You've got the use of force exactly backwards. It's you who's trying to force BigPhoneCo to sell service to WeeISP.com. BigPhoneco is *offering* you a service which you can accept or decline.
Let me put it this way: given that whoever installs the fiber has to sell to all comers, why doesn't BigPhoneCo wait for some other big company to install fiber? Essentially, you're creating a public good, and public goods are undersupplied. Gee, maybe that explains why nobody has invested in FTTH? -russ
And I quote: "In appreciation of your contribution to the open source community, Red Hat is pleased to offer you this personal, non-transferable, opportunity." -russ
Having to compete in a market is sufficient to serve the public interest. The only way a company can fail to serve the public interest and still make money is when the company has [been given] a monopoly.
I agree that the cable companies asked to be nationalized. They were greedy and short-sighted. There is always a price to be paid for dealing with the devil, and they're find it out now. -russ p.s. I'm sure you're quoting Chesterton out of context. He was as anti-government as the next liberal.
I don't expect *ANY* incumbent to deploy fiber. If the government can manage to limit its actions to protecting private property rights, then what will happen is the cablecos and telcos will compete (somewhat, sometimes), and make a lot of money. Someone else with a lot of money will want a piece of that money, so *they* will install fiber, not the cablecos or telcos. Incumbents rarely want to risk destroying their business model until it's far too late from them to succeed at it. -russ
No, the whole point of this article was to persuade people that it is acceptable to consider taking property from one set of people and giving it to another set.
The fact is that broadcasters were *not* broadcasting on the same frequencies. How do you explain this? Cooperation? Nahhh, *THAT* can't be, people are incapable of cooperating without government to force them to cooperate (but isn't forced cooperation an oxymoron?) -russ
You're right, it's not always bad. On *average*, it's bad, and you never know when your favorite part is the part that's going to be above average. -russ
The problem is that you have to have *enlightened* self-interest. If you only consider your own good in the short term, you'll steal every meal. In the long term, though, you'll be denied the ability even to buy a meal.
We need fiber optics laid to people's houses. The only way that investment is going to happen is if property rights are respected. And that includes the cable TV companies'. -russ
And nobody's going to risk dollar one in trying to compete, with your kind of attitude. Who, in their right mind, who invest the kind of dollars needed to do facilities-based competition if they know they can just steal access from the cable company?
The only way you're going to get competition is if you let the cable companies make a ton of money, AND it's clear the secure property rights will reign. Who would put up any kind of investment if they think the government is going to waltz in and nationalize it?? -russ
Let's face it -- we need fiber optics to the home. It's the only way to get real broadband to the home. And if companies have to allow their competitors have open access, who's going to take the risk of installing that fiber optic cable? -russ
RMS mostly complains about Open Source because the name lacks the magical word "free". I complain about "free" software because there are three meanings of "free": freely-copyable, zero-cost, and junk. RMS overestimates the value of "free", particularly in these here United States, where "free" (meaning liberty) is a four-letter word. -russ
Nobody's telling you what to do. If you don't like Open Source, don't use the term. If you don't want your software certified as Open Source, don't ask us (OSI) for certification. Isn't freedom wonderful? -russ
So if Sun's stuff is Open Source, how come it's not OSI Certified(tm) Open Source?? The answer is that it's not Open Source and it's not free(libre) software. Explain to me again how this is ESR's fault? -russ
Yeah, but they'll never get the SCSL certified by OSI as an Open Source license unless they give people the essential right to distribute modifications. -russ
I notice that you are not attempting to convince me that I'm wrong. It must be, then, that you think I'm right, but don't like it. Too bad for you, then. -russ
This is too arrogant for words. Why are these people having more children? Obviously, *they* think it's the right thing to do. Why? I see no evidence that you care. All I see is you calling *them* stupid. Pretty fucking arrogant. -russ
Hey! Get it right! It's shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits. His Most Holiness George Carlin has given us those words in His own order, and we must repeat them precisely. -russ
Society is the sum of the interactions between individuals.
The state is the institution which has traditionally interfered with these interactions, but whose proper place is solely to stop the non-voluntary interactions.
You're right -- society is a necessity. The state is optional. -russ
People control their own fertility. Animals do not. Most people who do not accept this fact are arrogant first-world bastards. They think that third-world citizens are ignorant savages who, if they were only told about contraceptives, would stop having babies. -russ
What arrogance! Who are you to presume that they are ignorant savages? Could it actually be that they know their own living situation better than you, and that they have chosen the way of living which is best for them? -russ
Clue: lesser-developed countries are poor because their citizens lack secure property rights, not because they have too many children.
Explanation: if you're going to invest in something, you want a return. If you live in a free country with secure property rights, you'll be willing to invest in property. Otherwise, you'll invest in people, because the people can follow you when you become a refugee because of the latest damnfool thing your government has done. -russ
Slashdot Mirror
You've got the use of force exactly backwards. It's you who's trying to force BigPhoneCo to sell service to WeeISP.com. BigPhoneco is *offering* you a service which you can accept or decline.
Let me put it this way: given that whoever installs the fiber has to sell to all comers, why doesn't BigPhoneCo wait for some other big company to install fiber? Essentially, you're creating a public good, and public goods are undersupplied. Gee, maybe that explains why nobody has invested in FTTH?
-russ
And I quote: "In appreciation of your contribution to the open source community, Red Hat is pleased to offer you this personal, non-transferable, opportunity."
-russ
Having to compete in a market is sufficient to serve the public interest. The only way a company can fail to serve the public interest and still make money is when the company has [been given] a monopoly.
I agree that the cable companies asked to be nationalized. They were greedy and short-sighted. There is always a price to be paid for dealing with the devil, and they're find it out now.
-russ
p.s. I'm sure you're quoting Chesterton out of context. He was as anti-government as the next liberal.
There is at least one community with competitive cable providers.
-russ
I don't expect *ANY* incumbent to deploy fiber. If the government can manage to limit its actions to protecting private property rights, then what will happen is the cablecos and telcos will compete (somewhat, sometimes), and make a lot of money. Someone else with a lot of money will want a piece of that money, so *they* will install fiber, not the cablecos or telcos. Incumbents rarely want to risk destroying their business model until it's far too late from them to succeed at it.
-russ
No, the whole point of this article was to persuade people that it is acceptable to consider taking property from one set of people and giving it to another set.
The fact is that broadcasters were *not* broadcasting on the same frequencies. How do you explain this? Cooperation? Nahhh, *THAT* can't be, people are incapable of cooperating without government to force them to cooperate (but isn't forced cooperation an oxymoron?)
-russ
Right, but at what price? And will it make money? And will something else make you more money?
-russ
You're right, it's not always bad. On *average*, it's bad, and you never know when your favorite part is the part that's going to be above average.
-russ
The problem is that you have to have *enlightened* self-interest. If you only consider your own good in the short term, you'll steal every meal. In the long term, though, you'll be denied the ability even to buy a meal.
We need fiber optics laid to people's houses. The only way that investment is going to happen is if property rights are respected. And that includes the cable TV companies'.
-russ
And nobody's going to risk dollar one in trying to compete, with your kind of attitude. Who, in their right mind, who invest the kind of dollars needed to do facilities-based competition if they know they can just steal access from the cable company?
The only way you're going to get competition is if you let the cable companies make a ton of money, AND it's clear the secure property rights will reign. Who would put up any kind of investment if they think the government is going to waltz in and nationalize it??
-russ
This friend speaks my mind!
-russ
Let's face it -- we need fiber optics to the home. It's the only way to get real broadband to the home. And if companies have to allow their competitors have open access, who's going to take the risk of installing that fiber optic cable?
-russ
RMS mostly complains about Open Source because the name lacks the magical word "free". I complain about "free" software because there are three meanings of "free": freely-copyable, zero-cost, and junk. RMS overestimates the value of "free", particularly in these here United States, where "free" (meaning liberty) is a four-letter word.
-russ
Nobody's telling you what to do. If you don't like Open Source, don't use the term. If you don't want your software certified as Open Source, don't ask us (OSI) for certification. Isn't freedom wonderful?
-russ
So if Sun's stuff is Open Source, how come it's not OSI Certified(tm) Open Source?? The answer is that it's not Open Source and it's not free(libre) software. Explain to me again how this is ESR's fault?
-russ
Yeah, but they'll never get the SCSL certified by OSI as an Open Source license unless they give people the essential right to distribute modifications.
-russ
I notice that you are not attempting to convince me that I'm wrong. It must be, then, that you think I'm right, but don't like it. Too bad for you, then.
-russ
This is too arrogant for words. Why are these people having more children? Obviously, *they* think it's the right thing to do. Why? I see no evidence that you care. All I see is you calling *them* stupid. Pretty fucking arrogant.
-russ
Exactly my point. You meddle in that which you do not understand. That's arrogance.
-russ
You can get gd1.3.tar.gz from me.
-russ
Hey! Get it right! It's shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits. His Most Holiness George Carlin has given us those words in His own order, and we must repeat them precisely.
-russ
Society is the sum of the interactions between individuals.
The state is the institution which has traditionally interfered with these interactions, but whose proper place is solely to stop the non-voluntary interactions.
You're right -- society is a necessity. The state is optional.
-russ
People control their own fertility. Animals do not. Most people who do not accept this fact are arrogant first-world bastards. They think that third-world citizens are ignorant savages who, if they were only told about contraceptives, would stop having babies.
-russ
What arrogance! Who are you to presume that they are ignorant savages? Could it actually be that they know their own living situation better than you, and that they have chosen the way of living which is best for them?
-russ
Clue: lesser-developed countries are poor because their citizens lack secure property rights, not because they have too many children.
Explanation: if you're going to invest in something, you want a return. If you live in a free country with secure property rights, you'll be willing to invest in property. Otherwise, you'll invest in people, because the people can follow you when you become a refugee because of the latest damnfool thing your government has done.
-russ