No, my analogy isn't wrong, you've just missed the point of it. The point is that a utilitarian argument doesn't settle the question of malevolence, neutrality, or beneficence, especially a utilitarian argument which fails to be catholic in it's analysis.
Also the issue is patents, not open source. Even if there were no patents, or even no copyrights, there is still no reason why you couldn't keep your source secret.
To start, 16 billion in litigation costs.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983736
And in cost of legal work in filing, royalties. Plus costs that aren't easily quantified, the R+D needed to invent around a patent. A greater emphasis on applied rather than pure science, and the cost of monopoly rents on the consumer.
. Once in a great while, some brilliant algorithm will be discovered for doing something that isn't specialized, but in the vast majority of such cases, those algorithms come after years of research work and refinement. Why shouldn't the thinker have some control over their thoughts?
Because algorithms are math.
Also here you are conflating the specific with the general.
A thinker does and should have control other their own thoughts. However once you publish it (make public) and I have my own specific thought and it is mine. That it follows the same general form of your thought is irrelevant.
Not having slaves reduces the number of ways you can make a profit from cotton farming.
A utilitarian argument here misses the point. Malevolence often though not always has a material benefit to the evil-doer, and also incidental niche benifits for others.
Even then as a utilitarian argument it fails because it addressees only the seen and easily recognizable, and not the unseen and hidden. The cost of litigating and defending patents increases the cost of everything in the computer industry by about 10%. This isn't even adding in the costs and burdens upon the general public from the monopoly rents that result.
It's not the disagreement that's malevolent, or even not releasing your source code. It's reliance on political pull and privileged to stop competition, quash innovation, and extract two decade of monopoly rents based on broad and vague claims in an area of endeavor which is extremely precise and accurate.
Nobody has suggested that this shouldn't be the case except a few all GUI opinions. The point of the article is that CLI is still relevant, and is not something you should forget about or ignore is you want to do any sort of serious system administration.
Turing machines, having infinite memory are more powerful than any actual computer.
He you want to bring a truing analogy, you could say everything implemented on one processor can be implemented on another, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily be helpful to do so.
In and of itself, it is better. Windows though has a larger consumer base, and thus a large ecosystem of peripherals that can improve the desktop experience. And things continue to move fast, especially with all the graphics work being done in the 2.6.38 and 2.6.39 kernels. One of the biggest problems is that nobody has really figured out how to commercialize linux on the desktop except to people who already use linux on the desktop.
Red-hat is a support and solutions company, that just happens to have it's own OS to offer as a platform in it's support and solutions.(It isn't a platform company) Those on CentOS either aren't at a level where they don't need support or at a level where they can self-support. Either way they weren't potential customers of Rh's in the first place. And in fact because the CentOS community didn't have an intimate hand developing the platform, they are at a disadvantage if they tried to compete with RH's support and solutions.
I see this all the time on Slashdot but I don't see why it's a bizarre idea that companies want to grow. Many companies want to grow because it makes them more efficient - better economies of scale, better leverage with their suppliers, etc.
But remember that there are also diseconomies of bureaucracy, which is ultimately the only way to allocate resource within a firm.There is no way to establish a real internal price system. Smaller companies get more immediate feedback from customer choice of their actions and allocation of resources.
A vehicle mile with of conventional vehicle or hybrid counterpart does very little damage to roads. Commercial truck do 90% of the damage of the roads that is not due to weathering.
The primary externality conventional vehicles impose is air-pollution and congestion. Air pollution can be addressed with gas tax to some extent and testing on an anual or semi-annual basis. Congestion can be addressed with tolls on the most congested streets to fund expansion of those roads.
It's highly HIGHLY unlikely that x86 is going to be usurped by anything any time soon. Part of the reason is, despite apparently every person here's hatred of it, the legacy of x86.
Like the 5 trillion dollars worth of COBOL code that will only run on Intel Mainframes?
I like to Run MOO and MOO2 as well as other win95 era games in DosBox (which last I heard was being ported to the ARM architecture) simply because there are fewer side effects than installing into the wine prefix. I can emulate the fastest Pentium system with a vga and sound card, so performance isn't an issue).
Because government is not voluntary, the primary way a governmental organization expands is by failing at their stated mission, thus proving that they are more "neccessary" then they were before.
It's a form of rationing. It imposes an opportunity costs on those who would benefit from some sort of medical aide, but will not die soon without it. If you decreased the wait time from 6 hours to three, (In the same way as if you were to cut direct monetary costs in the U.S.) more people would show up for care, proving that while the health-care is not rationed directly by monetary price, it is ration by the cost of time. Say I have a fairly minor injury, but would still benefit from medical treatment, and such treatment would prevent further complications.. Say a severe upper respiratory infection or a broken finger. Antibiotics or a proper medical splint would significantly improve my life over the next few weeks and help prevent spread or worsening the infection or decrease the chance of the bone setting improperly, but if I have to wait half a day to get care I might just suffer through it.
Also, you're claiming to judge affordability from and objective perspective, rather than of subjective utility which is what I was talking about
There are already some batteries like this, however charge concentration is less than your standard lead-acid, as well as being toxic or expensive (with Vandium or Chromium ions in solution.
And if there wasn't such a can of worms of regulation in the health care field, you would see a continual improvement and competition to target the margins. Right now there are solution that could increase the level of care given to the poor. For a cursory examination see "How Government Solved the Health Care Crises" by Roderick Long (The Crisis was that health-care was too cheap.)
Slashdot Mirror
No, my analogy isn't wrong, you've just missed the point of it. The point is that a utilitarian argument doesn't settle the question of malevolence, neutrality, or beneficence, especially a utilitarian argument which fails to be catholic in it's analysis.
Also the issue is patents, not open source. Even if there were no patents, or even no copyrights, there is still no reason why you couldn't keep your source secret.
To start, 16 billion in litigation costs. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983736 And in cost of legal work in filing, royalties. Plus costs that aren't easily quantified, the R+D needed to invent around a patent. A greater emphasis on applied rather than pure science, and the cost of monopoly rents on the consumer.
. Once in a great while, some brilliant algorithm will be discovered for doing something that isn't specialized, but in the vast majority of such cases, those algorithms come after years of research work and refinement. Why shouldn't the thinker have some control over their thoughts?
Because algorithms are math.
Also here you are conflating the specific with the general.
A thinker does and should have control other their own thoughts. However once you publish it (make public) and I have my own specific thought and it is mine. That it follows the same general form of your thought is irrelevant.
Not having slaves reduces the number of ways you can make a profit from cotton farming.
A utilitarian argument here misses the point. Malevolence often though not always has a material benefit to the evil-doer, and also incidental niche benifits for others.
Even then as a utilitarian argument it fails because it addressees only the seen and easily recognizable, and not the unseen and hidden. The cost of litigating and defending patents increases the cost of everything in the computer industry by about 10%. This isn't even adding in the costs and burdens upon the general public from the monopoly rents that result.
It's not the disagreement that's malevolent, or even not releasing your source code. It's reliance on political pull and privileged to stop competition, quash innovation, and extract two decade of monopoly rents based on broad and vague claims in an area of endeavor which is extremely precise and accurate.
We have both -- why not love both?
Nobody has suggested that this shouldn't be the case except a few all GUI opinions. The point of the article is that CLI is still relevant, and is not something you should forget about or ignore is you want to do any sort of serious system administration.
Turing machines, having infinite memory are more powerful than any actual computer.
He you want to bring a truing analogy, you could say everything implemented on one processor can be implemented on another, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily be helpful to do so.
Don't forget
GUI- Lets you use less memory stress to achieve common tasks
CLI-Lets you do obscure tasks without banging your head into the wall
In and of itself, it is better. Windows though has a larger consumer base, and thus a large ecosystem of peripherals that can improve the desktop experience. And things continue to move fast, especially with all the graphics work being done in the 2.6.38 and 2.6.39 kernels. One of the biggest problems is that nobody has really figured out how to commercialize linux on the desktop except to people who already use linux on the desktop.
I wonder, does interpreted python break the no complier rule?
It's hard to extend and extinguish a fireplace design except in the most literal senses.
Red-hat is a support and solutions company, that just happens to have it's own OS to offer as a platform in it's support and solutions.(It isn't a platform company) Those on CentOS either aren't at a level where they don't need support or at a level where they can self-support. Either way they weren't potential customers of Rh's in the first place. And in fact because the CentOS community didn't have an intimate hand developing the platform, they are at a disadvantage if they tried to compete with RH's support and solutions.
I see this all the time on Slashdot but I don't see why it's a bizarre idea that companies want to grow. Many companies want to grow because it makes them more efficient - better economies of scale, better leverage with their suppliers, etc.
But remember that there are also diseconomies of bureaucracy, which is ultimately the only way to allocate resource within a firm.There is no way to establish a real internal price system. Smaller companies get more immediate feedback from customer choice of their actions and allocation of resources.
each of those three pull in 10-20 times more profit per employee.
Source? And it may speak poorly of FOSS to you, but even if this were true, all it would scream to me is "MONOPOLY RENTS".
Funny thing is that Steamboat Willie is a ripoff of Steamboat Bill.
It's promissory estoppal.
If you've worked for one of the parties withing the last 7 years, it's definitely a conflict of interest.
Ignorance is preferable to bias and self-dealing any day.
A vehicle mile with of conventional vehicle or hybrid counterpart does very little damage to roads. Commercial truck do 90% of the damage of the roads that is not due to weathering. The primary externality conventional vehicles impose is air-pollution and congestion. Air pollution can be addressed with gas tax to some extent and testing on an anual or semi-annual basis. Congestion can be addressed with tolls on the most congested streets to fund expansion of those roads.
It's highly HIGHLY unlikely that x86 is going to be usurped by anything any time soon. Part of the reason is, despite apparently every person here's hatred of it, the legacy of x86.
Like the 5 trillion dollars worth of COBOL code that will only run on Intel Mainframes?
I like to Run MOO and MOO2 as well as other win95 era games in DosBox (which last I heard was being ported to the ARM architecture) simply because there are fewer side effects than installing into the wine prefix. I can emulate the fastest Pentium system with a vga and sound card, so performance isn't an issue).
Because government is not voluntary, the primary way a governmental organization expands is by failing at their stated mission, thus proving that they are more "neccessary" then they were before.
Also, you're claiming to judge affordability from and objective perspective, rather than of subjective utility which is what I was talking about
http://freenation.org/a/f12l3.html
Mostly just a bit history
There are already some batteries like this, however charge concentration is less than your standard lead-acid, as well as being toxic or expensive (with Vandium or Chromium ions in solution.
And if there wasn't such a can of worms of regulation in the health care field, you would see a continual improvement and competition to target the margins. Right now there are solution that could increase the level of care given to the poor. For a cursory examination see "How Government Solved the Health Care Crises" by Roderick Long (The Crisis was that health-care was too cheap.)