I am a law student and "nerd." My nerdy interests tend to include science-politics-philosophy-economics. I have never used Linux (and so am implicitly excluded from/ irrelevant to much of the discussion on Slashdot), but the idea fascinates me. To the point of the thread, though, what deters me from trying out or switching to Linux is not just the learning curve and the time, but the opportunity cost. By this I mean that time spent learning and doing real computing (as opposed to hobby stuff) on a Linux box is necessarily time that I can't spend doing my work on an OS/software that I know, if not exactly love.
I'm to the point where I'm fascinated by the idea of Linux and open source software (though not ideologically committed to it to the exclusion of proprietary software), but that's all it is for me, a fascination. I'd like to challenge open source advocates to show the masses (or maybe just people like me, mildly smart and willing to experiment, but conscious of my own ignorance and the opportunity costs involved) a cost effective way to switch over to or integrate Linux computing into their lives in a way that doesn't leave us dependent on the help of people like you in the same way that we're now dependent on Microsoft, Dell, etc. for the same thing, or sacrifice the ability to do the same things we can with mainstream desktop software. That, in my humble non-computer-geek thinking, is the biggest obstacle to be overcome in swaying average people (and their dollars, time, and commitment) to accept the neat things you do.
Internet censorship, while it is of course a bad thing, is of minor magnitude in comparison to slave labor, one party-state rule, nationalized private property, and summary executions. This criminal government restricts expression of ideas in any other form, so why is this shocking, surprising, or anything other than par for the course?
Orwell's concept refers to the act of government control of the records of history. The idea that ideology determines what will be considered a fact. Spottiness of records is lamentable, but is a feature of the lack of centralized control. As Orwell was concerned about totalitarian (centralized authority's) control of the truth, perhaps we should view this turn of events as precisely the opposite: No publishing authority will go unquestioned and credibility can only be gained by maintenance (including financial maintenance) of records.
The case before the court concerned agreements between authors and publishers, and the liberality of interpretation of the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the 1976 Copyright Act. In essence, the court decided that authors were not properly compensated by the act of republication (versus a new edition) in electronic form. The case also was primarily concerned with proprietary databases such as LEXIS-NEXIS and the New York Times; Any long time user of either of these can tell you that selective coverage is normal and depends on the agreements between publishers and authors. This decision may add some confusion to the mix, or it may actually simplify things. I bet on the latter and think that writers are just asserting a reasonable claim against a vaguely worded statute that has deferred to publishers for too long.
The explanation on the web page you list is pretty thorough, but it assumes the need for a government central bank. In a commodity money system, the whole idea is that the central bank is eliminated and the value of everything (including the medium of exchange) is determined by the market(s,) including spot markets for rival banks' money. This forces reliability (nix on fraudelent fractional reserve practices) to emerge as a prerequisite to the banks making a profit. Inflation as created by central banks' issuance of unbacked paper or devalued metal ceases to exist as a phenomenon.
Incidentally, though you may disagree with the analysis given by commodity money advocates, "fiat money" is a genuine term of art used by economists. See, e.g., http://www.bartleby.com/65/fi/fiatmone.html
The talk of gold standard vs. paper money misses the economic essentials-- The real issue is fiat money vs. commodity money. As a historical fact (not necessarily what may be printed in an Econ 101 textbook) the gold standard in the U.S. was de facto abandoned in the late 19th-- early 20th century due to pressure from indebted farmers to have the government devalue the currency (and thus ease their debt burdens) by fiat (the Greenback and Populist movements. The fact that the Federal Reserve manipulates the value of money via the subtle more subtle/sensible technique of changing interest rates (or the price of the dollar) rather than printing it outright is due to the influence of economists like Friedman and Greenspan and does not change the unfairness and impediment inherent in fiat money.
Fiat money is a type of control that hamstrings the ability of individuals to agree to a mutually desired/ valued medium of exchange. For a long time, gold was universally valu(ed)(able) and arguably still is. Like any other commodity, there are costs associated with using gold (storage, mining, security measures). Any mutually desired/valued commodity can be used, and in a free market for money, the most reliable standard will emerge (probably gold-backed private reserve notes at this point).
It is worth noting that the U.S. Constitution only grants Congress the power to "coin" money and forbids States from making anything but gold and silver legal tender for payment of debt. The Founders, whatever their flaws, seemed to recognize the con game of state-managed currency from the outset.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a law student and "nerd." My nerdy interests tend to include science-politics-philosophy-economics. I have never used Linux (and so am implicitly excluded from/ irrelevant to much of the discussion on Slashdot), but the idea fascinates me. To the point of the thread, though, what deters me from trying out or switching to Linux is not just the learning curve and the time, but the opportunity cost. By this I mean that time spent learning and doing real computing (as opposed to hobby stuff) on a Linux box is necessarily time that I can't spend doing my work on an OS/software that I know, if not exactly love.
I'm to the point where I'm fascinated by the idea of Linux and open source software (though not ideologically committed to it to the exclusion of proprietary software), but that's all it is for me, a fascination. I'd like to challenge open source advocates to show the masses (or maybe just people like me, mildly smart and willing to experiment, but conscious of my own ignorance and the opportunity costs involved) a cost effective way to switch over to or integrate Linux computing into their lives in a way that doesn't leave us dependent on the help of people like you in the same way that we're now dependent on Microsoft, Dell, etc. for the same thing, or sacrifice the ability to do the same things we can with mainstream desktop software. That, in my humble non-computer-geek thinking, is the biggest obstacle to be overcome in swaying average people (and their dollars, time, and commitment) to accept the neat things you do.
Internet censorship, while it is of course a bad thing, is of minor magnitude in comparison to slave labor, one party-state rule, nationalized private property, and summary executions. This criminal government restricts expression of ideas in any other form, so why is this shocking, surprising, or anything other than par for the course?
Orwell's concept refers to the act of government control of the records of history. The idea that ideology determines what will be considered a fact. Spottiness of records is lamentable, but is a feature of the lack of centralized control. As Orwell was concerned about totalitarian (centralized authority's) control of the truth, perhaps we should view this turn of events as precisely the opposite: No publishing authority will go unquestioned and credibility can only be gained by maintenance (including financial maintenance) of records.
The case before the court concerned agreements between authors and publishers, and the liberality of interpretation of the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the 1976 Copyright Act. In essence, the court decided that authors were not properly compensated by the act of republication (versus a new edition) in electronic form. The case also was primarily concerned with proprietary databases such as LEXIS-NEXIS and the New York Times; Any long time user of either of these can tell you that selective coverage is normal and depends on the agreements between publishers and authors. This decision may add some confusion to the mix, or it may actually simplify things. I bet on the latter and think that writers are just asserting a reasonable claim against a vaguely worded statute that has deferred to publishers for too long.
The explanation on the web page you list is pretty thorough, but it assumes the need for a government central bank. In a commodity money system, the whole idea is that the central bank is eliminated and the value of everything (including the medium of exchange) is determined by the market(s,) including spot markets for rival banks' money. This forces reliability (nix on fraudelent fractional reserve practices) to emerge as a prerequisite to the banks making a profit. Inflation as created by central banks' issuance of unbacked paper or devalued metal ceases to exist as a phenomenon.
Incidentally, though you may disagree with the analysis given by commodity money advocates, "fiat money" is a genuine term of art used by economists. See, e.g., http://www.bartleby.com/65/fi/fiatmone.html
The talk of gold standard vs. paper money misses the economic essentials-- The real issue is fiat money vs. commodity money. As a historical fact (not necessarily what may be printed in an Econ 101 textbook) the gold standard in the U.S. was de facto abandoned in the late 19th-- early 20th century due to pressure from indebted farmers to have the government devalue the currency (and thus ease their debt burdens) by fiat (the Greenback and Populist movements. The fact that the Federal Reserve manipulates the value of money via the subtle more subtle/sensible technique of changing interest rates (or the price of the dollar) rather than printing it outright is due to the influence of economists like Friedman and Greenspan and does not change the unfairness and impediment inherent in fiat money.
Fiat money is a type of control that hamstrings the ability of individuals to agree to a mutually desired/ valued medium of exchange. For a long time, gold was universally valu(ed)(able) and arguably still is. Like any other commodity, there are costs associated with using gold (storage, mining, security measures). Any mutually desired/valued commodity can be used, and in a free market for money, the most reliable standard will emerge (probably gold-backed private reserve notes at this point).
It is worth noting that the U.S. Constitution only grants Congress the power to "coin" money and forbids States from making anything but gold and silver legal tender for payment of debt. The Founders, whatever their flaws, seemed to recognize the con game of state-managed currency from the outset.