As a musician who's watched the music world go from tube to solid state back to tube, I can claim with confidence that the majority of musicians worth their salt choose tube amps because they Sound Better. Period. Its that simple. They sound better. Any guitar player that would rather play through a lump of cold clay has never sat in front of an early seventies Marshall or Park with the dial on 11.
For a movement such as "open source" to in one breath claim the true path of freedom is one of open exchange of ideas, and then use a term like altruism to help define this, seems contradictory. Free exchange presuposes that what is being exchanged is being done under consent of the owner, which implies property, which implies property rights - which cannot exist in a socio/politico/economic culture that uses altruism as a standard for defining ethical interaction between trading partners.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to define the free exchange as an environment where owners of property share said property because they believe it is in their self-interest to do so? This would bring with it the condition that when it is no longer in their interests, they will cease to share.
I'm not disputing the conclusions of this post, but I would be interested in a discussion of open source that keeps in mind the necessity of property rights in maintaining freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me? Audiophile?
As a musician who's watched the music world go from tube to solid state back to tube, I can claim with confidence that the majority of musicians worth their salt choose tube amps because they Sound Better. Period. Its that simple. They sound better. Any guitar player that would rather play through a lump of cold clay has never sat in front of an early seventies Marshall or Park with the dial on 11.
I'll be obtaining a tube board as soon as I can.
For a movement such as "open source" to in one breath claim the true path of freedom is one of open exchange of ideas, and then use a term like altruism to help define this, seems contradictory. Free exchange presuposes that what is being exchanged is being done under consent of the owner, which implies property, which implies property rights - which cannot exist in a socio/politico/economic culture that uses altruism as a standard for defining ethical interaction between trading partners. Wouldn't it be more accurate to define the free exchange as an environment where owners of property share said property because they believe it is in their self-interest to do so? This would bring with it the condition that when it is no longer in their interests, they will cease to share. I'm not disputing the conclusions of this post, but I would be interested in a discussion of open source that keeps in mind the necessity of property rights in maintaining freedom.