I do agree with you that the initial creation of that code is not limitless and getting compensated for the time/effort/resources needed to write it certainly is not unethical.
But now take the source code, and place it on a server connected to the Internet. The code comes extremely close to becoming a limitless resource. Now the GPL still has nothing against you charging for its distribution. It clearly tells you that it's perfectly OK. What it does say is, "Hey, don't play games with the other fellow. Don't make your source code artificially scarce just to make a buck---that's just plain wrong. Share your code. In return, others will share their code with you. In the long run you'll be a lot better off for it."
Tried it...too many ads and so I don't quite trust it to give me the kind of pure results I seem to get from Google. I'll wait for Google to implement the same kind of categorization system or at least let other people who have the time test out visimio.
Yes, it's done all the time. If I make a car, I have to make sure it complies with certain safety standards. If I make a drug, I have to get FDA approval. And just because I manufacture a stick of dynamite, that sure as hell doesn't mean I can go blow up whatever I please.
Let's say person or company discovers a secret way to make limitless buckets of water magically appear. Of course, they don't want thirsty people living in the Sahara to knowing the secret because that would severely limit their ability to make money. Now, since they compete with others that also know how to make water magically appear, they do their best to make a very sweet and tasty drink. However, they also go out of their way to dope the water with highly addictive substances so unsuspecting customers keep coming back for more. And unfortunately, not everyone can afford buying the water made artificially scarce by the company. As a result, many go thirsty.
Then someone comes along and says, "Hey, I'll let you thirsty people share in my limitless water supply. True, it's very plain water right now. However, I'll also tell you the secret for creating your own water supply so you can modify it to meet your particular nutritional specifications and tastes. After all, it doesn't cost me a dime and it actually helps me because you will improve upon my recipe. I'll do this on the condition that, if you want to sell (or give away) the new water you create, you must disclose the ingredients. This is in the spirit of promoting the best water that everyone can benefit from."
Now the first scenario creates an ugly "have" vs. "have not" environment that, in reality, doesn't need to exist at all. And that business model also doesn't necessarily create the best product, but the product that will make the most money (get the most people addicted), even it is to the detriment of the thirsty person. Now the second guy probably isn't going to walk away with bags of money like the first guy. But the second guy probably will still get a lot of work plumbing all the homes that will have access to the limitless supply of water. He'll also be often called upon to help less knowledgable people modify their water recipes to their very specific needs. And someone will eventually pay him a healthy sum to figure out how to magically make bread appear.
In my eyes, not only is free software more ethical, it it would seem work toward the creation of a healthier and more prosperous society.
A thought or idea represented as 1s and 0s on a computer networked on the Internet. I'm assuming the transfer of that thought or idea into 1s and 0s has already been compensated for.
I pose this single question to the/. crowd and you must answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck? Why or why not?
You shouldn't try to make Stallman out to be something he is not. Stallman's whole argument for free software hinges on one single principle: that making an unscarce resource artificially scarce to make a profit is wrong. If you want to debate this one point, that's great. But to insinuate he is some kind of hippie-communist-crackpot for his belief, you do a disservice to logical debate.
The goal of free software is not to create software jobs, it's goal is to promote ethical conduct. Besides, Stallman has never argued it's "bad" to charge for writing code. If someone needs their free software modified, it's perfectly OK to get paid for your work.
So I pose this question to you, and answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?
The unwritten thesis of the article is that offshore workers are a bad choice when you need to be innovative with your software. I can only assume the author assumes offshore programmers can't be as innovative as domestic ones. I'm not saying that is or isn't true. I'm simply stating that he doesn't back his unwritten thesis up with any evidence. It's a bad article.
By the way, I don't consider myself to be a racist. But I was wondering if you consider yourself to be a flaming moron.
This article qualifies as "content"---stuff that at first glance seems informative but isn't. It fails to site even one reason why offshore workers are worse at innovating than domestic workers.
Hi, I don't live in S.F. but the way you describe yourself, I would definitely consider you to be an idiot (no offense). That's the truth. Yup, I think everyone who voted for Bush should be shot (everyone on who is not well-off, that is. Rich folk have the excuse that they were looking out for their own interest.) But anyone who is not rich and voted for Bush is a flaming idiot, in my book. And anyone who is a libertarian and reads the Bible is most likely an idiot. I can almost understand being a libertarian and being agnostic or atheistic, but actually reading the Bible and being a libertarian just smacks of idiocy.
Hey, I'm just telling you how I feel. Like I said, no offense. I do respect your right to be an idiot (even though you should probably be shot). There I got that off my chest. Peace.
Yes and no. True, you won't learn computer science learning Perl, but it can spark your curiousity further and you will dig deeper until you do get a good handle on the inner workings of your computer. I learned Perl first. That led to more questions, which led to more questions, etc. Then I bought books and learned other programming languages (like C) that helped me begin to answer those questions. It's only been three years since I started doing this but I feel I have at least a basic grasp of some of the guiding principles behind computer science. Given enough time and curiousity, you can teach yourself just about anything if you have solid literacy skills.
I think it matters little if you take a bottom up approach in a more formal educational environment or a top down approach by learning a programming language first. What matters most is is the burning desire to learn and explore.
Baloney. As someone with little knowledge of programming, I was able to pick up Perl as my first language.
I didn't do any serious programming until I was 30 years old (I wrote a handful of 100 line programs in Apple Basic when I was a kid). Because of my interest in the web, Perl was the first language I learned (this was before PHP came to dominate) but was able to learn it. Sure, there is a lot of built in magic in the syntax but it makes programming with it much easier and quicker. I've also done some work with Java and found it to be a huge pain in the ass to wade through the JavaDocs over and over again to do the simplest stuff. But with Perl, I can effortlessly code my own subroutine off the top of my head instead of relying on Java's painfully large library that may or may not have the code I need. And for more complex stuff, Perl has great built-in modules and CPAN. If a total programming newbie and hobbyist like me learned Perl, anyone can.
Figures! Leave it to the corporate greed mongers at PNC Bank(TM) to find a way to invade our mental space by hijacking the real meaning behind this sacred (albeit annoying) Christmas carol. Bah Humbug!
The only way the US got a telephone into everyone's house in the US was to make it a policy. The same goes for electricity.
As long as we American remain blinded to the possibility that government is good for something, we're going to remain forever a society of technological haves and have nots just like they have in the third world nations.
Also, this country pays $400,000,000,000 dollars each and every year for the military. That's over 20% of our annual budget. And after the Iraq war this year, it's probably closer to $600,000,000,000. It's quite astonishing to me that there is absolutely zero national debate about the size of our budget. We could have this entire country wired up in no time if are priorities were straight.
Actually, that's nothing compared to the 20% of the USA's budget going to the Department of Defense. They've got a commitement to closing the "Digital Divide" and we've got a commitment to blowing the world apart several times over.
Trillions? No. The population of South Korea is 50 million. So we're looking at very rough estimate of 500 billion for such an effort in the US. That figure isn't too much over the annual budget for the Department of Defense. I guess it really makes a difference where a country's priorities are, doesn't it?
And it's tough to put a dollar value on the kind of gains their economy will reap from this great infrastructure. Nor can you estimate the tremendous shot in the arm building this thing in the first place will be.
Let's see, in 1787, when the constitution was ratified, there was a grand total of 40 corporations in the United States. And all of them were tightly controlled by the individual states which had the power to revoke their charters if they did not serve the greater good. Are you actually trying to argue that the Constitution was designed to apply to the these 40 "people"? You, sir, are full of shit.
The Constitution didn't apply to the thousands of slaves who lived in the United States. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified that slaves were granted the rights of citizens. And if you'd take the time to read the 14th amendment, you'll see that it applies only to people, not corporations.
So the case can proceed in California courts. But when no one shows up to appear in court, then what? And then when the company getting sued loses the case and doesn't pay damages, then what? I don't see how this isn't going to stop anything or what RIAA hopes gain. There's no central server to shut down.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they kidding? Their database is one SQL statement away from having them removed.
But now take the source code, and place it on a server connected to the Internet. The code comes extremely close to becoming a limitless resource. Now the GPL still has nothing against you charging for its distribution. It clearly tells you that it's perfectly OK. What it does say is, "Hey, don't play games with the other fellow. Don't make your source code artificially scarce just to make a buck---that's just plain wrong. Share your code. In return, others will share their code with you. In the long run you'll be a lot better off for it."
What would you say in reply to this?
Tried it...too many ads and so I don't quite trust it to give me the kind of pure results I seem to get from Google. I'll wait for Google to implement the same kind of categorization system or at least let other people who have the time test out visimio.
Yes, it's done all the time. If I make a car, I have to make sure it complies with certain safety standards. If I make a drug, I have to get FDA approval. And just because I manufacture a stick of dynamite, that sure as hell doesn't mean I can go blow up whatever I please.
Then someone comes along and says, "Hey, I'll let you thirsty people share in my limitless water supply. True, it's very plain water right now. However, I'll also tell you the secret for creating your own water supply so you can modify it to meet your particular nutritional specifications and tastes. After all, it doesn't cost me a dime and it actually helps me because you will improve upon my recipe. I'll do this on the condition that, if you want to sell (or give away) the new water you create, you must disclose the ingredients. This is in the spirit of promoting the best water that everyone can benefit from."
Now the first scenario creates an ugly "have" vs. "have not" environment that, in reality, doesn't need to exist at all. And that business model also doesn't necessarily create the best product, but the product that will make the most money (get the most people addicted), even it is to the detriment of the thirsty person. Now the second guy probably isn't going to walk away with bags of money like the first guy. But the second guy probably will still get a lot of work plumbing all the homes that will have access to the limitless supply of water. He'll also be often called upon to help less knowledgable people modify their water recipes to their very specific needs. And someone will eventually pay him a healthy sum to figure out how to magically make bread appear.
In my eyes, not only is free software more ethical, it it would seem work toward the creation of a healthier and more prosperous society.
A thought or idea represented as 1s and 0s on a computer networked on the Internet. I'm assuming the transfer of that thought or idea into 1s and 0s has already been compensated for.
Forget Stallman.
/. crowd and you must answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck? Why or why not?
I pose this single question to the
The goal of free software is not to create software jobs, it's goal is to promote ethical conduct. Besides, Stallman has never argued it's "bad" to charge for writing code. If someone needs their free software modified, it's perfectly OK to get paid for your work.
So I pose this question to you, and answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?
By the way, I don't consider myself to be a racist. But I was wondering if you consider yourself to be a flaming moron.
This article qualifies as "content"---stuff that at first glance seems informative but isn't. It fails to site even one reason why offshore workers are worse at innovating than domestic workers.
They could have slapped a $300 5 megapixel on that puppy and then we'd have quality images to look at when it got to Mars.
Hey, I'm just telling you how I feel. Like I said, no offense. I do respect your right to be an idiot (even though you should probably be shot). There I got that off my chest. Peace.
I think it matters little if you take a bottom up approach in a more formal educational environment or a top down approach by learning a programming language first. What matters most is is the burning desire to learn and explore.
I didn't do any serious programming until I was 30 years old (I wrote a handful of 100 line programs in Apple Basic when I was a kid). Because of my interest in the web, Perl was the first language I learned (this was before PHP came to dominate) but was able to learn it. Sure, there is a lot of built in magic in the syntax but it makes programming with it much easier and quicker. I've also done some work with Java and found it to be a huge pain in the ass to wade through the JavaDocs over and over again to do the simplest stuff. But with Perl, I can effortlessly code my own subroutine off the top of my head instead of relying on Java's painfully large library that may or may not have the code I need. And for more complex stuff, Perl has great built-in modules and CPAN. If a total programming newbie and hobbyist like me learned Perl, anyone can.
Figures! Leave it to the corporate greed mongers at PNC Bank(TM) to find a way to invade our mental space by hijacking the real meaning behind this sacred (albeit annoying) Christmas carol. Bah Humbug!
Maybe not now, but when George Bush's great grandson is running the country.
As long as we American remain blinded to the possibility that government is good for something, we're going to remain forever a society of technological haves and have nots just like they have in the third world nations.
Also, this country pays $400,000,000,000 dollars each and every year for the military. That's over 20% of our annual budget. And after the Iraq war this year, it's probably closer to $600,000,000,000. It's quite astonishing to me that there is absolutely zero national debate about the size of our budget. We could have this entire country wired up in no time if are priorities were straight.
Well, the last time I looked, countries that spend a reasonable amount on their military have all those things, too.
Actually, that's nothing compared to the 20% of the USA's budget going to the Department of Defense. They've got a commitement to closing the "Digital Divide" and we've got a commitment to blowing the world apart several times over.
Well, considering each American must pay well over $1000 each year for a bloated war machine, I'd say they are getting a damn good deal.
And it's tough to put a dollar value on the kind of gains their economy will reap from this great infrastructure. Nor can you estimate the tremendous shot in the arm building this thing in the first place will be.
The saying goes a little something like this:
First you ignore them,
Then you laugh at them,
Then you fight them,
Then they win.
The Constitution didn't apply to the thousands of slaves who lived in the United States. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified that slaves were granted the rights of citizens. And if you'd take the time to read the 14th amendment, you'll see that it applies only to people, not corporations.
So the case can proceed in California courts. But when no one shows up to appear in court, then what? And then when the company getting sued loses the case and doesn't pay damages, then what? I don't see how this isn't going to stop anything or what RIAA hopes gain. There's no central server to shut down.