You've said absolutely nothing.
My argument is that the rate of advancement in the US is far greater than the rate of advancement in the Middle Ages under the guild system. By advancement, I mean any area that would increase the standard of living. This would include the items that you mention.
You rebuke with-
The comparison between the Middle Ages and American is wrong ("absurd") because of differences ("disparities") in cultural/political/technical advancement.
I don't really see any point in that statment. You are saying that I'm wrong because there is a difference in the rate of advancement. You also say that the American economic system is some sort of evolution from the "collective enterprise" system used in guilds, but provide no argument to back up that statement. Because the Middle Ages predated American progress isn't an argument for some sort of evolution in and of itself. Even with sufficient argument that a free enterprise system was built off of or inspired by the Middle Ages, my original argument is rebuked in no way, nor would that argument support the guild system.
I was using Google only in response to the previous poster. In what way did I equate value with property? In response to your facts- what do a single one of those items have to do with my post? If they have some relevance, you didn't provide enough of an argument or context to make those concepts mean anything.
If the market isn't driving innovation, then what is the purpose of Open Source? If not for the market (willing consumers), then for who? The 800-pound gorilla is a movement that has no purpose.
There wouldn't have to be a GPS device in the phone. All that Sterling addressed was some form of identification. I'm sure that such devices could be publicly made and privately tested to ensure that no GPS activity is involved.
In this sense, yes, it would be a tool of the government.
First off, the argument of an economic system of "mutual protection" and "subsidy" rather than property ownership equates to the argument for the dissolution of intellectual property. If you can't own property, then who owns intellectual property?
Compare the advancements of the guild system in its own time (many centuries) vs. the advancements of a generally economic system such as the US.
I never doubted the intention of the guild systems of mutual protection and control; I'm sure Google will support your point. Search for "Advancements in the Middle Ages" and I believe that Google will support mine.
It seems like you are trying to grasp at any argument of Mr. Sterling's that sounds like something Anti-Microsoft or pro Open Source. He doesn't say anything about Microsoft's lack of innovation. He preceeded what you quoted with
"So where are these imaginary earthshaking geek outlaws who laugh in derision at mere government?"
So what did Mr. Sterling name?
If there's no innovation it is because either there is no need for it, or because there is some lack of a free economy. If there isn't any demand for something, then by what standards is it innovative? And for what purpose is it? And if there is some lack of a free economy, which is the other choice, then you are complaining about an effect, without examining any cause.
How are you turning a voluntary information tool into Big Brother? It seems like this is the perfect way to combat terrorism if current events continue to happen within our own borders. I would much rather see the power of surveillence in my own hands than a government agency that has no form of accountability. I think that's what Sterling was trying to point out.
Guilds in the past had some concept of ownership or property. This can't be compared to the examples given by the original poster. If there is no property, who is controlling access to what? And who is to profit?
If large companies aren't "creating", it is only because there is no productive value in the creation. If there were some valuable thing to create, in a truly free economy, there would be a creator. By what criteria is open source "creative"? In a free market, there happens to be a *purpose* to creation. Yes, the current rate of creation is very slow, but by what logic can that mean that the answer is the dissolusion of intellectual property? It would seem that the problem is the lack of control of property.
Slashdot Mirror
You've said absolutely nothing. My argument is that the rate of advancement in the US is far greater than the rate of advancement in the Middle Ages under the guild system. By advancement, I mean any area that would increase the standard of living. This would include the items that you mention. You rebuke with- The comparison between the Middle Ages and American is wrong ("absurd") because of differences ("disparities") in cultural/political/technical advancement. I don't really see any point in that statment. You are saying that I'm wrong because there is a difference in the rate of advancement. You also say that the American economic system is some sort of evolution from the "collective enterprise" system used in guilds, but provide no argument to back up that statement. Because the Middle Ages predated American progress isn't an argument for some sort of evolution in and of itself. Even with sufficient argument that a free enterprise system was built off of or inspired by the Middle Ages, my original argument is rebuked in no way, nor would that argument support the guild system.
I was using Google only in response to the previous poster. In what way did I equate value with property? In response to your facts- what do a single one of those items have to do with my post? If they have some relevance, you didn't provide enough of an argument or context to make those concepts mean anything.
There wasn't a single argument in the paper that described how Microsoft stifles innovation in the computer industry.
If the market isn't driving innovation, then what is the purpose of Open Source? If not for the market (willing consumers), then for who? The 800-pound gorilla is a movement that has no purpose.
There wouldn't have to be a GPS device in the phone. All that Sterling addressed was some form of identification. I'm sure that such devices could be publicly made and privately tested to ensure that no GPS activity is involved. In this sense, yes, it would be a tool of the government.
First off, the argument of an economic system of "mutual protection" and "subsidy" rather than property ownership equates to the argument for the dissolution of intellectual property. If you can't own property, then who owns intellectual property?
Compare the advancements of the guild system in its own time (many centuries) vs. the advancements of a generally economic system such as the US.
I never doubted the intention of the guild systems of mutual protection and control; I'm sure Google will support your point. Search for "Advancements in the Middle Ages" and I believe that Google will support mine.
It seems like you are trying to grasp at any argument of Mr. Sterling's that sounds like something Anti-Microsoft or pro Open Source. He doesn't say anything about Microsoft's lack of innovation. He preceeded what you quoted with "So where are these imaginary earthshaking geek outlaws who laugh in derision at mere government?" So what did Mr. Sterling name? If there's no innovation it is because either there is no need for it, or because there is some lack of a free economy. If there isn't any demand for something, then by what standards is it innovative? And for what purpose is it? And if there is some lack of a free economy, which is the other choice, then you are complaining about an effect, without examining any cause.
How are you turning a voluntary information tool into Big Brother? It seems like this is the perfect way to combat terrorism if current events continue to happen within our own borders. I would much rather see the power of surveillence in my own hands than a government agency that has no form of accountability. I think that's what Sterling was trying to point out.
Guilds in the past had some concept of ownership or property. This can't be compared to the examples given by the original poster. If there is no property, who is controlling access to what? And who is to profit? If large companies aren't "creating", it is only because there is no productive value in the creation. If there were some valuable thing to create, in a truly free economy, there would be a creator. By what criteria is open source "creative"? In a free market, there happens to be a *purpose* to creation. Yes, the current rate of creation is very slow, but by what logic can that mean that the answer is the dissolusion of intellectual property? It would seem that the problem is the lack of control of property.