Well, first I didn't say it was ad hominem. Second, his whole post states his own philosophy, and at times misrepresents Rand's, but builds no case that Rand's ideas are wrong.
Need an example of a misrepresentation?
How about the anti-democratic stuff? Sovereignty is to be taken from the people and given to an elect (elected how, exactly, is unclear) group of philosophers. Rand makes no claims for the sovereignty of one person over another and certainly does not advocate an elect group of philosophers have such status. She emphatically makes the claim that no one has the right to make a slave of another, for any reason.
No logical refutation is provided by him. Instead, it jumps straight to the summation that it's childish propaganda. He feels no need to prove his points, just to state them categorically and imply that anyone who respects the viewpoint he clearly is against has been duped by "simple-minded childish propaganda."
This is indeed Argument from Intimidation. And, since it is the only thing he offered to refute Rand, referencing it in my reply was a comment on the logic of his argument and was not pulling it out of context.
Are you claiming that Ayn Rand advocated the abolishment of government? That all we need are wide-open markets and no government? Of course markets do not secure and protect civil liberties! Government's job, among others, is to protect our basic rights. The argument people will have with Rand regarding government is the question of what the proper role for government should be. She is clearly an advocate of a highly reduced government -- a government a fraction of its present size and with a fraction of its responsibilities. But, she does not advocate anarchism, she claims there is a legitimate, necessary role for government.
Also, the world view of those who make heated argument against Rand's ideas "is less philosophy than it is simple-minded childish propaganda." Gee, that was easy! And oh so convincing!!:)
Actually, Rand identified arguments along this line as The Argument from Intimidation, which is somewhat related to ad hominem attacks. Here's a relevant quote: "The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: 'Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ingnorant, [childish], etc.) can hold such an idea.'"
No she didn't. I've read some of her stuff, and here theories are fundamentally unsound. Basically, she tries to use logic, but her initial assumptions are just that, assumptions. And they are unfounded.
Assumption #1: Every living thing has two fundamental courses of action before it -- to continue to live or to die.
Assumption #2: A moral code provides guidance to volitional beings on what choices to make.
Assumption #3: A moral code based on choices that reduce to choosing to live is a good thing. Choices that reduce to choosing to die result in no further need for a moral code, as action is no longer possible.
By no means an exhaustive list of her ideas, but I disagree that such ideas are unfounded.
Rand might have loved like in the UK around the time of the industrial revolution, that is, if she wasn't a sustenance worker. Conditions were terrible. Our history over the past few hundred years has been to move away from her ideas, not towards them.
Conditions during the time you cite were indeed terrible, by today's standards. Are you certain they were not to some degree an improvement over the standard of living that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution?
You are right in your last statement, at least over the last 100 years. This is not evidence that her ideas are right or wrong, however.
The bottom line is, her ideas depend everyone being perfect, and only a very few acting on a 'subhuman level'. Yet, she provides no reason for those people to do so. She, in actuality is as utopian as Marx and other communists. And her system would be as fallible, if implemented.
No, her ideas are based on the notion that no one has the right to enslave another person for their own or anyone else's benefit, which she says is the ultimate basis of altruism. It is a reassertion of the right to life, the right to the product of your own mind and hands, and the right to seek your own happiness. It is an assertion that we have a right to be free from coercion, that no one has the right to initiate force against another. There's no requirement of perfection here, just an assertion that it is possible to form a moral philosophy rooted in reason and that is applicable to every living moment you have.
I find it amazing that people regard these ideas as threatening, unsound, and/or ridiculous. I think they are typically challenging, though, because her ideas stand squarely against the altruistic ethic and most people throughout history and in today's world have been raised on some variant of altruistic philosophy.
Yes, well I don't know the inner workings of the ESR mind any more then anyone else, but I can tell you what it probably means. It means that he hasn't really thought the problem through.
Or, it means you don't understand his position at all. Do you know whether, in fact, he advocates regulation in dealing with Microsoft? Is this what he has been calling for and considers ideal? If he does not advocate government action against Microsoft and does advocate free market solutions in dealing with Microsoft, how is this contradictory?
He grasps so strongly to the Ludicrous "Pure logic" ideals like those of Ayn Rand. And this, is what makes him Not a great thinker, despite what he would like to believe himself.
So, ideals based on Pure Logic are indicative of weak thinking? What would you rather have? Ideals based on illogic? Is this the hallmark of a great mind?
The fact is, at the end of the day our society is based around an ultra-capitalist ideal - the "American dream" of bettering yourself by gaining money and influence at the expense of others.
I beg to differ. The ultra-capitalist ideal -- the American dream -- is to produce better products and services at lesser and lesser cost. Innovations that accomplish this add to the wealth of *all* of us. Prior to such an innovation, the world is where it is. After such an innovation, the total wealth in the world has increased. This is not necessarily at anyone's expense. Even producers of competing products benefit from the availability of the better product, as consumers. Regardless, the ideal, the dream, is not to redistribute wealth, but to increase it through improved efficiency and innovation.
Excellent post and every bit as insightful as the post it replies to. Won't somebody please moderate it up? It is a simple appeal that we use our minds to apply reason to real problems to determine what effective action we should take to solve those problems. It refuses to accept subjectivism as a basis for solving real problems. "Clear and compelling evidence" is "entirely viewer dependent" only to those who base their decisions on emotion, gut feel, and irrationality.
So the lesson you would have us all learn here is that the furthering of the "common good" is justification enough to trample upon individual rights -- i.e. the ends justify the means. Note that I am addressing the attitude you have regarding "looking out for number one." (In fact, I don't think individual rights are being violated here, but that is a different argument.) It is despicable that people should care about their own individual selves, their rights, their lives. Instead, they should lay down, be used, say "thank you, Sir!" and shut the hell up because its all for a good cause. No doubt it's a good cause. But if there were considerably greater respect for individual rights, which means respect for individual lives, there would not have been a Columbine trajedy to begin with.
The problem with Microsoft's offering in the handheld market is emphatically *not* that they give the consumer too much. The problem is that they aren't delivering stable lean software. Microsoft incorporates into the Pocket PC's many of the things that ultimately I dream of using in my PDA. They are *far* ahead of the game technologically speaking. But their implementation sucks (at least it did in WinCE, and the C|Net review suggests it still suffers from those problems).
I agree with your dream for the future of handhelds. However, there is also reality to deal with. Whatever it delivers, it must be in a fast, slim package. And, if it doesn't deliver something genuinely useful, it won't be worth much. Thus, boring as they are, contact lists and appointments are very important to provide.
I don't credit Microsoft for being "*far* ahead of the game technologically speaking" in this case. Not yet, at least. They will get that credit if the package they are providing turns out to have high utility. If, as you claim, their impelemntation sucks, then I would say they missed the boat, technologically. Palm and others could easily have produced similar, overstuffed and sluggish products. But, they apparently recognized that we are not yet there technologically to produce the whole enchalada in a fast, slim package. If Microsoft has actually done this, then kudos to them. They should sell like hotcakes!
On one level, I think you are absolutely right. That anything has value at all is an attribute assigned to it via human perception. But, that perception is usually based on very real utility that a thing has for humans. Thus, gold has been held as quite valuable for many reasons: it is durable, malleable, attractive to the eye, its a good conductor, etc. Also, it is a commodity item and somewhat scarce. In an exchange economy, trading gold for other useful items makes sense, because its usefulness makes it desirable to have and its relative scarcity keeps it in constant demand. Further, it's durability means it won't just rot on you, like a bag of flour, and the ease with which it can be worked means it can be easily formed into appropriately sized pieces useful for exchange.
Gold isn't the only commodity with these qualities and it isn't the only one that has been used to back paper money.
I disagree that (paper) money has value because the citizenry says it does. If that were true, we should be able to manufacture wealth by simply printing more paper money and asking the citizens to agree that the new money is worth the same as the old money. But that doesn't work. The citizens know that the new money has devalued all money (i.e. is inflationary) because paper money is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as any other commodity.
Since we no longer are on a gold standard (or any other for that matter), I agree the value of money is derived from something more akin to a confidence game. Its value is still subject to supply and demand, but it does have value because people are willing to accept it in exchange for items of real worth. But, the present system is very precarious because we have no guarantees we can exchange our paper money for anything of real worth and, if the confidence should ever evaporate, most of us will be royally screwed. ---
A while back, I sent a complaint to Amazon regarding their 1-Click patent and they sent me a reply. Using that reply, I have now produced a standard template for any company to use to defend to their customers their lame patents:
-------- begin template ------------------------
Dear [customer name],
Thank you for writing to [company name].
The patent system is designed to encourage innovation, and we spent [impressive-sounding quantity] of [hours|days|years] developing our [patented product name]. [marketing blurb claiming how patented feature benefits customers].
In recognition of the innovative and unique nature of the [patented product name], the U.S. Patent Office awarded Patent No. [patent number] to [company name] on [date patent awarded].
We're pleased that the court recognized the innovation underlying our [patented product name] by granting a preliminary injunction barring [evil competitor's name] from using it while our suit is pending.
I hope you'll understand that we are unable to discuss this case any further as we are currently in litigation. Thank you for taking the time to share your views with us.
Best regards,
[Company representative's name] [Company signature block] [link to company's web site]
Please, somebody either moderate the original comment back down or moderate up a correction.
It is true it was a wierd moment, but the original comment's description creates a strong negative impression about the award recipients that I think is unjustified. Here's what actually happened:
The award to "King Gimp" was announced and the guy in the wheelchair (who the documentary was about) appeared to be so overcome with emotion at the win that he became highly spastic and ultimately slipped forward out of his wheelchair, onto the floor, where he continued "thrashing around." This apparently is the condition the guy suffers from -- uncontrollable spasms. Anyhow, the film makers, seeing this, appeared torn over what to do -- assist the guy on the floor back into his wheelchair, or go forward. Remember, the whole auditorium is applauding them, a national (international, actually) T.V. audience is watching, and all are waiting on them to go forward. It is only a few moments in which they hesitate when some other people in their entourage move to help the guy back into his wheelchair. Seeing this, the film makers then head for the stage to accept the award. They did not just walk forward and leave a wheelchair-bound person thrashing on the floor, unassisted.
In fact, the impression I got was that this kind of episode was not necessarily uncommon for the guy and, regardless, it was clear he was not hurt and was not going to hurt himself. During their acceptance speech they spoke glowingly about the guy and his "beautiful spirit" and a few camera closeups were shown of him watching their acceptance speech and it was plain he has uncontrollable spasms -- at least when filled with strong emotions. But, it was also plain that he was happy and not harmed. --
There's no doubt there's a huge demand for the services Amazon provides. The question is, though, can Amazon provide those services and make a profit? Ever? As long as they can fill their cash accounts by means other than from product sales, they can stay afloat. But, sooner or later they are going to have to be able to provide those services at a profit (i.e. efficiently) or they will go under. Either someone else will figure out how to do it or we will all learn it can't be done profitably. I'd bet someone will figure out how to do it (possibly even Amazon). --
The specific thing the article claimed that might be newsworthy is that, unlike before, for many of these companies they will no longer be able to generate funds. You say the funding isn't going to dry up -- they say it is. La de da... Assuming it does dry up, it is dubious that simply raising their prices will keep them afloat. Are you gonna buy books at Amazon if their prices are significantly higher than what you can get at the local bookstore? Maybe for the odd book you can't get elsewhere, but I wouldn't otherwise (unless the convenience mattered to me that much at that particular time). --
Here's my big chance to demonstrate which of the two of us has his head on straight!:)
I predict, in 20 years, that humanity will be THRIVING, far from being endangered of extinction, and a primary cause of this will be the advancement of technology. The general standard of living (at least in industrialized nations) will be higher than it is today and people will live longer and healthier lives. Also, in 20 years, we will still be trying to figure out how to create an artificial intelligence that is at least on a par with human intelligence. And, in 20 years, there will be some well respected, technological maven somewhere who will be predicting the demise of the human race due to unchecked technological advances in about, oh, 20 years.
Mark your watches. In 20 years, we'll see who was right. I know I'll be! --
Re:Telnet is the only solution.
on
SSH v. SRP
·
· Score: 1
That's just a fact of living in a capitalistic country.
No, it is a fact of living in ANY human society in which man's life is not valued. Therefore, it is a fact of life in socialist, communist, fascist, dictatorships, theocracies, and in the U.S., which is in fact a mixed economy -- not a true capitalistic country. In fact, of all these, capitalism is the only one that comes close to respecting men's lives and their rights to control their lives and their work. --
Let's assume that, upon subsequent review, this invention turns out to be everything wonderful folks hope it to be.
Given that, your perspective is like looking a gift horse in the mouth. I mean these guys invent a process that could significantly improve the lives of people around the world -- a product of their own minds and their own creative efforts -- and you all but demand they give it to you? Talk about greed! It's theirs to dispose of as they see fit. Sure, they might choose to put it into the public domain. But that will be their choice to make. I can't begrudge them if they did choose to demand payment for use of their process. Hell, it didn't even exist until they developed it. They have added to our world in a positive way. They have a right to what is theirs. --
Re:Welcome back to reality -- Opera is commercial
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
How *do* we define merit? Most accurate? Most appealing? Most realistic? (Not necessarily the same as most accurate.) Most forward-looking? I don't know, frankly.
I think the only way you can do it is to say what merits you, speaking for yourself, see in a given product. To try to predict what other people will like/not like about that same product is much, much harder to do. If it were easy, I'd make a killing in the stock market!
There probably are several sets of meritorious qualities in a given product, each valued differently by different segments of the population. What is merit to me may not be merit to you. The only way I know to assess the overall utility of a product is to observe how frequently it is chosen over the available alternatives -- i.e. how does it do in the marketplace? But, that measure can only tell us about it's general merit -- not its specific merits for a specific person.
Also, the paper worth of an individual may or may not have something to do with the merits of their vision. It depends on how the worth was aquired. If a person had a vision to produce a product that people ended up wanting in droves and if they showed that by trading for it in a free market, then the amount of worth attributeable to those economic exchanges is an indicator of the merit of that person's vision. If they desired it highly, they would trade much for it. I agree that vision is not a product in and of itself, but it can be measured by what it produces.
Re:Stop being an asshole....
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
To do FOO should never require ProductFOO.
So, to play Quake 3 Arena should never require product Quake 3 Arena?
Re:Stop being an asshole....
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Completely, utterly bizzare...
I agree with you that free markets are best -- and the more free, the better. What I don't get is your characterizing my previous posting as "total bullshit" and "Stalinesque."
When I buy a car, there are usually some choices I can make regarding available options for that car. It is not guaranteed that I will have any options, nor that certain options will be available, although there are a set of them that usually are available. One that is typically not available, though, is who the manufacturer of the engine will be. If I buy a Toyota, I almost certainly will have to do with a Toyota engine. Now, if for some reason, I really hate Toyota engines, then I either have to decide that I hate them so much I will not buy a Toyota car, or I will endure it because I find the utility of the package is great enough for me to want it, on the whole. In the second case, I am saying I will benefit by having that car and will pay $xx for that benefit. Otherwise, why pay anything for it?
From one perspective, you could argue that my freedom to choose has been restricted. After all, I have no choice about the engine. But, to argue that, you would first have to establish that Toyota owes you that choice! After all, until the cars are purchased, they are their cars (or the dealers'). So, they have the right to choose what products they will present to the market and we get to choose from those that are available. In fact, we do have choices here -- buy a different car, buy a Toyota, or buy no car at all.
Whichever choice I make, I then get to live with it. The "responsibility for [my] choices" is mine. This is not bullshit and it is not Stalinesque. Stalinesque would be to say you will take this car, or I will shoot you. Or, you will make this type of car, or I will shoot you, and when you are done, I will take it from you (and shoot you if you try to stop me) and then will give you what I think you need. How can anyone be responsible for his own choices at the point of a gun?
I assert he is responsible for his own choices -- you call it bullshit and Stalinesque. As I said, completely, utterly bizarre! --
Rights are not arbitrary. If you pick them carelessly, it could very well result in your own destruction.
The recognition of rights is what promotes a better society. But not the recognition of just anything you arbitrarily decide to call a right. There must be a valid basis for asserting a right.
Based on your world view, I expect you will have no problem if I or someone else decides they would like to have your computer (or any other thing you happen to possess and think is yours) and comes by and simply takes it. It's your proprietary stuff (i.e. property) and, apparently, property rights don't matter. Given that, let's go all the way and simply enslave you - your life is forfeit to me; you don't own that either.
Is this what you want?
Re:Welcome back to reality -- Opera is commercial
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
That's a very fault argument.
On more familiar grounds, Bill Gates is worth billions, and Linus Torvalds isn't. Does that mean Linus' vision has any less merit that Gates'?
Well, to properly discuss this, you first have define how you propose to measure "merit" and you have to identify who the benificiaries of this "merit" are.
Re:Stop being an asshole....
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Did you choose to take that class? Did you choose that course of study? Did you choose to go to that school? Or did someone put a gun to your head and make you do these things?
Stop trying to shirk responsibility for your own choices.
You've got to be kidding! What would they throw you in jail for? Refusing to buy their product? Or are you complaining that they would throw you in jail for not exchanging value for value -- for taking someone else's property without their consent?
If I write software and decide to give it away, it is my choice. It was mine to begin with and I have the right to decide what to do with the product of my own mind. I might choose, however, to sell it instead -- to seek comparable value in other products/services I don't already have. What a radical concept! It's how division of labor works.
There is no extortion here. I don't force anyone to buy what I have and no one forces me to buy what they have. And no one is forcing the other to surrender what is theirs by right.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first I didn't say it was ad hominem. Second, his whole post states his own philosophy, and at times misrepresents Rand's, but builds no case that Rand's ideas are wrong.
Need an example of a misrepresentation?
How about the anti-democratic stuff? Sovereignty is to be taken from the people and given to an elect (elected how, exactly, is unclear) group of philosophers.
Rand makes no claims for the sovereignty of one person over another and certainly does not advocate an elect group of philosophers have such status. She emphatically makes the claim that no one has the right to make a slave of another, for any reason.
No logical refutation is provided by him. Instead, it jumps straight to the summation that it's childish propaganda. He feels no need to prove his points, just to state them categorically and imply that anyone who respects the viewpoint he clearly is against has been duped by "simple-minded childish propaganda."
This is indeed Argument from Intimidation. And, since it is the only thing he offered to refute Rand, referencing it in my reply was a comment on the logic of his argument and was not pulling it out of context.
Are you claiming that Ayn Rand advocated the abolishment of government? That all we need are wide-open markets and no government? Of course markets do not secure and protect civil liberties! Government's job, among others, is to protect our basic rights. The argument people will have with Rand regarding government is the question of what the proper role for government should be. She is clearly an advocate of a highly reduced government -- a government a fraction of its present size and with a fraction of its responsibilities. But, she does not advocate anarchism, she claims there is a legitimate, necessary role for government.
:)
Also, the world view of those who make heated argument against Rand's ideas "is less philosophy than it is simple-minded childish propaganda." Gee, that was easy! And oh so convincing!!
Actually, Rand identified arguments along this line as The Argument from Intimidation, which is somewhat related to ad hominem attacks. Here's a relevant quote: "The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: 'Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ingnorant, [childish], etc.) can hold such an idea.'"
Such childish propaganda!
No she didn't. I've read some of her stuff, and here theories are fundamentally unsound. Basically, she tries to use logic, but her initial assumptions are just that, assumptions. And they are unfounded.
Assumption #1: Every living thing has two fundamental courses of action before it -- to continue to live or to die.
Assumption #2: A moral code provides guidance to volitional beings on what choices to make.
Assumption #3: A moral code based on choices that reduce to choosing to live is a good thing. Choices that reduce to choosing to die result in no further need for a moral code, as action is no longer possible.
By no means an exhaustive list of her ideas, but I disagree that such ideas are unfounded.
Rand might have loved like in the UK around the time of the industrial revolution, that is, if she wasn't a sustenance worker. Conditions were terrible. Our history over the past few hundred years has been to move away from her ideas, not towards them.
Conditions during the time you cite were indeed terrible, by today's standards. Are you certain they were not to some degree an improvement over the standard of living that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution?
You are right in your last statement, at least over the last 100 years. This is not evidence that her ideas are right or wrong, however.
The bottom line is, her ideas depend everyone being perfect, and only a very few acting on a 'subhuman level'. Yet, she provides no reason for those people to do so. She, in actuality is as utopian as Marx and other communists. And her system would be as fallible, if implemented.
No, her ideas are based on the notion that no one has the right to enslave another person for their own or anyone else's benefit, which she says is the ultimate basis of altruism. It is a reassertion of the right to life, the right to the product of your own mind and hands, and the right to seek your own happiness. It is an assertion that we have a right to be free from coercion, that no one has the right to initiate force against another. There's no requirement of perfection here, just an assertion that it is possible to form a moral philosophy rooted in reason and that is applicable to every living moment you have.
I find it amazing that people regard these ideas as threatening, unsound, and/or ridiculous. I think they are typically challenging, though, because her ideas stand squarely against the altruistic ethic and most people throughout history and in today's world have been raised on some variant of altruistic philosophy.
Yes, well I don't know the inner workings of the ESR mind any more then anyone else, but I can tell you what it probably means. It means that he hasn't really thought the problem through.
Or, it means you don't understand his position at all. Do you know whether, in fact, he advocates regulation in dealing with Microsoft? Is this what he has been calling for and considers ideal? If he does not advocate government action against Microsoft and does advocate free market solutions in dealing with Microsoft, how is this contradictory?
He grasps so strongly to the Ludicrous "Pure logic" ideals like those of Ayn Rand. And this, is what makes him Not a great thinker, despite what he would like to believe himself.
So, ideals based on Pure Logic are indicative of weak thinking? What would you rather have? Ideals based on illogic? Is this the hallmark of a great mind?
The fact is, at the end of the day our society is based around an ultra-capitalist ideal - the "American dream" of bettering yourself by gaining money and influence at the expense of others.
I beg to differ. The ultra-capitalist ideal -- the American dream -- is to produce better products and services at lesser and lesser cost.
Innovations that accomplish this add to the wealth of *all* of us. Prior to such an innovation, the world is where it is. After such an innovation, the total wealth in the world has increased. This is not necessarily at anyone's expense. Even producers of competing products benefit from the availability of the better product, as consumers. Regardless, the ideal, the dream, is not to redistribute wealth, but to increase it through improved efficiency and innovation.
Excellent post and every bit as insightful as the post it replies to. Won't somebody please moderate it up? It is a simple appeal that we use our minds to apply reason to real problems to determine what effective action we should take to solve those problems. It refuses to accept subjectivism as a basis for solving real problems. "Clear and compelling evidence" is "entirely viewer dependent" only to those who base their decisions on emotion, gut feel, and irrationality.
So the lesson you would have us all learn here is that the furthering of the "common good" is justification enough to trample upon individual rights -- i.e. the ends justify the means. Note that I am addressing the attitude you have regarding "looking out for number one." (In fact, I don't think individual rights are being violated here, but that is a different argument.) It is despicable that people should care about their own individual selves, their rights, their lives. Instead, they should lay down, be used, say "thank you, Sir!" and shut the hell up because its all for a good cause. No doubt it's a good cause. But if there were considerably greater respect for individual rights, which means respect for individual lives, there would not have been a Columbine trajedy to begin with.
The problem with Microsoft's offering in the handheld market is emphatically *not* that they give the consumer too much. The problem is that they aren't delivering stable lean software. Microsoft incorporates into the Pocket PC's many of the things that ultimately I dream of using in my PDA. They are *far* ahead of the game technologically speaking. But their implementation sucks (at least it did in WinCE, and the C|Net review suggests it still suffers from those problems).
I agree with your dream for the future of handhelds. However, there is also reality to deal with. Whatever it delivers, it must be in a fast, slim package. And, if it doesn't deliver something genuinely useful, it won't be worth much. Thus, boring as they are, contact lists and appointments are very important to provide.
I don't credit Microsoft for being "*far* ahead of the game technologically speaking" in this case. Not yet, at least. They will get that credit if the package they are providing turns out to have high utility. If, as you claim, their impelemntation sucks, then I would say they missed the boat, technologically. Palm and others could easily have produced similar, overstuffed and sluggish products. But, they apparently recognized that we are not yet there technologically to produce the whole enchalada in a fast, slim package. If Microsoft has actually done this, then kudos to them. They should sell like hotcakes!
I can't judge this behavior as bad. I think that if it works for him, it's OK, it's his movie and his money.
The most intelligent response to this posting thus far...
--
On one level, I think you are absolutely right. That anything has value at all is an attribute assigned to it via human perception. But, that perception is usually based on very real utility that a thing has for humans. Thus, gold has been held as quite valuable for many reasons: it is durable, malleable, attractive to the eye, its a good conductor, etc. Also, it is a commodity item and somewhat scarce. In an exchange economy, trading gold for other useful items makes sense, because its usefulness makes it desirable to have and its relative scarcity keeps it in constant demand. Further, it's durability means it won't just rot on you, like a bag of flour, and the ease with which it can be worked means it can be easily formed into appropriately sized pieces useful for exchange.
Gold isn't the only commodity with these qualities and it isn't the only one that has been used to back paper money.
I disagree that (paper) money has value because the citizenry says it does. If that were true, we should be able to manufacture wealth by simply printing more paper money and asking the citizens to agree that the new money is worth the same as the old money. But that doesn't work. The citizens know that the new money has devalued all money (i.e. is inflationary) because paper money is subject to the same rules of supply and demand as any other commodity.
Since we no longer are on a gold standard (or any other for that matter), I agree the value of money is derived from something more akin to a confidence game. Its value is still subject to supply and demand, but it does have value because people are willing to accept it in exchange for items of real worth. But, the present system is very precarious because we have no guarantees we can exchange our paper money for anything of real worth and, if the confidence should ever evaporate, most of us will be royally screwed.
---
A while back, I sent a complaint to Amazon regarding their 1-Click patent and they sent me a reply. Using that reply, I have now produced a standard template for any company to use to defend to their customers their lame patents:
-------- begin template ------------------------
Dear [customer name],
Thank you for writing to [company name].
The patent system is designed to encourage innovation, and we spent [impressive-sounding quantity] of [hours|days|years] developing our [patented product name]. [marketing blurb claiming how patented feature benefits customers].
In recognition of the innovative and unique nature of the [patented product name], the U.S. Patent Office awarded Patent No. [patent number] to [company name] on [date patent awarded].
We're pleased that the court recognized the innovation underlying our [patented product name] by granting a preliminary injunction barring [evil competitor's name] from using it while our suit is pending.
I hope you'll understand that we are unable to discuss this case any further as we are currently in litigation. Thank you for taking the time to share your views with us.
Best regards,
[Company representative's name]
[Company signature block]
[link to company's web site]
------------ end template ----------------------
Well, it's a start!
---
Please, somebody either moderate the original comment back down or moderate up a correction.
It is true it was a wierd moment, but the original comment's description creates a strong negative impression about the award recipients that I think is unjustified. Here's what actually happened:
The award to "King Gimp" was announced and the guy in the wheelchair (who the documentary was about) appeared to be so overcome with emotion at the win that he became highly spastic and ultimately slipped forward out of his wheelchair, onto the floor, where he continued "thrashing around." This apparently is the condition the guy suffers from -- uncontrollable spasms. Anyhow, the film makers, seeing this, appeared torn over what to do -- assist the guy on the floor back into his wheelchair, or go forward. Remember, the whole auditorium is applauding them, a national (international, actually) T.V. audience is watching, and all are waiting on them to go forward. It is only a few moments in which they hesitate when some other people in their entourage move to help the guy back into his wheelchair. Seeing this, the film makers then head for the stage to accept the award. They did not just walk forward and leave a wheelchair-bound person thrashing on the floor, unassisted.
In fact, the impression I got was that this kind of episode was not necessarily uncommon for the guy and, regardless, it was clear he was not hurt and was not going to hurt himself. During their acceptance speech they spoke glowingly about the guy and his "beautiful spirit" and a few camera closeups were shown of him watching their acceptance speech and it was plain he has uncontrollable spasms -- at least when filled with strong emotions. But, it was also plain that he was happy and not harmed.
--
There's no doubt there's a huge demand for the services Amazon provides. The question is, though, can Amazon provide those services and make a profit? Ever? As long as they can fill their cash accounts by means other than from product sales, they can stay afloat. But, sooner or later they are going to have to be able to provide those services at a profit (i.e. efficiently) or they will go under. Either someone else will figure out how to do it or we will all learn it can't be done profitably. I'd bet someone will figure out how to do it (possibly even Amazon).
--
The specific thing the article claimed that might be newsworthy is that, unlike before, for many of these companies they will no longer be able to generate funds. You say the funding isn't going to dry up -- they say it is. La de da... Assuming it does dry up, it is dubious that simply raising their prices will keep them afloat. Are you gonna buy books at Amazon if their prices are significantly higher than what you can get at the local bookstore? Maybe for the odd book you can't get elsewhere, but I wouldn't otherwise (unless the convenience mattered to me that much at that particular time).
--
I predict, in 20 years, that humanity will be THRIVING, far from being endangered of extinction, and a primary cause of this will be the advancement of technology. The general standard of living (at least in industrialized nations) will be higher than it is today and people will live longer and healthier lives. Also, in 20 years, we will still be trying to figure out how to create an artificial intelligence that is at least on a par with human intelligence. And, in 20 years, there will be some well respected, technological maven somewhere who will be predicting the demise of the human race due to unchecked technological advances in about, oh, 20 years.
Mark your watches. In 20 years, we'll see who was right. I know I'll be!
--
Quadrapeds??? Moo!!
--
That's just a fact of living in a capitalistic country.
No, it is a fact of living in ANY human society in which man's life is not valued. Therefore, it is a fact of life in socialist, communist, fascist, dictatorships, theocracies, and in the U.S., which is in fact a mixed economy -- not a true capitalistic country. In fact, of all these, capitalism is the only one that comes close to respecting men's lives and their rights to control their lives and their work.
--
Let's assume that, upon subsequent review, this invention turns out to be everything wonderful folks hope it to be.
Given that, your perspective is like looking a gift horse in the mouth. I mean these guys invent a process that could significantly improve the lives of people around the world -- a product of their own minds and their own creative efforts -- and you all but demand they give it to you? Talk about greed! It's theirs to dispose of as they see fit. Sure, they might choose to put it into the public domain. But that will be their choice to make. I can't begrudge them if they did choose to demand payment for use of their process. Hell, it didn't even exist until they developed it. They have added to our world in a positive way. They have a right to what is theirs.
--
How *do* we define merit? Most accurate? Most appealing? Most realistic? (Not necessarily the same as most accurate.) Most forward-looking? I don't know, frankly.
I think the only way you can do it is to say what merits you, speaking for yourself, see in a given product. To try to predict what other people will like/not like about that same product is much, much harder to do. If it were easy, I'd make a killing in the stock market!
There probably are several sets of meritorious qualities in a given product, each valued differently by different segments of the population. What is merit to me may not be merit to you. The only way I know to assess the overall utility of a product is to observe how frequently it is chosen over the available alternatives -- i.e. how does it do in the marketplace? But, that measure can only tell us about it's general merit -- not its specific merits for a specific person.
Also, the paper worth of an individual may or may not have something to do with the merits of their vision. It depends on how the worth was aquired. If a person had a vision to produce a product that people ended up wanting in droves and if they showed that by trading for it in a free market, then the amount of worth attributeable to those economic exchanges is an indicator of the merit of that person's vision. If they desired it highly, they would trade much for it. I agree that vision is not a product in and of itself, but it can be measured by what it produces.
To do FOO should never require ProductFOO.
So, to play Quake 3 Arena should never require product Quake 3 Arena?
Completely, utterly bizzare...
I agree with you that free markets are best -- and the more free, the better. What I don't get is your characterizing my previous posting as "total bullshit" and "Stalinesque."
When I buy a car, there are usually some choices I can make regarding available options for that car. It is not guaranteed that I will have any options, nor that certain options will be available, although there are a set of them that usually are available. One that is typically not available, though, is who the manufacturer of the engine will be. If I buy a Toyota, I almost certainly will have to do with a Toyota engine. Now, if for some reason, I really hate Toyota engines, then I either have to decide that I hate them so much I will not buy a Toyota car, or I will endure it because I find the utility of the package is great enough for me to want it, on the whole. In the second case, I am saying I will benefit by having that car and will pay $xx for that benefit. Otherwise, why pay anything for it?
From one perspective, you could argue that my freedom to choose has been restricted. After all, I have no choice about the engine. But, to argue that, you would first have to establish that Toyota owes you that choice! After all, until the cars are purchased, they are their cars (or the dealers'). So, they have the right to choose what products they will present to the market and we get to choose from those that are available. In fact, we do have choices here -- buy a different car, buy a Toyota, or buy no car at all.
Whichever choice I make, I then get to live with it. The "responsibility for [my] choices" is mine. This is not bullshit and it is not Stalinesque. Stalinesque would be to say you will take this car, or I will shoot you. Or, you will make this type of car, or I will shoot you, and when you are done, I will take it from you (and shoot you if you try to stop me) and then will give you what I think you need. How can anyone be responsible for his own choices at the point of a gun?
I assert he is responsible for his own choices -- you call it bullshit and Stalinesque. As I said, completely, utterly bizarre!
--
Rights are not arbitrary. If you pick them carelessly, it could very well result in your own destruction.
The recognition of rights is what promotes a better society. But not the recognition of just anything you arbitrarily decide to call a right. There must be a valid basis for asserting a right.
Based on your world view, I expect you will have no problem if I or someone else decides they would like to have your computer (or any other thing you happen to possess and think is yours) and comes by and simply takes it. It's your proprietary stuff (i.e. property) and, apparently, property rights don't matter. Given that, let's go all the way and simply enslave you - your life is forfeit to me; you don't own that either.
Is this what you want?
That's a very fault argument.
On more familiar grounds, Bill Gates is worth billions, and Linus Torvalds isn't. Does that mean Linus' vision has any less merit that Gates'?
Well, to properly discuss this, you first have define how you propose to measure "merit" and you have to identify who the benificiaries of this "merit" are.
Did you choose to take that class? Did you choose that course of study? Did you choose to go to that school? Or did someone put a gun to your head and make you do these things?
Stop trying to shirk responsibility for your own choices.
You've got to be kidding! What would they throw you in jail for? Refusing to buy their product? Or are you complaining that they would throw you in jail for not exchanging value for value -- for taking someone else's property without their consent?
If I write software and decide to give it away, it is my choice. It was mine to begin with and I have the right to decide what to do with the product of my own mind. I might choose, however, to sell it instead -- to seek comparable value in other products/services I don't already have. What a radical concept! It's how division of labor works.
There is no extortion here. I don't force anyone to buy what I have and no one forces me to buy what they have. And no one is forcing the other to surrender what is theirs by right.