Fascism = dictatorship by the rich. Communism = dictatorship by the {poor|working class|bureaucracy} Both are immoral and both deprive freedom, and bring forward strict social order, and hierarchisation.
Isn't enslaving a man's company to "the public good" just as much of slavery as owning another man and making him shovel shit for food? Me thinks your ideas haven't been as well formed as you boast.
What tactics has MS used against Linux and other open projects? They can't buy or co-opt them. I suppose that means open computing isn't suceeding. I guess it's time to reinstall Windows, then.
Yeah, and the most intelligent line in the whole movie "Don't bend the spoon, bend yourself" is of the same calibre as Shakespeare. Gimme a break. Every movie, and novel for that matter, has allusions, and just by doing so does not make it a piece of art. The Matrix was sort of dumb, but things blew up. I liked it because the action was original and new. Not because it made me think.
Anyone see the 13th floor. I thought it was better than the Matrix. Unfortunately, it came out later and didn't have a big marketing blitz, so the Matrix gets the sequels. Oh well.
Stalin and his thugs killed as many in one winter on 'volunteer' work duty building subways for the 'public good' than are killed in an entire in the states by their neighbour. There is still no comparison. I would wager that more people died of simple lack of food, not state autorized starvation, in a year under Lenin than die each year of industrial accidents in the U.S. However, I digress. This is not the thread for this disscussion.
Really? How many people did Stalin starve? Or Mao? How many dissidents have died in chinese jails? How many millions were starved in africa in order to force them onto state owned farms. It is a FACT that this type of argument, the "people who produce things have too much money and are evil" is what led to communism, and ultimately the death of millions of people. Learn to crack open a history book and imagine what it means for 40 millions people to die of starvation.
In a monopolistic situation such as this, the incentive to produce good movies does not exist. Why then are good movies ever produced? Why was Shindler's List produced, or Taxi Driver, or 2001? I'm certain Spielburg, and Scorsese, and Kubrick all would look down upon your views that you have a right to their property and wish to steal it, while they still manage to make money off excellent movies.
I completely agree with your first two points, and I think that it explains in the FAQ somewhere why they don't want to start caheing pages, mostly for the legal/advertisement revenue reasons.
For the first point, I had an interesting link to an essay by the CATO institute, pretty independent, stating why MS should not be prosecuted. I figured it would be a good article even for slashdotters/ms haters to tear apart or just to generate some discussion instead of the standard "Win95 sux" argument, but it was rejected.
Alas, my moment of slashdot glory was zapped by a bunch of mixed economy zealots.
Copyrights anti-capitalist? Sounds like a bastardization of capitalist theory. In capitalism one is free to do what one wishes with the products of their labour. If I write a book, slave over it, and put all my productive abilities into it, don't you think that I have the right to sell that book to whomever like? Capitalism, after all, is based on trade, and it is not a sale if both the seller and the buyer both agree to this trade of value. You can't, or shouldn't be able to, copyright, patent, etc. ideas, but implimentations, yes.
I know this is probably not a popular thing to say, but I assure you it is not intended as flame bait. I supported MS during the lawsuit. Not because I like their products, I steer clear wherever I can, but on a purely moralistic and freedom based argument. Here's a few reasons why any freedom minded person should have supported MS.
I can imagine that, and may have played a part in it. However, no matter how much brute force, morale, and air superiority the enemy has, if you know where they are, you're practically set.
I am sure that ESR's beliefs on Open Source are just as personal as his beliefs on personal liberty; there is even a little overlap here. If he was using CatB not only as a document for the promotion of Open Source software, but also gun rights, anti-abortion, etc I could see some room for argument simply on the grounds of irrelevancy. However, I surely doubt that during his paid 'gigs' on open-source, he mixes the two. My point, I don't think that ESR mixes his beliefs out of context. -- That is all.
Although I am completely for encryption, I don't think the government's reason for outlawing encryption export is to fight criminals. I think the issue is national security for them. The only reason the Allies beat the Nazis in WWII was because they had cracked their codes and knew most of what Germany was doing. The problem in the US's policy is that if terrorists or other countries really wanted strong encryption they could a) develop their own, or b) simply steal it from the United States/other countries. There is little in place to stop them.
nb. These views have all probably been expressed more eloquently by someone else, but that's my to binary digits worth.
That'sonly because the FCC, CRTC, and any other state ageny for controlling communications are not concerned about anyone's rights and are inherently immoral. If there were no FCC, etc. they wouldn't be able to give the power to the cable companies to violate your property rights, not to mention the added "liberty" of deciding what methods you use for communications, and with whom you communicate.
This AI machine certainly has more neurons than I have delegated to speech recognition as I am in the process of patenting a process in which you can switch 95% of your brain capacity over to web surfing, useless pop culture quotes, and slashdot posting. I figure if everyone was less intelligent, it would be way easier to create artificial intelligence.
Oh I see. You have the right to decide what other people do with their private property simply because you would like to play a snappy game of Quake2 at you convience.
I thought we were suppossed to live in a `free' society.
Freedom of speech does not come with a clause saying that you are free from responsibility for ever and a day. If you are going to post something on the internet, post as if you are publishing it in a newspaper or a book: you are still responsible for what you say. Granted, most of the internet claims to be "anonymous", but that is far from the truth, and it still does not give you the ability to communicate without assuming the responsibility of your ideas.
As a Libertarian, how do you think laissez-faire capitalism fits in with Open Source software. That is to say, how can people manage to seek payment for their intellectual labour when it is freely distributable, and how will large software vendors make a profit off their products.
I doubt that Corel has any plans for releasing the full version sans GPL nor could they feasibly get away with it. This is a little different: they are the first large software developer to add a linux distribution to their line up. Obviously, they still have some of their old procedures in place, and those will be tough to convince the suits to change, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that their next beta test they do will probably come with GPL compliance. I also doubt many programmers are all that concerned about their code being used like this. It seems as it is only the religious followers of the GPL who just want stuff for free, not the ones that see the value of "free", as in liberty, software.
They're developing Reardon Metal and creating superfast trains out of it. D'Anconia is running the place and scamming the mooching VC's out of there money while plotting to fake a disaster. Years later, someone will look through the old Transmeta compound and discover John Galt, the robot, and it will eventually save us all from the looters that have been riding the back of Internet.
Yes, you could ask someone who lived, and eventually fled, the USSR. I think I'll pick up my copy of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand. My goodness, the title isn't ironic! Capitalism is the ideal and every other system is simply second rate and living off the wealth generated by the right to ownership of property. Rand also makes several dozen arguments why the poor are better off under capitalism. Do the poor in communist countries own cars, property, telephones, vcr's, televisions, hell, even clothes? I surely doubt it. The fact of the matter is that the poor, under capitalism, end up being the middle class of every other economic structure.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascism = dictatorship by the rich.
Communism = dictatorship by the {poor|working class|bureaucracy}
Both are immoral and both deprive freedom, and bring forward strict social order, and hierarchisation.
Isn't enslaving a man's company to "the public good" just as much of slavery as owning another man and making him shovel shit for food?
Me thinks your ideas haven't been as well formed as you boast.
What tactics has MS used against Linux and other open projects? They can't buy or co-opt them. I suppose that means open computing isn't suceeding. I guess it's time to reinstall Windows, then.
Yeah,
and the most intelligent line in the whole movie "Don't bend the spoon, bend yourself" is of the same calibre as Shakespeare.
Gimme a break.
Every movie, and novel for that matter, has allusions, and just by doing so does not make it a piece of art. The Matrix was sort of dumb, but things blew up. I liked it because the action was original and new. Not because it made me think.
Anyone see the 13th floor. I thought it was better than the Matrix. Unfortunately, it came out later and didn't have a big marketing blitz, so the Matrix gets the sequels.
Oh well.
Stalin and his thugs killed as many in one winter on 'volunteer' work duty building subways for the 'public good' than are killed in an entire in the states by their neighbour. There is still no comparison. I would wager that more people died of simple lack of food, not state autorized starvation, in a year under Lenin than die each year of industrial accidents in the U.S.
However, I digress. This is not the thread for this disscussion.
Really? How many people did Stalin starve? Or Mao? How many dissidents have died in chinese jails? How many millions were starved in africa in order to force them onto state owned farms.
It is a FACT that this type of argument, the "people who produce things have too much money and are evil" is what led to communism, and ultimately the death of millions of people. Learn to crack open a history book and imagine what it means for 40 millions people to die of starvation.
In a monopolistic situation such as this, the incentive to produce good movies does not exist.
Why then are good movies ever produced? Why was Shindler's List produced, or Taxi Driver, or 2001? I'm certain Spielburg, and Scorsese, and Kubrick all would look down upon your views that you have a right to their property and wish to steal it, while they still manage to make money off excellent movies.
Anyone here read Microserfs by Douglas Coupland?
Great!
Now I don't have to pay off my student loan.
I completely agree with your first two points, and I think that it explains in the FAQ somewhere why they don't want to start caheing pages, mostly for the legal/advertisement revenue reasons.
For the first point, I had an interesting link to an essay by the CATO institute, pretty independent, stating why MS should not be prosecuted. I figured it would be a good article even for slashdotters/ms haters to tear apart or just to generate some discussion instead of the standard "Win95 sux" argument, but it was rejected.
Alas, my moment of slashdot glory was zapped by a bunch of mixed economy zealots.
Here's an interesting link to Cato on the MS antitrust case.
Copyrights anti-capitalist? Sounds like a bastardization of capitalist theory. In capitalism one is free to do what one wishes with the products of their labour. If I write a book, slave over it, and put all my productive abilities into it, don't you think that I have the right to sell that book to whomever like?
Capitalism, after all, is based on trade, and it is not a sale if both the seller and the buyer both agree to this trade of value. You can't, or shouldn't be able to, copyright, patent, etc. ideas, but implimentations, yes.
I know this is probably not a popular thing to say, but I assure you it is not intended as flame bait. I supported MS during the lawsuit. Not because I like their products, I steer clear wherever I can, but on a purely moralistic and freedom based argument.
Here's a few reasons why any freedom minded person should have supported MS.
I can imagine that, and may have played a part in it. However, no matter how much brute force, morale, and air superiority the enemy has, if you know where they are, you're practically set.
I am sure that ESR's beliefs on Open Source are just as personal as his beliefs on personal liberty; there is even a little overlap here. If he was using CatB not only as a document for the promotion of Open Source software, but also gun rights, anti-abortion, etc I could see some room for argument simply on the grounds of irrelevancy. However, I surely doubt that during his paid 'gigs' on open-source, he mixes the two.
My point, I don't think that ESR mixes his beliefs out of context.
--
That is all.
Although I am completely for encryption, I don't think the government's reason for outlawing encryption export is to fight criminals. I think the issue is national security for them. The only reason the Allies beat the Nazis in WWII was because they had cracked their codes and knew most of what Germany was doing. The problem in the US's policy is that if terrorists or other countries really wanted strong encryption they could a) develop their own, or b) simply steal it from the United States/other countries. There is little in place to stop them.
nb. These views have all probably been expressed more eloquently by someone else, but that's my to binary digits worth.
That'sonly because the FCC, CRTC, and any other state ageny for controlling communications are not concerned about anyone's rights and are inherently immoral. If there were no FCC, etc. they wouldn't be able to give the power to the cable companies to violate your property rights, not to mention the added "liberty" of deciding what methods you use for communications, and with whom you communicate.
Consarn it!
This AI machine certainly has more neurons than I have delegated to speech recognition as I am in the process of patenting a process in which you can switch 95% of your brain capacity over to web surfing, useless pop culture quotes, and slashdot posting.
I figure if everyone was less intelligent, it would be way easier to create artificial intelligence.
Oh I see.
You have the right to decide what other people do with their private property simply because you would like to play a snappy game of Quake2 at you convience.
I thought we were suppossed to live in a `free' society.
Freedom of speech does not come with a clause saying that you are free from responsibility for ever and a day.
If you are going to post something on the internet, post as if you are publishing it in a newspaper or a book: you are still responsible for what you say. Granted, most of the internet claims to be "anonymous", but that is far from the truth, and it still does not give you the ability to communicate without assuming the responsibility of your ideas.
As a Libertarian, how do you think laissez-faire capitalism fits in with Open Source software. That is to say, how can people manage to seek payment for their intellectual labour when it is freely distributable, and how will large software vendors make a profit off their products.
I doubt that Corel has any plans for releasing the full version sans GPL nor could they feasibly get away with it. This is a little different: they are the first large software developer to add a linux distribution to their line up. Obviously, they still have some of their old procedures in place, and those will be tough to convince the suits to change, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that their next beta test they do will probably come with GPL compliance. I also doubt many programmers are all that concerned about their code being used like this. It seems as it is only the religious followers of the GPL who just want stuff for free, not the ones that see the value of "free", as in liberty, software.
They're developing Reardon Metal and creating superfast trains out of it. D'Anconia is running the place and scamming the mooching VC's out of there money while plotting to fake a disaster. Years later, someone will look through the old Transmeta compound and discover John Galt, the robot, and it will eventually save us all from the looters that have been riding the back of Internet.
I see a book in this someplace.
Yes, you could ask someone who lived, and eventually fled, the USSR. I think I'll pick up my copy of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand. My goodness, the title isn't ironic! Capitalism is the ideal and every other system is simply second rate and living off the wealth generated by the right to ownership of property. Rand also makes several dozen arguments why the poor are better off under capitalism. Do the poor in communist countries own cars, property, telephones, vcr's, televisions, hell, even clothes? I surely doubt it. The fact of the matter is that the poor, under capitalism, end up being the middle class of every other economic structure.