have left to fight for are our money and power.
on the one hand they want to spy on each and everything on the other hand they want to keep their turf secret
Does one have to be schizophrenic to work there?
I believe a more apt term would be megalomaniacal; believing oneself to have absolute moral superiority -- in this case, over a craven race of incipient terrorists, pedophiles, and copyright infringers.
I haven't had much time to dig in yet, but I hear good things about Less Wrong from some friends who are into game theory, ai, and sociology.
Here's their front page blurb:
Thinking and deciding are central to our daily lives. The Less Wrong community aims to gain expertise in how human brains think and decide, so that we can do so more successfully. We use the latest insights from cognitive science, social psychology, probability theory, and decision theory to improve our understanding of how the world works and what we can do to achieve our goals.
I did some testing of fueling a biochar maker with junk mail. I had problems with creosote buildup on the spark arrestor, but I definitely think it could be fixed. Ultimately, though, I suspect low-therm processes, such as vermiculture, would be more efficient both in terms of sequestration rate and ultimately in fuel generation (by using the fertilizer to increase the growth rate of crops that are more suited to biofuel processing).
Don't know if my post really adds much to the conversation, except to say, "Yeah, I've thought about that too!":)
you have basically made the argument that they should not volunteer at all.
I have not.
In the context of open source, what I said implies that it would increase the GDP growth rate if companies which garner economic advantage from open source were to transfer some portion of their upside to those contributing developers who were otherwise sub-optimally compensated.
it was solidly demonstrated through collaborative projects like open-source software that people will ply their skills for the sake of plying their skills regardless of personal gain, or lack thereof.
I believe it has been solidly demonstrated that people will do some amount of open source development even without compensation.
Are you positing that the amount of open source development that happens is entirely unaffected by compensation?
No, but it is an asymmetric relationship which is shifting wealth (in the economic sense; the ability to satisfy wants, not cash) from one group of people to another. Such asymmetry is ever worthy of consideration, at least for anyone who loves the free market. The free market would be most efficient if all transactions were perfectly symmetric. Any who believe that there is value in maximizing GDP would do well to always contemplate asymmetric transactions, and ponder if there is a way to influence the market to more closely approximate symmetry.
Any who believes asymmetry is a good thing is an enemy of the free market; a thief and a brigand.
Slashdot Mirror
oh well. I love you guys
A worthwhile point that made me smile -- always remember, Slashdot, we wouldn't bitch about you if we didn't care. :)
A concise explanation of the gray area, with citation of the national park service standard that clearly resulted from significant consideration of how to balance the regulation. An outstanding post. Thanks!
The article quite clearly states that the government wants *its own* computers to have TPM installed, it doesn't mention anything about home users.
I'm not sure which article you read. The original post links to the one at this address: http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/oct/21/cyber-security-strategy-trusted-computing
That one says nothing about putting it on government computers, and has these points implying that they are talking about privately owned computers.
These are making the public safe online and ensuring the country is one of the best in the world for online business;
"Building the most resilient cyber defences in the world will not help if you are suffering from intellectual property theft," he said. "Trusted computing underpins security and can underpin growth,..."
Pengelly added that he is now working with a cyber security team in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to work out what incentives the government could provide to encourage the take-up of the relevant standards.
There's no point in it unless the real agenda is to wrest control from users' hands.
I agree. From the article:
"Building the most resilient cyber defences in the world will not help if you are suffering from intellectual property theft," he said. "Trusted computing underpins security and can underpin growth,..."
The "he" in the above quote is Owen Pengelly, deputy director of policy at the Office for Cyber Security and Information Assurance in the Cabinet Office. They are actually being surprisingly forthright about it this time. "Trusted" means that the MAFIAA can trust your computer to not do what you want it to do.
Generally in my practical experience when you find people preaching something other than what they practice one or both of the following is true. They are profoundly lacking in self awareness and understanding of their own situation, or they preaching something that is impractical and often impossible.
One of the things that gets mentioned is using Facebook, when Facebook is a fairly iconic representation of the nouveau megacorp. I think in this case it is the latter of the two possibilities that you suggest; that it is impractical to use anything other than Facebook. Similarly, Apple is trying very hard, using the kleptocratic patent system, to make it impractical to use anything other than an iPad as a tablet computer.
So, yes, it is impractical to do otherwise. And it is that impracticality that is at the heart of what these people want fixed. Concentration of income/power/capital, with a fervently complicit and corrupt government chaperoning the process, is reflected in the rise of megacorps and low-order n-opolies. Low-order n-opolies result in markets with small numbers of alternatives, ie: impracticality of using an alternative. (they also result in shit-house GDP growth, due to lack of competition and innovation, but I digress)
When someone says, "And they're using iPhones to do it!!!", they are pointing out a symptom of the very problem that these people are reacting to.
BTW, this is not to say that the protestors understand all the mechanics above -- I think most of them do not -- but the above is the chain of events that results in a significant percentage of people having an emotional and poorly informed reaction to system bias.
It was only when the worst Fannie and Freddie loans started being packaged that way in the 90's that the rest of the market then saw an opportunity to also offloaded bad loans in the same way, with the idea that the government was now never going to crack down on the practice of rating worthless paper as AAA and further that paper wasnt so worthless if the government was guaranteeing at least some of it.
So it was indeed a market distortion caused by government influences.
Really? The government failing to crack down on malfeasance is a market distortion caused by government influences? I agree they were the right ones to stop it, but failing to stop the banks from crashing the world and being the cause are two different things.
Families that bring home $35K/year know that they cannot afford a fucking $300,000 home. Don't let some twat trying to lay all the blame on the banks tell you differently.
Seriously? You seriously believe that millions of people bought houses that they knew they would not be able to pay for? That millions of people went into it knowing they would be foreclosed? You really believe that such a large number of people -- in fact, a very large percentage of the people who bought between 2004 and 2007 -- would buy a house, fully understanding that it would get foreclosed?
You don't find it slightly more probable that they did not understand the concepts of ARM or reverse amortization? That the banks that were writing the loans had not decided to downplay the risk since they were selling the paper before the ink was dry, and hence faced no risk themselves?
Let me put it in perspective; I'm working on an economic research project relating to maximizing income by maximizing the long-term GDP growth rate. I am consulting with people from a variety of perspectives. Only two have intuitively grasped that maximizing long-term GDP growth is equal to maximizing income. I'm having a hard time explaining it to, among others, a retired investment banker who now teaches economics at a respected business school. And you think the average chucklehead understands reverse amortization?
You think that he understands reverse amortization, and knows he will get foreclosed, but signs on anyway? And that it wasn't just a few hundred, or a few thousand, but millions that did the exact same thing?
You write well, so you are clearly not retarded, but it seems like you haven't taken the time to critically analyze the situation from all angles.
the only way to cut the octopus tentacles away is a constitutional amendment to strip corporations of their "personal" rights. Only then will our government be able to function properly
Well said.
they don't get big busts when it comes to actual child rapists as it can takes sometimes years to track them down.
That, and there just aren't enough to go around. Child rapists -- especially if you don't include statutory, which doesn't make as good a headline -- are exceedingly rare. They are far less common than murderers, for example, and there are hardly enough of those to ensure that enough prosecutors get to nail one. If you are a D.A. who wants to show that he is making cases against child predators, you simply can't wait around for someone to rape a child. You have to have laws that make more common behaviors illegal to enable those involved in the prosecution of the law to demonstrate their metal.
</jonathanSwift>
OK,"No Taxation without Representation" is not exactly what I mean. What I really mean is this: No subsidies without quid pro quo. If we're going to recognize it is a necessity and start handing them our hard-earned money, I want the public to get a big fat return on its money: I want common carrier restored -- the same level of protection from scrutiny and interference, public and private as mail or POTS.
Well, on the public side, the same level we would have if the Bill of Rights were still being observed.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I want a pony too.
How about this: Julius, at least show a little bit of balls here: Trade the money for net neutrality. That is what is really going to piss me off. We're going to give them these new subsidies and they're still going to sue to be allowed to turn the Internet into television.
Now, of course the poor starving movie execs will loose, but they're free to get a job at McD.
All the artists and craftspersons that are actually required should of course get by.
Hmmm, so the current bloodthirsty interpretation of copyright doesn't work, but there is a flaw in eliminating copyright altogether. If only there were some way to secure a limited right for a shorter period of time. Like, suppose copyright lasted for 7 years automatically, then could be re-upped for another 7, and suppose it did not cover copying for educational purposes or satire. That would give enough financial incentive to keep those people who are genuinely passionate about the craft in the game, without creating such an enormous cashflow as to attract all the lawyers and sociopaths (who ultimately wind up drowning out the people who are doing it because they have a genuine gift, or something important to say).
It almost seems like some really sharp people could have figured that out right at the beginning.
Oh yeah, they did.
I really enjoy the community and the moderation system on Slashdot. The combination of the 2 are working well together,
Hear Hear! This is a well run place, compared to the rest. By a huge margin.
posted with completely false information in the headline or summary, with a 100+ comment conversation
I find if I wait for a bit, the community usually finds the flaws and points them out fairly quickly. Few things a typical Slashdotter likes more than pointing out egregious factual errors. Now, admittedly, an early or surface scan of such a story may look like a wart. But the fact that the community almost always corrects it makes it clear it is a beauty mark (or some better metaphor).
+1 agree -- Javascript is nice for high-interactivity designs. Reading comments is not high-interactivity. Simple works better. Javascript on a discussion forum is like nitrous on a garbage truck.
The moderation system seriously needs thinking and redone.
Name an online community with a more successful moderation system.
it's always clear what kind of comments will be modded up and which down
Lots of people complain about this, but every time I see a story about copyright or Microsoft (two that you mention) there are a number of +5 comments that present the opposition view in an insightful and intriguing way.
I suspect the problem is not with this community, but with the world. Saying "Microsoft is great!" or "We must protect the artists!" garners mindless and citation-less fawning on every pop-media rag from CNN to Time Magazine to Fox. It is only natural that you might assume that mindlessly spewing the conventional "wisdom" would get modded up here. In this place, however, one must say something which is both true and well said (or at least funny) to get modded up, in most cases.
Supporting Microsoft or the RIAA while telling the truth is challenging enough. With the addition of the "interesting and vaguely grammatical" filter, it may be less common to see such posts modded up than you might expect. That does not necessarily show unnatural bias -- it may simply reflect a greater respect for things like empirical evidence and the actual principles of an efficient free market than you are used to observing in the eighth-grade-drooling-idiot-targeted media.
Seriously, it's a strange trend you'll begin to notice if you follow the news--when Democrat politicians do something unpopular, political affiliation is often left unmentioned.
That sounds like a pretty important thing to have some actual data on. If you have skills cutting code, and you sincerely believe that is happening, you should scrape some news sites, run the stats, and hang the documented bias flag around the neck of the culprits.
Short of that, on the other hand, it sounds like you're making unfounded allegations to support one of the two evil political machines. If that is the case, wake up -- they both see you as a subject.
I still have OOo on my Linux box, and switched my Mac to LibreOffice a month or two ago. I don't spend a huge amount of time in Libre on the Mac, but it worked great for one 250 page spec document and a few smaller pieces.
Very well stated. Very good analysis and presentation of a nuanced issue. Thank you.
A fine step from very evil to ... less evil, but still very evil.
Under House Bill 75, teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it, did not solicit the image and did not send it to someone.
So let me get this straight: A 16 year old's girlfriend sends him a picture, he is guilty unless he reports her to the police?
First, bite my shiny metal ass.
Second, good luck upholding that when it goes to a court above the Florida level.
Third, to expand on item one; holy shit are you a bunch of nasty assholes. Up until a circuit or the Supremes knock this foul law flat on its ass, it is going to put a lot of kids in really nasty quandaries about their obligations to the people they care about versus the state. Honestly, I figure it's safe to assume you will be creating thousands of anti-authoritarians in one stroke of your pen. I'm sure the year 2021 thanks you for the increase in civil disobedience you are creating.
Fourth, they're just body parts. They can't hurt you. How does it make sense to put kids into the ironically named "correctional system" because they received a picture of a breast? You think they are going to come out better people? That it will improve our future? You are bat-shit-looney if you believe that.
This is not about Awlaki. In my opinion, Awlaki is a piece of shit who deserved to die and his death makes the world a better place. A better place for us, for Yemen, for the Middle East, for Islam, and perhaps most of all; a better place for the impressionable kids whose minds he has been twisting. This has nothing to do with whether Awlaki getting capped was a good thing.
This is about us. It is about the principles that we choose to live by, even when it means we can't kill some piece of shit who clearly deserves it.
You are not allowed to punch people who talk on their cell phones in the movie theater. That is clearly bullshit, because people who talk on their cell phones in movie theaters totally deserve to get punched in the face. The reason we do not do it has nothing to do with what that asshole deserves. He deserves to get punched in the face. The reason we do not is because we, The United States and its Citizens, live by principles. Our unwavering dedication to our principles is the bedrock of our moral superiority. The bedrock of our principles is what lets us sleep at night when we must send our children to risk their lives and to kill.
We don't whine, wheedle, and try to figure out angles around our principles. We puff out our chests, point at The Constitution, and with a gleam in our eye declare, "We are just, and we do not sacrifice our principles to our passions. We are better than you." When that bedrock turns to sand, we become the enemy. If we give up our principles, all we have left to fight for are our money and power.
has indeed publicly renounced his US citizenship.
Citation?
Traffic egress is from the U.S. and your IP address changes every day.
Have you thought about partnering with some foreign peers? I'd love to pay one bill each month and have proxies in half a dozen countries.
on the one hand they want to spy on each and everything
on the other hand they want to keep their turf secret
Does one have to be schizophrenic to work there?
I believe a more apt term would be megalomaniacal; believing oneself to have absolute moral superiority -- in this case, over a craven race of incipient terrorists, pedophiles, and copyright infringers.
I haven't had much time to dig in yet, but I hear good things about Less Wrong from some friends who are into game theory, ai, and sociology.
Here's their front page blurb:
Thinking and deciding are central to our daily lives. The Less Wrong community aims to gain expertise in how human brains think and decide, so that we can do so more successfully. We use the latest insights from cognitive science, social psychology, probability theory, and decision theory to improve our understanding of how the world works and what we can do to achieve our goals.
runs on junk mail.
I did some testing of fueling a biochar maker with junk mail. I had problems with creosote buildup on the spark arrestor, but I definitely think it could be fixed. Ultimately, though, I suspect low-therm processes, such as vermiculture, would be more efficient both in terms of sequestration rate and ultimately in fuel generation (by using the fertilizer to increase the growth rate of crops that are more suited to biofuel processing).
Don't know if my post really adds much to the conversation, except to say, "Yeah, I've thought about that too!" :)
you have basically made the argument that they should not volunteer at all.
I have not.
In the context of open source, what I said implies that it would increase the GDP growth rate if companies which garner economic advantage from open source were to transfer some portion of their upside to those contributing developers who were otherwise sub-optimally compensated.
it was solidly demonstrated through collaborative projects like open-source software that people will ply their skills for the sake of plying their skills regardless of personal gain, or lack thereof.
I believe it has been solidly demonstrated that people will do some amount of open source development even without compensation.
Are you positing that the amount of open source development that happens is entirely unaffected by compensation?
Nobody is forcing them to do it for fucks sake!
No, but it is an asymmetric relationship which is shifting wealth (in the economic sense; the ability to satisfy wants, not cash) from one group of people to another. Such asymmetry is ever worthy of consideration, at least for anyone who loves the free market. The free market would be most efficient if all transactions were perfectly symmetric. Any who believe that there is value in maximizing GDP would do well to always contemplate asymmetric transactions, and ponder if there is a way to influence the market to more closely approximate symmetry.
Any who believes asymmetry is a good thing is an enemy of the free market; a thief and a brigand.