Liberalism, is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. (from wikipedia)
. I might argue that the idea of being a liberal subsumes the right to freedom of speech. I'm not going to, however, as it's an extremely broad term by the looks of it. You're quite right. I should have said libertarian - my intent would have been far clearer.
Also is there any need for the false camaraderie.. "bud"? and the KKK comments. All I'm saying is that people should be allowed to express their thoughts and if you disagree the appropriate response is not to call them names but to argue the point. And your response to that is to denigrate me. I don't think your behaviour is any better than the people you are attacking.
As far as "society" is concerned I think that it is a made up thing that you and your friends have invented so that you can make arguments based on an appeal to authority. Why do you get to decide what society thinks? To quote Margaret Thatcher "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."
You don't want anyone being vile but if they are you're going to be vile to them? I don't follow the logic. Your problem is that people are vile and your solution is to be vile as well? As soon as one person is vile everyone gets to be? Your train of thought is reminiscent to me of people who kill abortion doctors to save lives.
Black people in the United States used to be called niggers. Originally from the latin "niger" for black. It's use is considered highly offensive.
Also why is it only white people who aren't allowed to use the word?
As a liberal I do think someone's right to use slurs is more important than those who are hurt by it. I regard your comment as offensive. I'm not going to run off to the court of popular opinion to try and whip up a witch hunt. We're grown ups now. If you don't like what someone is saying I suggest you: (optionally) politely point out to them what they've said that offended you and why, and then move on. The right to freedom is (in my humble opinion) more important than protecting people from being offended (because there's no line in the sand which you can draw where no one will be offended it just keeps moving). it never ends. We just keep restricting what can be said.
The word nigger has highly pejorative overtones. I suggest to anyone reading this that they not use it just as a matter of common courtesy. I strongly believe people should be allowed to use it however.
In essence this is a type of negative income tax. I've seen a lot of of argument-to-authority points made on the list. My point is Friedman, who won a Nobel prize in economics, thought it was a good idea. So forget the nay-sayers and come to your own conclusions. Usually, this is tied to getting rid of minimum wage limits which, it has been argued, are the cause of unemployment.
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Most people want what they're used to and aren't in a position to judge the merits of other approaches.
It's not an entirely invalid position they want to minimize the time they spend learning this stuff, or to put that another way: maximize the return on the time they've sunk learning to do things the way they currently do.
However, I don't believe I should have to do things inefficiently because they're lazy or disinterested. For a lot of tasks GUI's are for noobs (but not all tasks, e.g. creating images). I find Macs really painful to work with because they hide the underlying functionality (caveat I haven't used one in years). The new tablet/phone friendly window managers on PCs are really really painful to use. Just because the plebs want McDonalds doesn't mean I have to eat it (though it's ok now and again)
Porting games to Linux is getting a lot easier since Unreal Engine and Unity (and other game engines) now build executables for Linux. What's required is for the Linux game market share to be large enough that there's money to be made going to the trouble to do that. It's at 1% according to steam, but I've seen figures that say it's at 1.7% elsewhere. Macs at 3.4%. The larger the title, the more money involved, the more motivation there is to support a Linux version, e.g. Civ 5 I think made circa $250 million (extrapolating from number of sales and average price.. possibly an overestimate but then I'm only counting steam figures). That means there's $2.5 million from Linux sales. If it's as simple as having one dude supporting the Linux port then it's certainly worth it.
The larger the Linux market, the more reason there is for porting to Linux which increases the Linux market.. positive feedback and Linux gaming starts to snowball. That's why the Linux release of Street Fighter V is so good, despite the fact that Windows still has 95% of the market on steam.
Data is not the plural of anecdote. Are you suggesting that no games crash on Windows for anyone? Is it really that unbelievable that a couple of games don't work on a given system.
This is my *theory* as to why open source makes sense in capitalism...
Suppose the following: markets are efficient (pause for laughter), the cost to develop a project is $7,000,000, there are: 7,000,000,000 people in the world, the cost to reproduce the software is effectively $0.
Then the amortized break even cost of the software is: 7,000,000 / 7,000,000,000 $/person = $0.001 ~= $0
There are a bunch of other reasons to give the software away, e.g.: you need the software and you cannot make make money from it, gain market share and lock-in.
So, as in the prisoners dilemma, the best personal strategy also happens to be the best overall strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
You write a library and put whatever you want in it... and we won't complain.
Liberalism, is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. (from wikipedia)
. I might argue that the idea of being a liberal subsumes the right to freedom of speech. I'm not going to, however, as it's an extremely broad term by the looks of it. You're quite right. I should have said libertarian - my intent would have been far clearer.
Also is there any need for the false camaraderie.. "bud"? and the KKK comments. All I'm saying is that people should be allowed to express their thoughts and if you disagree the appropriate response is not to call them names but to argue the point. And your response to that is to denigrate me. I don't think your behaviour is any better than the people you are attacking.
As far as "society" is concerned I think that it is a made up thing that you and your friends have invented so that you can make arguments based on an appeal to authority. Why do you get to decide what society thinks? To quote Margaret Thatcher "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."
You don't want anyone being vile but if they are you're going to be vile to them? I don't follow the logic. Your problem is that people are vile and your solution is to be vile as well? As soon as one person is vile everyone gets to be? Your train of thought is reminiscent to me of people who kill abortion doctors to save lives.
No it doesn't, e.g.
Black people in the United States used to be called niggers. Originally from the latin "niger" for black. It's use is considered highly offensive.
Also why is it only white people who aren't allowed to use the word?
As a liberal I do think someone's right to use slurs is more important than those who are hurt by it. I regard your comment as offensive. I'm not going to run off to the court of popular opinion to try and whip up a witch hunt. We're grown ups now. If you don't like what someone is saying I suggest you: (optionally) politely point out to them what they've said that offended you and why, and then move on. The right to freedom is (in my humble opinion) more important than protecting people from being offended (because there's no line in the sand which you can draw where no one will be offended it just keeps moving). it never ends. We just keep restricting what can be said.
The word nigger has highly pejorative overtones. I suggest to anyone reading this that they not use it just as a matter of common courtesy. I strongly believe people should be allowed to use it however.
In essence this is a type of negative income tax. I've seen a lot of of argument-to-authority points made on the list. My point is Friedman, who won a Nobel prize in economics, thought it was a good idea. So forget the nay-sayers and come to your own conclusions. Usually, this is tied to getting rid of minimum wage limits which, it has been argued, are the cause of unemployment.
It costs you 100 million to make the first one. After that they should be pretty cheap. So make a few.
Cause someone posted it below.. and I read it and went away and came back again. Beer is good .. that is all
I was just reading this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window .. interesting.
In addition, we can now round up those people who want to round up the first lot of people that want to round up people.
Perhaps I'm being a trifle unfair on Macs. It's been quite a while since I used one (e.g. before the shift to BSD libs over Mach OS).
Henry Ford said:
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Most people want what they're used to and aren't in a position to judge the merits of other approaches.
It's not an entirely invalid position they want to minimize the time they spend learning this stuff, or to put that another way: maximize the return on the time they've sunk learning to do things the way they currently do.
However, I don't believe I should have to do things inefficiently because they're lazy or disinterested. For a lot of tasks GUI's are for noobs (but not all tasks, e.g. creating images). I find Macs really painful to work with because they hide the underlying functionality (caveat I haven't used one in years). The new tablet/phone friendly window managers on PCs are really really painful to use. Just because the plebs want McDonalds doesn't mean I have to eat it (though it's ok now and again)
Porting games to Linux is getting a lot easier since Unreal Engine and Unity (and other game engines) now build executables for Linux. What's required is for the Linux game market share to be large enough that there's money to be made going to the trouble to do that. It's at 1% according to steam, but I've seen figures that say it's at 1.7% elsewhere. Macs at 3.4%. The larger the title, the more money involved, the more motivation there is to support a Linux version, e.g. Civ 5 I think made circa $250 million (extrapolating from number of sales and average price .. possibly an overestimate but then I'm only counting steam figures). That means there's $2.5 million from Linux sales. If it's as simple as having one dude supporting the Linux port then it's certainly worth it.
The larger the Linux market, the more reason there is for porting to Linux which increases the Linux market.. positive feedback and Linux gaming starts to snowball. That's why the Linux release of Street Fighter V is so good, despite the fact that Windows still has 95% of the market on steam.
Data is not the plural of anecdote. Are you suggesting that no games crash on Windows for anyone? Is it really that unbelievable that a couple of games don't work on a given system.
This is my *theory* as to why open source makes sense in capitalism... Suppose the following: markets are efficient (pause for laughter), the cost to develop a project is $7,000,000, there are: 7,000,000,000 people in the world, the cost to reproduce the software is effectively $0. Then the amortized break even cost of the software is: 7,000,000 / 7,000,000,000 $/person = $0.001 ~= $0 There are a bunch of other reasons to give the software away, e.g.: you need the software and you cannot make make money from it, gain market share and lock-in. So, as in the prisoners dilemma, the best personal strategy also happens to be the best overall strategy.