Speaking of which, at some point in the near future I'll probably need some help cataloging updates(I'll eventually start using bots to help). If anyone is interesed, e-mail me.
I've registered the domain linuxpatch.com (not hosted yet). I'm working on a centralized patch database/repository...complete with ratings by importance (ie security) and stability.
Arg! I said I was going to stop, but I just have to say one more thing:)
People give lip service to respecting differences, except when that difference is capitalism vs. socialism. To these same people, who respect all sorts of social conventions, capitalism is just a horror that must be brought down at all costs.
I hope my statements haven't caused you to think that of me. As Voltaire said (paraphrased): "I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Nope..I disagree. I don't buy the society is inherently corrupt arguements. I'm more optimistic than that. I also don't buy that government is necesarily corrupt. I think you can have your cake and eat it too! I just don't think that humanity as a whole is ready for a full on utopian socialist society. Our mindset is generally not geared toward the level of honesty required. Now socialized medicine, transportation, welfare (yes, I think welfare is a good thing as a whole), and schools, to name a few, are steps toward socialization we can take without excessive risk of corruption, IMHO. I'm willing to pay more taxes for these services. I'm glad to pay taxes if they are used for something I feel is valuable for society.
fascism != socialism. Mussalini made the trains run on time with fear. ie. If the trains are late you'll be shot.
As far as the rest of your arguements go, they all seem to revolve around the idea that, because a socialist government provides so many services, there is an increased risk that a tryranical government will withhold those services based on some arbitrary "bias-du-jour". I would argue that the risk is no greater with socialist goverments than with any other goverments. So what do you advocate? Anarchy? That seems to be what you are driving at. With a well framed government with appropriate and working restrictions and checks and balances, your concerns should be minimized.
I think what it comes down to is that you don't trust government (a uniquely American view, I've found) and nothing anyone can say will change that. You think that tyranny is inherent in the government, and I think that tyranny is inherent in the great disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots". So I'm going to bow out of this particular arguement, and agree to disagree. It's been fun.
Yes, and Mussalini made the trains run on time. fascism != socialism. Mussalini made the trains run on time with fear. ie. If the trains are late you'll be shot. As far as the rest of your arguements go, they all seem to revolve around the idea that, because a socialist government provides so many services, there is an increased risk that a tryranical government will withhold those services based on some arbitrary "bias-du-jour". I would argue that the risk is no greater with socialist goverments than with any other goverments. So what do you advocate? Anarchy? That seems to be what you are driving at. With a well framed government with appropriate and working restrictions and checks and balances, your concerns should be minimized. I think what it comes down to is that you don't trust government (a uniquely American view, I've found) and nothing anyone can say will change that. You think that tyranny is inherent in the government, and I think that tyranny is inherent in the great disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots". So I'm going to bow out of this particular arguement, and agree to disagree. It's been fun. Cheers
Boy, that's the most intellegent argument I've ever heard
Let's examine your point's one by one. (Though I don't know why I bother feeding the trolls)
"Yes, that' sgovernment coercion the company has to label the food in europe but in America we are FREE not to have to have the label. its non of your bisiness what's in it' it's food they're a company if they sell it theyre successful company its be good because if they sell bad food they go out of business."
Now I'll leave the poor typing alone (Ad Hominem arguements are bad). First: You are wrong. The government requires a great deal of labeling. Examples: Ingredients and nutrition information are both required on all packaged food. Alcohol must carry a warning about health effects. Second: While businesses may be "free" to hide the fact that thier food is genetically altered, individuals are no longer "free" to eat food which has not been altered. Is corporate freedom better than individual freedom? Third: (this is just being nitpicky) Companies that sell bad food do not neccesarily go out of business. I mean look at american cheese (an apt name if I've ever heard it). How the hell does Kraft stay in business. They sell nothing but unhealthy crap.
"Again you are confused the data belongs to company that has it if they cant sell it to anybody or if the government make them not be able to get it THATS SOCIALISM AND ITS WRONG. "
I don't understand this sentence
"If you want the privacy law you haev something to hide"
Hmmm...(eyebrows raised)...
"Your free in the US but freedom should not be confused with license, freedom doesnt mean you can just go and do anything. It means yuor free. Thats not the same thing as being able to do anything just because you want to."
Boy, where should I start with this one....hmmm...how about a definition: Freedom: 1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
By definition, freedom does mean you can do anything...but that's not the point. As near as I can tell, you are trying to say that privacy restrictions are under the realm of "protection for the greater good of society" I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Most, however, feel that it is individuals who should be protected from business for the greater good of society.
"Or if you want to do absolutely anything then you probably want to do something sick and we dont have to put up with that in america. Not like europe where its all fags and women that think theyr men."
Boy, you're really lining them up and knocking them down, aren't you. I'm just going to take a stab at the dark here: You're 12 and you've never been out of Kansas, let alone to Europe. Am I right?
"ITs because the government never let us have one, the human race always had a government and of course it wont let us have a true librarian sociaty because thats bad for the goverment it cant control us then. So it makes us not have that but we should."
You'll have to excuse me...I'm having trouble decyphering your rather "free" gramatical structure. So what you are saying is that a librarian society won't happen because the goverment can't control us. You may finally be right. Reading does indeed help liberate people from an oppresive government. I suggest you try it.
Without even a trial, people can be condemned to die by the government by rationed health care or denied their livelihood through capricious decisions of government control of commerce. We in the US are not much different in this regard as we are getting more "cradle to grave" services all the time.
Now you're just talking about. There's nothing inherent in socialism that says that the goverment services must be of poor quality.
As far as health care goes, look no further than the US. Health insurance is for whoever can afford it. Furthermore, costs are spiraling. While you and I are in a priviledged class who can afford health care, there are a great many people who are condemned to die simply because the government doesn't dole out health care for all. That arguement works equally well both ways.
And to address the point about the government controlling commerce. I think you ignore the benefit of government regulation. I feel that the wave of mistrust toward the government is precipitated by a corrupt government. Further more, I think that corrupt goverments become far less likely with a true democracy. The US is not a true democracy. The framers of our government didn't believe that people were smart enough to rule themselves, so they created a goverment which allowed people to rule themselves, while perpetuating a ruling class. While class boundaries are not impenetrable, I feel that the overall difficulty in penetrating them contributes to a corrupt government.
Most European countries do not have guarantees like we have in the United States. I know, for example, that Europeans often have no guarantees of freedom of expression or assembly.
This isn't because the government is a socialist one...it's just because, well, they see no need. This may be folly (time will tell). I assume these objections would be assuaged if they had a constitution like document? There is nothing in the bill of rights that is incompatible with socialism.
Well...I was going to address some of your other points (I love political discourse), but I think I've already typed enough for now. Thanks for listening to the rants of a raving socialist.:)
I'm sorry, but whenever anyone recieves too much power there is a much greater chance of corruption.
And that, my friend, si the crux of the argument! (Smile), now we're getting somewhere.
To be more specific than my last post, I consider my self (to make up a term) a pragmatic socialist. At this point I don't feel that utopian socialism is feasable. I advocate socialism on a smaller scale. I also think the ISO (International Socialist Organization) are generally a bunch of extremist nuts.
Most of your points have been addressed by others, but I've got a couple additional comments:
ride on a non-car transportation system (i.e. train, bus) that isn't owned or regulated to practical ownership by the gov't? Amtrak and Greyhound have both been on the dole for as long as I can remember.
take a medicine whether or not the gov't health agency says they can?
I seem to recall RU-486 being pretty hard to get a hold of. Also, ever tried to smoke marijuana for medical reasons?
ESR just realizes the fundamental contradiction in believing that 'social democracy' as it is practiced in nearly every country in the world [...] Or in short form, the idiots are too stupid to run their own lives but are smart enough to run their neighbors.
First, ESR's "realization" didn't need to involve relating socialism to nazis.
As far as the second half goes, sounds like it describes the US to a "T". Interestingly enough, I've found most european countries to be much more tolerant in general. There are bad points, true, but the US is worse on almost all counts. At least most of Europe has eradicated the barbaric practice of executing criminals. And You can bet that the US would get even worse if that pesky constitution wasn't so hard to get around. How many iterations of that stupid CDA do we have to go through? How long before our government actually succeeds in taking our rights away?
My point is, the problem isn't goverment...it's bad government. And here in the US, we definately have bad goverment. It's just that most people here are too stupid to realise it. They simply point to the boogie man of opression in Europe (derisive snort) and put their heads back in the sand.
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by "socialist," because you must not be using the definition one usually encounters in the US. To an American, it suggests a strong central government, nationalization of many service industries, high taxes and pervasive regulation.
I think the biggest problem that many in the US have with socialism is a pronounced distrust of the government. I would argue that this is simply cynicism brought on by a rather corrupt government. Your first two points are bad only if the government isn't doing things properly. A benign and efficient goverment should not be something to be feared. The mistrust we hold for our goverment is a sad commentary on...well...our government.
As far as high taxes go...well...If the government is efficient, and providing quality services as it should, this should be a non-issue as well.
As far as pervasive regulation goes, well, I would argue that this is in no way inherent in the socialist system...at least no more than, say, a capitalist system.
Your views on Raymond's politics, his ego, his essays, his pronouncements on the term "GNU/Linux", his skills at diplomacy or lack thereof, his abilities as a "leader", or alleged unwillingness to admit himself wrong, and sundry personal qualities have nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand.
By equating Socialism with Nazism, ESR himself deflected the argument from what it should have been (the relative merits of CatB and Bezroukov's critique) to an argument about Raymond's politics. IMHO, he must have known this would happen. What he was thinking, I'll never know.
The above comment(ESR should go out sometimes) never proported to be discussing the strength of ESR's response...In fact, no mention at all was made of Bezroukov's critique. The comment dealt purely with ESR's rather gratuitous attack of socialism.
You can't equate a group of people with Nazi's and expect the group to stand idly by. One must wonder what Raymond's motives were for including such a remark.
I guess that's not really fair. I can give him the benefit of the doubt. It was probably just a thoughtless remark...but a simple apology might go a long way towards appeasing many whom he offended.
I just want to let you know that we aren't all batty on this side of the atlantic. I, for one, am getting mighty pissed at the direction the US is heading. Freedom my ass...:) Sorry.
I agree completely. I was deeply offended by his comments on socialism and thought them very gratuitous and rude. While he is certainly entitled to his opinion, it was in rather poor taste to air this particular one publicly.
I've noticed an interesting trend. When you go to a larger, respected university, what you are actually paying for is class sizes numbering in the hundreds and a bunch of TA's to do the teaching for the professors. Why the hell should I be paying a premium to be taught by a student? (No disrespect intended for some of the wonderful TA's I've met).
Re:Somebody please mirror the images!
on
The Cat Cam
·
· Score: 1
Very very fuzzy, but recognizable. You can see shapes and shades but almost no detail. They are on the right track though, and it's pretty exciting stuff.
I never said it was working or right. I just wanted to supply a few points to chew on. As I said, I'm neutral on the issue right now. I just think there are a few things that haven't been adaquitely(sp) addressed yet. And I sort of like playing devil's advocate.:)
True...but the cost of entering the market is much, much lower with software. You simply don't need the infrastructure that you need with traditional monopoly-prone industries. It's a different ball park, that's all I'm saying.
Interestingly enough, it seems to fall out like this: Huge competition crushers like MS can survive (of course). Small software companies tend to survive as well. It's the medium sized companies that get trampled...the small ones seem to come in under the radar. Once they get big enough to notice, they're in trouble.
That sort of dynamic just doesn't appear anywhere else. More food for thought: Most small companies can't be considered to have entered the market in a meaningful way. Yet, they survive. I could quit my corporate job (as a developer) and make a fantastic amount of money as an independent developer of custom components(assuming I had the general business sense, which I doubt). That small entry into the software market would certainly be meaningful to me. Could I start a small cable company in the same way? An oil company?
It may be decided that the differences are moot. I'm just saying that the differences are there.
I remain neutral on this issue right now...but I would like to point out some points to consider.
The software industry is very much different from any other industry that has ever existed. One of the major differences is cost of entry, and a related diffence is required capital.
The software industry is very inexpensive to enter, comparatively speaking. Once you are in the "software business", relatively little capital is required to keep the business going. Every other monopoly I've ever seen has been precisely the opposite! Oil, telecom, even IBM(as a "potental monopoly" at one point)! These industries are phenomenally expensive. Especially telecom. This is why telecom industries like to consolidate, and you see no small telecom companies(except a few artifically created ones, i.e. local government subsidized phone co's or LD resellers, who are still paying the big companies!).
Look at Linux...it never would have worked if the required capital was anywhere near that of the traditional monopoly.
What I'm trying to say is this: If Microsoft is to be considered a monopoly, that would be a significant departure from the traditional monopolies. There are many differences. They all need to be addressed before jumping to conclusions.
Re:We are no longer the knights who say "Ni"...
on
Monty Python Turns 30
·
· Score: 1
Hmm..I got curious, and looked for a script online. According to one page I found, its, "We are now the Knights who say "Ekky-ekky-ekky-ekky-z'Bang, zoom-Boing, z'nourrrwringmm". The world may never know.:) I'm going to have to watch it tonight.
Romane ite Domum. (Write this 100 times or I will cut your balls off.)
It's interesting, I never fully appreciated that bit until I started dating a Clasics Major. Kinda gives it a new perspective when you can actually understand what they are talking about. Before it was funny in a sort of abstract way, as a whole I guess. Now I can get into the specifics of why each part is funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of which, at some point in the near future I'll probably need some help cataloging updates(I'll eventually start using bots to help). If anyone is interesed, e-mail me.
I've registered the domain linuxpatch.com (not hosted yet). I'm working on a centralized patch database/repository...complete with ratings by importance (ie security) and stability.
Arg! I said I was going to stop, but I just have to say one more thing :)
People give lip service to respecting differences, except when that difference is capitalism vs. socialism. To these same people, who respect all sorts of social conventions, capitalism is just a horror that must be brought down at all costs.
I hope my statements haven't caused you to think that of me. As Voltaire said (paraphrased): "I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
This time I'm really done.
Now was it really necesary to misrepresent what I said in order to mock me? Grow up.
Nope..I disagree. I don't buy the society is inherently corrupt arguements. I'm more optimistic than that. I also don't buy that government is necesarily corrupt. I think you can have your cake and eat it too! I just don't think that humanity as a whole is ready for a full on utopian socialist society. Our mindset is generally not geared toward the level of honesty required. Now socialized medicine, transportation, welfare (yes, I think welfare is a good thing as a whole), and schools, to name a few, are steps toward socialization we can take without excessive risk of corruption, IMHO. I'm willing to pay more taxes for these services. I'm glad to pay taxes if they are used for something I feel is valuable for society.
Yes, and Mussalini made the trains run on time.
fascism != socialism. Mussalini made the trains run on time with fear. ie. If the trains are late you'll be shot.
As far as the rest of your arguements go, they all seem to revolve around the idea that, because a socialist government provides so many services, there is an increased risk that a tryranical government will withhold those services based on some arbitrary "bias-du-jour". I would argue that the risk is no greater with socialist goverments than with any other goverments. So what do you advocate? Anarchy? That seems to be what you are driving at. With a well framed government with appropriate and working restrictions and checks and balances, your concerns should be minimized.
I think what it comes down to is that you don't trust government (a uniquely American view, I've found) and nothing anyone can say will change that. You think that tyranny is inherent in the government, and I think that tyranny is inherent in the great disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots". So I'm going to bow out of this particular arguement, and agree to disagree. It's been fun.
Cheers
Yes, and Mussalini made the trains run on time. fascism != socialism. Mussalini made the trains run on time with fear. ie. If the trains are late you'll be shot. As far as the rest of your arguements go, they all seem to revolve around the idea that, because a socialist government provides so many services, there is an increased risk that a tryranical government will withhold those services based on some arbitrary "bias-du-jour". I would argue that the risk is no greater with socialist goverments than with any other goverments. So what do you advocate? Anarchy? That seems to be what you are driving at. With a well framed government with appropriate and working restrictions and checks and balances, your concerns should be minimized. I think what it comes down to is that you don't trust government (a uniquely American view, I've found) and nothing anyone can say will change that. You think that tyranny is inherent in the government, and I think that tyranny is inherent in the great disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots". So I'm going to bow out of this particular arguement, and agree to disagree. It's been fun. Cheers
I appologize in advance for this.
Boy, that's the most intellegent argument I've ever heard
Let's examine your point's one by one. (Though I don't know why I bother feeding the trolls)
"Yes, that' sgovernment coercion the company has to label the food in europe but in America we are FREE not to have to have the label. its non of your bisiness what's in it' it's food they're a company if they sell it theyre successful company its be good because if they sell bad food they go out of business."
Now I'll leave the poor typing alone (Ad Hominem arguements are bad).
First: You are wrong. The government requires a great deal of labeling.
Examples: Ingredients and nutrition information are both required on all packaged food. Alcohol must carry a warning about health effects.
Second: While businesses may be "free" to hide the fact that thier food is genetically altered, individuals are no longer "free" to eat food which has not been altered. Is corporate freedom better than individual freedom?
Third: (this is just being nitpicky) Companies that sell bad food do not neccesarily go out of business. I mean look at american cheese (an apt name if I've ever heard it). How the hell does Kraft stay in business. They sell nothing but unhealthy crap.
"Again you are confused the data belongs to company that has it if they cant sell it to anybody or if the government make them not be able to get it THATS SOCIALISM AND ITS WRONG. "
I don't understand this sentence
"If you want the privacy law you haev something to hide"
Hmmm...(eyebrows raised)...
"Your free in the US but freedom should not be confused with license, freedom doesnt mean you can just go and do anything. It means yuor free. Thats not the same thing as being able to do anything just because you want to."
Boy, where should I start with this one....hmmm...how about a definition:
Freedom: 1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
By definition, freedom does mean you can do anything...but that's not the point. As near as I can tell, you are trying to say that privacy restrictions are under the realm of "protection for the greater good of society" I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Most, however, feel that it is individuals who should be protected from business for the greater good of society.
"Or if you want to do absolutely anything then you probably want to do something sick and we dont have to put up with that in america. Not like europe where its all fags and women that think theyr men."
Boy, you're really lining them up and knocking them down, aren't you. I'm just going to take a stab at the dark here: You're 12 and you've never been out of Kansas, let alone to Europe. Am I right?
"ITs because the government never let us have one, the human race always had a government and of course it wont let us have a true librarian sociaty because thats bad for the goverment it cant control us then. So it makes us not have that but we should."
You'll have to excuse me...I'm having trouble decyphering your rather "free" gramatical structure. So what you are saying is that a librarian society won't happen because the goverment can't control us. You may finally be right. Reading does indeed help liberate people from an oppresive government. I suggest you try it.
Now you're just talking about bad goverment.
:/
Should have used the preview button.
Without even a trial, people can be condemned to die by the government by rationed health care or denied their livelihood through capricious decisions of government control of commerce. We in the US are not much different in this regard as we are getting more "cradle to grave" services all the time.
:)
Now you're just talking about. There's nothing inherent in socialism that says that the goverment services must be of poor quality.
As far as health care goes, look no further than the US. Health insurance is for whoever can afford it. Furthermore, costs are spiraling. While you and I are in a priviledged class who can afford health care, there are a great many people who are condemned to die simply because the government doesn't dole out health care for all. That arguement works equally well both ways.
And to address the point about the government controlling commerce. I think you ignore the benefit of government regulation. I feel that the wave of mistrust toward the government is precipitated by a corrupt government. Further more, I think that corrupt goverments become far less likely with a true democracy. The US is not a true democracy. The framers of our government didn't believe that people were smart enough to rule themselves, so they created a goverment which allowed people to rule themselves, while perpetuating a ruling class. While class boundaries are not impenetrable, I feel that the overall difficulty in penetrating them contributes to a corrupt government.
Most European countries do not have guarantees like we have in the United States. I know, for example, that Europeans often have no guarantees of freedom of expression or assembly.
This isn't because the government is a socialist one...it's just because, well, they see no need. This may be folly (time will tell). I assume these objections would be assuaged if they had a constitution like document? There is nothing in the bill of rights that is incompatible with socialism.
Well...I was going to address some of your other points (I love political discourse), but I think I've already typed enough for now. Thanks for listening to the rants of a raving socialist.
I'm sorry, but whenever anyone recieves too much power there is a much greater chance of corruption.
And that, my friend, si the crux of the argument! (Smile), now we're getting somewhere.
To be more specific than my last post, I consider my self (to make up a term) a pragmatic socialist. At this point I don't feel that utopian socialism is feasable. I advocate socialism on a smaller scale. I also think the ISO (International Socialist Organization) are generally a bunch of extremist nuts.
Most of your points have been addressed by others, but I've got a couple additional comments:
ride on a non-car transportation system (i.e. train, bus) that isn't owned or regulated to practical ownership by the gov't?
Amtrak and Greyhound have both been on the dole for as long as I can remember.
take a medicine whether or not the gov't health agency says they can?
I seem to recall RU-486 being pretty hard to get a hold of. Also, ever tried to smoke marijuana for medical reasons?
ESR just realizes the fundamental contradiction in believing that 'social democracy' as it is practiced in nearly every country in the world [...] Or in short form, the idiots are too stupid to run their own lives but are smart enough to run their neighbors.
First, ESR's "realization" didn't need to involve relating socialism to nazis.
As far as the second half goes, sounds like it describes the US to a "T". Interestingly enough, I've found most european countries to be much more tolerant in general. There are bad points, true, but the US is worse on almost all counts. At least most of Europe has eradicated the barbaric practice of executing criminals. And You can bet that the US would get even worse if that pesky constitution wasn't so hard to get around. How many iterations of that stupid CDA do we have to go through? How long before our government actually succeeds in taking our rights away?
My point is, the problem isn't goverment...it's bad government. And here in the US, we definately have bad goverment. It's just that most people here are too stupid to realise it. They simply point to the boogie man of opression in Europe (derisive snort) and put their heads back in the sand.
Sorry for the rant...I needed to vent.
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by "socialist," because you must not be using the definition one usually encounters in the US. To an American, it suggests a strong central government, nationalization of many service industries, high taxes and pervasive regulation.
I think the biggest problem that many in the US have with socialism is a pronounced distrust of the government. I would argue that this is simply cynicism brought on by a rather corrupt government. Your first two points are bad only if the government isn't doing things properly. A benign and efficient goverment should not be something to be feared. The mistrust we hold for our goverment is a sad commentary on...well...our government.
As far as high taxes go...well...If the government is efficient, and providing quality services as it should, this should be a non-issue as well.
As far as pervasive regulation goes, well, I would argue that this is in no way inherent in the socialist system...at least no more than, say, a capitalist system.
Your views on Raymond's politics, his ego, his essays, his pronouncements on the term "GNU/Linux", his skills at diplomacy or lack thereof, his abilities as a "leader", or alleged unwillingness to admit himself wrong, and sundry personal qualities have nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand.
By equating Socialism with Nazism, ESR himself deflected the argument from what it should have been (the relative merits of CatB and Bezroukov's critique) to an argument about Raymond's politics. IMHO, he must have known this would happen. What he was thinking, I'll never know.
The above comment(ESR should go out sometimes) never proported to be discussing the strength of ESR's response...In fact, no mention at all was made of Bezroukov's critique. The comment dealt purely with ESR's rather gratuitous attack of socialism.
You can't equate a group of people with Nazi's and expect the group to stand idly by. One must wonder what Raymond's motives were for including such a remark.
I guess that's not really fair. I can give him the benefit of the doubt. It was probably just a thoughtless remark...but a simple apology might go a long way towards appeasing many whom he offended.
I just want to let you know that we aren't all batty on this side of the atlantic. I, for one, am getting mighty pissed at the direction the US is heading. Freedom my ass... :) Sorry.
I agree completely. I was deeply offended by his comments on socialism and thought them very gratuitous and rude. While he is certainly entitled to his opinion, it was in rather poor taste to air this particular one publicly.
I've noticed an interesting trend. When you go to a larger, respected university, what you are actually paying for is class sizes numbering in the hundreds and a bunch of TA's to do the teaching for the professors. Why the hell should I be paying a premium to be taught by a student? (No disrespect intended for some of the wonderful TA's I've met).
Very very fuzzy, but recognizable. You can see shapes and shades but almost no detail. They are on the right track though, and it's pretty exciting stuff.
And this sounds like a working system to you?
:)
I never said it was working or right. I just wanted to supply a few points to chew on. As I said, I'm neutral on the issue right now. I just think there are a few things that haven't been adaquitely(sp) addressed yet. And I sort of like playing devil's advocate.
True...but the cost of entering the market is much, much lower with software. You simply don't need the infrastructure that you need with traditional monopoly-prone industries. It's a different ball park, that's all I'm saying.
Interestingly enough, it seems to fall out like this: Huge competition crushers like MS can survive (of course). Small software companies tend to survive as well. It's the medium sized companies that get trampled...the small ones seem to come in under the radar. Once they get big enough to notice, they're in trouble.
That sort of dynamic just doesn't appear anywhere else. More food for thought: Most small companies can't be considered to have entered the market in a meaningful way. Yet, they survive. I could quit my corporate job (as a developer) and make a fantastic amount of money as an independent developer of custom components(assuming I had the general business sense, which I doubt). That small entry into the software market would certainly be meaningful to me. Could I start a small cable company in the same way? An oil company?
It may be decided that the differences are moot. I'm just saying that the differences are there.
...and now for something completely different.
I remain neutral on this issue right now...but I would like to point out some points to consider.
The software industry is very much different from any other industry that has ever existed. One of the major differences is cost of entry, and a related diffence is required capital.
The software industry is very inexpensive to enter, comparatively speaking. Once you are in the "software business", relatively little capital is required to keep the business going. Every other monopoly I've ever seen has been precisely the opposite! Oil, telecom, even IBM(as a "potental monopoly" at one point)! These industries are phenomenally expensive. Especially telecom. This is why telecom industries like to consolidate, and you see no small telecom companies(except a few artifically created ones, i.e. local government subsidized phone co's or LD resellers, who are still paying the big companies!).
Look at Linux...it never would have worked if the required capital was anywhere near that of the traditional monopoly.
What I'm trying to say is this: If Microsoft is to be considered a monopoly, that would be a significant departure from the traditional monopolies. There are many differences. They all need to be addressed before jumping to conclusions.
Hmm..I got curious, and looked for a script online. According to one page I found, its, "We are now the Knights who say "Ekky-ekky-ekky-ekky-z'Bang, zoom-Boing, z'nourrrwringmm". The world may never know. :) I'm going to have to watch it tonight.
Romane ite Domum.
(Write this 100 times or I will cut your balls off.)
It's interesting, I never fully appreciated that bit until I started dating a Clasics Major. Kinda gives it a new perspective when you can actually understand what they are talking about. Before it was funny in a sort of abstract way, as a whole I guess. Now I can get into the specifics of why each part is funny.
We are now the knights who say "icky icky icky, p'tang p'tang arruut boing!"...
There now you've all seen a geek type it...well, part of it anyway.