Why is it people these days go straight for petitioning their government instead of trying to help themselves?
How can a government be expected to get it right, if no one provides feedback?
Moreover, how can governments be expected to frame fair policies for e-gov applications in general, unless they get feedback from early pilot schemes from this. I wouldn't criticise anyone who wanted to explore technical solutions, but petitioning the government is a useful thing to do in addition to any technical initiative.
As for the specifics
Can be illegal, or may soon become so with current trends toward innovation stifling patents and anti reverse engineering laws
The code may be proprietary, and thus unavailable
Sure, if that's what you want. But hacking wine is probably not the best use for everyones' skillset.
And have to rewrite from scratch when the interface changes without notice - because you developed "unofficial" software. Of course, if the interface was published then I expect FLOSS clients would quickly become available. Sadly, though that's unlikely to happen unless we can spread awareness of the issues involved so the department concerned can understand the importance.
Maybe we could start a letter writing campaign, that might help.
Of course, every one of these involves some kind of work and doesn't have the quick fix appeal of sending an email to a public servant who is just trying to do his job.
I wouldn't have thought that organising a letter writing campaign was necessarily the low work option, myself.
As for the public servant, handling emails is part pf his job.
Really, the only people with any motivation to complain about this are those at Microsoft who fear the erosion of their stranglehold on home computing.
This is about the new opportunities for feeding at the Homeland Security trough, which by pure coincidence happens to be at about the time the patent expires.
That's one opinion. Business Week, that hotbed of anti-patent activism and communist propaganda, doesn't seem to agree.
While Iridian still holds some two dozen active patents on everything from ways to digitize an iris scan to camera design, expiration of the Flom patent will finally allow a stream of competitors to enter the iris-recognition market.
That's from TFA in case it wasn't obvious. The emphasis is mine.
I use it to mean exactly what almost everybody else understands it to mean:
I rather doubt that. In any event, I want you to state the principles behind Democracy as you understand it. You can't just say "everyone else agrees with me" and expect to be taken seriously.
the form of government found in the UK, in France, in the US, in Germany, and in Japan, among others.
So you define democracy by the status quo? Whatever is in place, that is Democracy, and any attempt to improve it is Anti-Democratic? That sounds more like you're advocating Fascism than Democracy.
Governmental types are defined by ideals and principles. Those principles remind us what the system should be about, and what we should strive for.
You refuse to state the principles behind your version of Democracy. Since a definition of terms is a reasonable starting point for any reasoned debate, I have to wonder at this unwillingness on your part. Maybe it would help if I offer a few possibilities:
The most charitable conclusion is perhaps that you see Democracy as an absolute, rather than as an ideal to be worked toward. Under this analysis, any change from current governmental practice can be held to be anti-democratic, since the assumption is that democracy is what is being done now. This is a very convenient position for politicians who are currently in a position of power. Certainly it provides a framework for creeping erosion of civil rights and silencing the government's critics.
It may be that you support the the convergence of government and industry, with the demands of the private sector taking precedence over civil rights and the will of the electorate. It would be difficult to justify an ethos that raised corporations above citizens, so maybe this is why you refuse to offer an ethical framework.
It's possible that you are secretly opposed to fair and representative government, and seek to undermine the philosophical foundation of the democracy you pretend to espouse for in order to further your own unstated agenda.
It's possible that you're astroturfing for some PR agency. You might not even know what your principles are supposed to be.
It's possible that think that the value of democracy lies purely in the spelling of the word, and that it has no value other than that some governments claim to implement it.
It's possible that you're trolling and don't give a toss. It's much easier to attack an opponents position if you can avoid taking one yourself, as you have been oh so careful to do.
It's possible you argued yourself into a corner early on and don't know how to get out of it with feeling stupid
It's possible that you haven't got a clue.
Personally, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. You come across as a bright kid who has weathered a couple of flame wars, and who is desperately trying to drag this discussion on to grounds where he has all his arguments lined up and rehearsed. I also think you might have something to add the debate, at least if you can raise your game enough to argue like a grown up. For this reason, I've risked wasting my time and energy trying to get you to offer the simple courtesy of defining your terms.
So: what is the guiding ideal of your democracy? What is it about? is there any reason other than blind obedience to authority why I should respect your model? How does society benefit?
These are questions we should all ask ourselves from time to time.
Ballmer is right when he says open source software is not innovative.
That's just silly. Not to mention inaccurate.
Inaccuracy first, even Ballmer doesn't claim zero innovation for open source. He says he doesn't see much innovation, which is either 1) a sign of Ballmer's new honesty campaign, or 2) an indication that there is just so much FLOSS innovation out there that he's having to tone down the propaganda for fear of people losing confidence in his judgement.
(A third option would be that he's flipped his lid. Personally, I'd plump for option number two).
Secondly, the silly part: open source is not about innovation. Neither is closed source, for that matter. Both are about copyright and distribution models. The question of innovation is orthogonal in both cases. It's possible for a closed source development shop to be dull and plodding (look at all the exciting delvelopment in Internet Explorer since 2001 for example) and equally for OSS to be exciting and innovative; someone else already replied with an impressive list there. For the remaining two cases, I'm sure you can find loads of examples yourself.
The important point is that licencing is about licencing and not about innovation. OK?
So, to quickly recap:
Even Ballmer disagrees with you
Saying OSS is not innovative is like saying that proprietory software is too green
[Show me one example] of an interview with an open source developer or "leader" that is not exactly the same intellectual masturbation.
Hey, it's the microsoft groupies who've been saying for years that anything MS do is the de-facto standard. You can't complain if we occasionally try to be standards-compliant in our adulation.
Even so, MS remain the clear leaders in marketing innovation, and for good reason. Consider this interview with Eben Moglen. If you read that, you'll find a debate where the interviewer holds a different opinion to the interviewee on a number of counts. If the FSF were serious about competing with Microsoft, they'd have created an arse-licking department and had them ask the questions. Then Moglen too could have been asked "Think of a really hard question for yourself, and
then answer it. If that's all right. Sir."
The open source community just doesn't have the infrastructure for that sort of thing. Thus, the world has to wait for MS to show us the way once again. And the rosy pink cleanliness of Balmer's behind stands as eloquent testimony to the one field where microsoft's dominance remains unchallenged.
Anyway, what I want is a Europe where all legislators are directly elected.
European legislators are directly elected, in the same sense they are in most other democracies: the lower house is elected, the upper house is appointed.
Ah, I see.
You're using te word "directly" to mean "indeirectly". A bit like using "up" to mean "down", "peace" to mean "war" or "democracy" to mean whatever it is you mean by the term.
It seems to me you just have a problem with democratic governments in general
It may well seem like that to you, but I have to ask what you understand by "democratic". You've stated that representation of the people is not important to your vision of democracy, nor is implementation of the will of the electorate. The baby being thus thrown out, I find myself having problems understading why you find the bathwater so fascinating.
Now I am not so arrogant as to assume that my understanding of democracy is better than your own. However, I will insist that exlain your onw conception of the system, and explain why these apparantly key features can supposedly be discarded without reducing the system to a shallow farce intended to decive the electorate.
As it stands your description of demcoracy could equally apply to "communism", "facism" or "monarchy". And for all I know, one of those alternatives is what you have in mind.
The reason I cannot tell, is because you persistenty dodge the issue.
Have the courage of your convictions: tell me what you think democracy actually is.
"Patents will continue to be handled by national patent offices... as before..." said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, representing the EU head office at the vote.
Indeed. Although some of us belive that Benita Ferrero-Waldner may have been spinning, to use the currently fashionable euphemism
I disagree with your premise: the EU does not "discard representation of the people" merely because many of its representatives are appointed.
Well yes, but...
(I also disagree with your premise that the "sole virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate", but that's a separate debate.)
... it seems likely
that we have differing notions of democracy, which may be the root of our misunderstanding. I don't think it's a separate debate at all. I think it's the central issue.
Your Commissioner is Peter Mandelson, not Neil Kinnock. And I suspect that if you "unelect" your government, Mandelson will be kicked out as well.
I actually did know that. However, i fell and broke my wrist yesterday. Painkillers, endorphins and stress byproducts make for a heady mix, which may be why I wrote such bollocks about the EU structure. Sneer if you must. Anyway, I conceed the point.
The underlying point remains though: Peter Mandleson has no more reason to care than did Kinnock in his day.
Again, I can just ask you, what do you want?
Did you ask me that before? Sorry (no sarcasm) but I must have missed it. Anyway, what I want is a Europe where all legislators are directly elected. For all nations, because I belive the current setup is unfair to all. I want a democratic Europe, by my understanding of the word, and not yours, whatever that might be.
And if I can't have that, then yes, I'l take a rollback to the EEC free trade agreement that
must have had something going for it judging by the way it lifted us poor grubby imperialist warmongers... but we've done that bit, haven't we?
Why do you keep complaining about the EU as if it were some monarch or dictator imposed from the outside? The EU does what its member governments decide it should do, no more and no less. Your democratically elected government decided that your nation should be part of the EU and helped define the way the EU operates. What's your problem with that?
I think it's systematically unjust, and unrepresentative, and I think that as a citizen, I'm entitled both to complain and to criticise. Do you disagree?
That is, unless, of course, you actually agree with the policies of your own government, and you would like the clock turned back and the EU become less of a federation and more of an economic union again.
I've dealt with this already, but just to be clear. The current UK govt are a pack of lying tosspots. I do not support their activities. I`don't know what their stated policies are, but I doubt I endorse them either, unless Tony is having one of his soundbyte days, in which case he could be saying anything at all.
I have no idea why I'm offering this data, considering your extreme reluctance to express any conviction at all, except for negative ones regarding myself and my nation anyway. Tell you what: consider it a token of good faith.
I suspect that that's your real agenda. But please don't hide that agenda under a pretense of making the EU more democratic, because in actual fact, that agenda has the opposite as its goal.
Not that you're being at all self righteous or judgemental here.
But even so: the crux of the argument remains the question of what you think a democracy is for. As long as you refuse to answer that question, I have no way to tell if your position is consistent, or if you're changing your premise every five seconds
Obviously, I deny any anti-democratic agenda.
I've stated my aims and defined my terms. I encourage you to do likewise.
OK, so, to summarize (1) you believe that in order for a government to be called "democratic", all decision makers need to be elected by the citizens, and (2) you acknowledge that there is no government in which that is the case. Therefore, you apparently deny that democracies exist at all right now.
Ahem.
I belive that a democracy is weakened by every level of patronage that seperates its legislators and executives from direct election by the people.
I acknowledged no such thing, but I'm willing to entertain the notion.
I note that the EU has most of its executives and legislators removed from direct accountability to the electorate by two or more levels.
I note that dissatisfaction with the EU is running high, even in traditionally pro-euro nations like France.
Widespread EU corruption is a matter of record.
From this I concude that the EU is a piss-poor excuse for a democracy, as predicted by 1 and 2. QED.
You do like your straw men, don't you?
While we're reviewing:
I offered my opinion that the sole virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate.
I also maintained that a weak democracy did not implement the will op the electorate.
your rebuttal
was that democracy was still better than the alternatives.
I asked you what the benefit of democracy was that we could discard representation of the people and still you would support it
I'm still interested in that answer.
I'm not talking about the UK's role in Europe either. I'm saying that the EU doesn't choose who represents you in the EU bodies, so you can't hold the EU responsible if you aren't happy with your representatives. The members of the European Parliament are already elected by the citizens, so you presumably had an opportunity to vote for yours
Yes, but the MEPs are not legislators. Their role is advisory. They have very little power, and as has been recently demonstrated, no power that cannot be overruled. So my vote there is next to meaningless.
The other legislative body, the Council of Ministers, consists of representatives appointed by your own national government. If you think their choice is undemocratic, you have to take that up with your own national government; nobody but your national government has a say in that.
Cute, but wrong. EU commisoners seem to be lifetime appointments. Neil Kinnock can do what he likes - I cannot unelect him. What incentive has he to represent my inerests? On the one hand there is the electorate that never brought him to power, and have no effect on his position. On the other hand there are multinational corporations lobbying for anti-competive legislation who offer substantial incentives for complisnt commissoners.
In an accountable democracy, there might be checks and limits to this sort of corruption.
As it is - well just hit google news with "eu corruption" and see what you get back. It's hardly controversial.
Have your expectations regading business ethics fallen so low that you expect all companies to break the law as a matter of routine?
Haven't you? If so, why not? Remember, "profit at all costs" is the mantra of modern business. A company can afford to lose a few hirelings to jail if it means enough profits.
OK, that's a fair question. I'll do my best to answer it properly.
First of all, there is an ambiguity regarding the verb expect. On the one hand it means antcipate or pedict. e.g. "I expect it's going to rain this afternoon".
On the other hand, it can also mean to insist upon or require. e.g. "I expect better service than this in a restaurant that charges these prices!".
So while my expectations/anticipations regarding the quality of modern corporate ethics may have fallen in the face of recent behaviour from a few well publicised cases, I still expect/require ethical behaviour from corporations.
I hope that clarifies my position.
Unlikely and sensationalistic. If a company wants to discredit someone, they can be a lot more subtle than that.
Granted. I offered an extreme example to illustrate where corporate behaviour may end up if we appear to sanction coropate contempt for the law. And when we say "what did you expect?" that is what we do.
Does it happen in the real world? Your guess is as good as mine; but it's sure possible, and in my tinfoil hat moments, I sure wonder a lot. It's what I'd do, if the stakes were high enough, or if I was pissed off enough, if only I didn't have all these annoying attributes like a conscience and a soul to hold me back...
Well, without commenting on the liklihood or the sensationslism of your scenario, we can at least say that it;s a lot more work than openly hiring thugs. At the very least, we should try not to make corporate scumbaggery any easier than it already is.
That's not how democracies work. Supreme court justices, foreign ministers, FDA commissioners, immigration officials, housing authority officials, and city planners, people who make decisions that can make or break your life, are all unelected by the citizens.
You're talking about how they work. I'm talking abouyt what they are supposed to do. I'm not interested in making excuses for non-representative democracies. I want fair and equal representation for everyone.
Furthermore, you are placing blame in the wrong place. The only people who decide who is going to represent the UK at the EU is the UK government. If you think that the selection is "undemocratic", then that's a problem internal to the UK, not a problem with the EU.
Please stop trying to project your petty nationalism onto me. It is tiresome, counter-productive and juvenile.
I'm not talking about the UK's role in Europe. My point concerns the unrepresentative nature of the EU. You will find that I am not the only european dissatisfied with the setup in the EU, nor is the UK the only nation whose citizens have expressed doubts as to the viability of the Union. The recent rejection of the EU constitution by France and Holland should testify to that
You called the EU "undemocratic" because it has problems.
No. I called the Eu undemocratic because the people who make the descisions are not elected by citizens of the EU. I think that's a pretty good definition of "undemocratic".
To say that EU democracy has problems is like saying a car has problems jut because it has no wheels, no engine, no transmission and no bodywork. If you can find anything in the remnants, you could, technically describe it as "a car with problems". But there's no way that car will get you to work in the morning.
And for cars and democracies both, it they can't fulfill their intended purpose, what good are they to anyone?
The EEC which predated the EU might have had a claim to that effect.
It's the same organization, only the name changed over time to express its growth and tighter integration among its members.
That turns out not to be the case. The EEC was a free trade zone. The scope and mandate of the two oganisations was entirely different. The EU was a successor organisation - that's not the same thing.
And I think you haven't come to terms with the crimes that your nation committed against the rest of the world over the last several centuries, or with the new status of the UK in the world.
Forgive me if I ignore the transparent flamebait.
I notice you didn't want to say where you came from.
Because there is no meaningful answer to that question.
That's just silly. What are you then - a citizen of cyberspace? A child of the cosmos? Maybe you hail from some higher dimension for which we humans have no name?
Refuse to answer if you think answering weakens your position, but let's not be childish.
The only virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate. Democracy is not an end in and of itself. A poor, malfunctional democracy is no democracy at all.
You assume that there are democracies that work really well; there are not. Democracy is a messy business, fraught with compromises, corruption, inequalities, and problems.
I set forth the benefits of democracy, you tell me that democracy doesn't work in practice. That doesn't invalidate my point. If a democracy isn't representative, then it's no better, and arguable worse, than a number of alternatives.
That's not a recommendation of the alternative so much as a condemnation of half-hearted democracy BTW.
But, as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
I believe Winston was countering suggestions that we do away with democracy in favour of communism. I'm not suggesting we dispense with democracy - I'm suggesting we try and implement it. Properly, that is, not in some "ten-percent is as good as we can hope for" sort of way.
If you don't see representation of the people as one of the strengths of democracy, perhaps you'd be so good as to tell why you do support it? Brand Loyalty? Religious affiliation? Expain this please.
What is it you think the EU does so well?
It has managed to transform a war-torn, feuding continent of greedy, genocidal colonial powers under a variety of fascist regimes, communist regimes, dictatorships, and monarchies into a prosperous alliance of nations with free movement of individuals, free enterprise, free elections, and sound human rights guarantees. It has led to the longest stretch of peace among its members in recorded history.
Wow, were we all that bad? I think your adjectives are breeding out of control.
In any event, that's wrong. The EEC which predated the EU might have had a claim to that effect. But the EEC was a free trade zone, not some wannabe superstate. The EU dates from 1992. In any case, the EEC was only formed in 1957. That means all of us greedy genocidal colonial powers managed to get our act together all by ourselves.
I think you are misinterpreting the loss of cultural identity and political self-determination that unavoidably goes along with integrating into the EU with a lack of democracy.
No, I'm equating a lack of democracy with a lack of democracy, If we could elect the euro ministers and officals (something which you tell me we're not ready for) then I might not mind so much.
As it is, I get to pay, but get no say in how that money is spent.
I notice you didn't want to say where you came from. Tell me, does the phrase "no taxation without representation" ring any bells?
Well, if right, it would mean that rate at which innvoation is increasing is dropping. The same way as your accelleration can be dropping, but as long as it's in positive figures you're still picking up speed.
And if so, it could mean we're not heading for a Vingean Singularity. Which seems plausible to me.
On the other hand, it could be that Huebner's analysis is flawed.
The period between 1873 and 1915 was certainly an innovative one. For instance, it included the major patent-producing years of America's greatest inventor, Thomas Edison (1847-1931). Edison patented more than 1000 inventions, including the incandescent bulb, electricity generation and distribution grids, movie cameras and the phonograph.
See, the problem I see with that is that we have the historic perspective to know what the key innovations of the period were. It's harder to make that judgement in more recent times, and impossible for current developments. You need some distance to separate fads and marketing hype from actual utility. The chances are Heuber hasn't even heard of half the key innovations of recent times, simply because the field is so vast.
Personally, I think the increase in dataflow has to mean an increase in the rate of knowledge aquisition. But equally we can't continue on an exponetial growth curve indefinitely, maybe he has a point. I'd have to read his book to really decide
And maybe the rate appears to be slowing because all of the totally common sense innovations have already been done. The stuff that is left requires a huge knowledge base and a large effort on the part of hundreds to achieve.
I think In disagree with you here. Look at something like Chaos Theory. That was just a few guys working independantly. And there's lots of stuff left to do in software. Even in physics, I see Cold Fusion is making a comeback. The death of the lone researcher is a myth.
you seem to be saying you'd approve of a law whereby a work enjoyed no copright protection for an initial time period, and then enjoyed its usual period of protection.
That's probably true. However, a weak democratic process that lacks integrity is still a democratic process, just not one that works particularly well. The EU may be working poorly, but it is a poorly working democracy.
The only virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate. Democracy is not an end in and of itself. A poor, malfunctional democracy is no democracy at all.
On the whole, I think Europe is doing pretty well.
May I ask where you live? I hail from the UK and I very much disagree. The EU is a mess of corruption, cronyism, and contempt for the democratic process.
The rejection of the EU constitution is putting the brakes on some of the centralization, and maybe it will be a wakeup call to some of the apathetic European populace.
IMHO, the rejection of the EU constitution was europeans shaking off their apathy and exercising their democratic rights. It's just a shame that more nations are not being given the opportunity to express themselves. But of course, no one is going to ask the electorate unless they are confident of getting the desired answer. Which brings me back to pointlessness of a weak democratic process.
The integrity of the democratic process is weakened by each level that a legislator or official is removed from the electorate.
It makes it possible for people who would never be elected to office to nevertheless hold postions of power. The name Peter Mandleson springs to mind for some reason. This can happen since the politics often works on the basis of patronage, and leaders sometimes have to find jobs for unpopular supporters. If the unlected body becomes stuffed with such placemen, then any appointments they may make become further divorced from the will of the people.
And any measures they enact will be likewise unrepresentative.
Furthermore, since these appointees do not owe their jobs to the electorate, they may not feel especially motivated to implement the will of the electorate. In fact, answerable to no-one, they may just decide to line thier own pockets by whatever means necessary.
If this euro-state we keep hearing about uis ever goign to happen we need the power in the hands of the MEPs. Not the Commission, not the council. Otherwise it becomes just another confidence trick to sidestep democracy for the benefit of a few vested interests.
Defeatism is never the answer. Your despair serves no one except the bad guys.
This is the information age. Memes propagate faster, feedback times contract and society is faster to evolve and adapt.
The corporations and the big political interests have a head start is all. But there are more of us than there are on them, and as understanding spreads, we grow in power.
Why does this effect software more than physical goods?
Because software is inherently so much more complex than any physical object.
A better answer, I think, is that source code represents the design of the software. It's an unpopular position. Analysts feel it trivialises the high level design work they do, managers feel it grants too much kudos to the humble developer. Academics feel it constitutes a "hacker's charter". Nevertheless, software fits industrial models a lot better if you consider source code as the blueprint and the compiled binary as the final product.
I don't have the reference, but there's a paper in the back of Robert Martin's Agile Software Developemnt that makes the case much better than I just have.
Getting back on topic, if source code is design, then it is only protectable by copyright, as even the astroturfers in this debate admit. So in that case, patents would only apply to the compiled binary.
There's probably too much work involved in using the idea as an argument against software patents, but I do think it explans the why.
Although the best answer to why is software different from hardware is still "why is it the same?" The only commonality is that both words end in "-ware".
Yes, perfectly reasonable, if you want a world where large corporations can surpress any and all competition that does not stem from an organisation that holds a comparable patent portfolio.
As it stands, all the proposed implementations we've seen satisy only Bill Gates, a few thousand patent lawyers and and a handful of astroturfing trolls on slashdot.
Of course, if you have a proposal for a fair system, I'll be happy to debate its merits with you.
Failing that, I gear I must continue to maintain that software patents are a Bad Thing.
Microsoft grew to their current position of power using only these tools. That agrues that they are adequate to the task.
And if existing protection is adequate, then we should not grant additional protection, especially where it is so open to abuse by the same corporations you claim to be so worried about.
Slashdot Mirror
How can a government be expected to get it right, if no one provides feedback?
Moreover, how can governments be expected to frame fair policies for e-gov applications in general, unless they get feedback from early pilot schemes from this. I wouldn't criticise anyone who wanted to explore technical solutions, but petitioning the government is a useful thing to do in addition to any technical initiative.
As for the specifics
Maybe we could start a letter writing campaign, that might help.
Of course, every one of these involves some kind of work and doesn't have the quick fix appeal of sending an email to a public servant who is just trying to do his job.
I wouldn't have thought that organising a letter writing campaign was necessarily the low work option, myself.
As for the public servant, handling emails is part pf his job.
Really, the only people with any motivation to complain about this are those at Microsoft who fear the erosion of their stranglehold on home computing.
That's one opinion. Business Week, that hotbed of anti-patent activism and communist propaganda, doesn't seem to agree.
That's from TFA in case it wasn't obvious. The emphasis is mine.I rather doubt that. In any event, I want you to state the principles behind Democracy as you understand it. You can't just say "everyone else agrees with me" and expect to be taken seriously.
the form of government found in the UK, in France, in the US, in Germany, and in Japan, among others.
So you define democracy by the status quo? Whatever is in place, that is Democracy, and any attempt to improve it is Anti-Democratic? That sounds more like you're advocating Fascism than Democracy.
Governmental types are defined by ideals and principles. Those principles remind us what the system should be about, and what we should strive for.
You refuse to state the principles behind your version of Democracy. Since a definition of terms is a reasonable starting point for any reasoned debate, I have to wonder at this unwillingness on your part. Maybe it would help if I offer a few possibilities:
-
The most charitable conclusion is perhaps that you see Democracy as an absolute, rather than as an ideal to be worked toward. Under this analysis, any change from current governmental practice can be held to be anti-democratic, since the assumption is that democracy is what is being done now. This is a very convenient position for politicians who are currently in a position of power. Certainly it provides a framework for creeping erosion of civil rights and silencing the government's critics.
- It may be that you support the the convergence of government and industry, with the demands of the private sector taking precedence over civil rights and the will of the electorate. It would be difficult to justify an ethos that raised corporations above citizens, so maybe this is why you refuse to offer an ethical framework.
-
It's possible that you are secretly opposed to fair and representative government, and seek to undermine the philosophical foundation of the democracy you pretend to espouse for in order to further your own unstated agenda.
-
It's possible that you're astroturfing for some PR agency. You might not even know what your principles are supposed to be.
-
It's possible that think that the value of democracy lies purely in the spelling of the word, and that it has no value other than that some governments claim to implement it.
-
It's possible that you're trolling and don't give a toss. It's much easier to attack an opponents position if you can avoid taking one yourself, as you have been oh so careful to do.
-
It's possible you argued yourself into a corner early on and don't know how to get out of it with feeling stupid
-
It's possible that you haven't got a clue.
Personally, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. You come across as a bright kid who has weathered a couple of flame wars, and who is desperately trying to drag this discussion on to grounds where he has all his arguments lined up and rehearsed. I also think you might have something to add the debate, at least if you can raise your game enough to argue like a grown up. For this reason, I've risked wasting my time and energy trying to get you to offer the simple courtesy of defining your terms.So: what is the guiding ideal of your democracy? What is it about? is there any reason other than blind obedience to authority why I should respect your model? How does society benefit?
These are questions we should all ask ourselves from time to time.
That's just silly. Not to mention inaccurate.
Inaccuracy first, even Ballmer doesn't claim zero innovation for open source. He says he doesn't see much innovation, which is either 1) a sign of Ballmer's new honesty campaign, or 2) an indication that there is just so much FLOSS innovation out there that he's having to tone down the propaganda for fear of people losing confidence in his judgement. (A third option would be that he's flipped his lid. Personally, I'd plump for option number two).
Secondly, the silly part: open source is not about innovation. Neither is closed source, for that matter. Both are about copyright and distribution models. The question of innovation is orthogonal in both cases. It's possible for a closed source development shop to be dull and plodding (look at all the exciting delvelopment in Internet Explorer since 2001 for example) and equally for OSS to be exciting and innovative; someone else already replied with an impressive list there. For the remaining two cases, I'm sure you can find loads of examples yourself.
The important point is that licencing is about licencing and not about innovation. OK?
So, to quickly recap:
- Even Ballmer disagrees with you
- Saying OSS is not innovative is like saying that proprietory software is too green
Thank your for your kind attention.Hey, it's the microsoft groupies who've been saying for years that anything MS do is the de-facto standard. You can't complain if we occasionally try to be standards-compliant in our adulation.
Even so, MS remain the clear leaders in marketing innovation, and for good reason. Consider this interview with Eben Moglen. If you read that, you'll find a debate where the interviewer holds a different opinion to the interviewee on a number of counts. If the FSF were serious about competing with Microsoft, they'd have created an arse-licking department and had them ask the questions. Then Moglen too could have been asked "Think of a really hard question for yourself, and then answer it. If that's all right. Sir."
The open source community just doesn't have the infrastructure for that sort of thing. Thus, the world has to wait for MS to show us the way once again. And the rosy pink cleanliness of Balmer's behind stands as eloquent testimony to the one field where microsoft's dominance remains unchallenged.
You're using te word "directly" to mean "indeirectly". A bit like using "up" to mean "down", "peace" to mean "war" or "democracy" to mean whatever it is you mean by the term.
It may well seem like that to you, but I have to ask what you understand by "democratic". You've stated that representation of the people is not important to your vision of democracy, nor is implementation of the will of the electorate. The baby being thus thrown out, I find myself having problems understading why you find the bathwater so fascinating.Now I am not so arrogant as to assume that my understanding of democracy is better than your own. However, I will insist that exlain your onw conception of the system, and explain why these apparantly key features can supposedly be discarded without reducing the system to a shallow farce intended to decive the electorate.
As it stands your description of demcoracy could equally apply to "communism", "facism" or "monarchy". And for all I know, one of those alternatives is what you have in mind.
The reason I cannot tell, is because you persistenty dodge the issue.
Have the courage of your convictions: tell me what you think democracy actually is.
Can't really argue with that! :D:D:D:D:D
Indeed. Although some of us belive that Benita Ferrero-Waldner may have been spinning, to use the currently fashionable euphemism
I don't suppose anyone will mind if you start a rival thread entitled "No! We Lost!"
I think it's a promising idea and well worth trying.
Well yes, but...
(I also disagree with your premise that the "sole virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate", but that's a separate debate.)
Your Commissioner is Peter Mandelson, not Neil Kinnock. And I suspect that if you "unelect" your government, Mandelson will be kicked out as well.
I actually did know that. However, i fell and broke my wrist yesterday. Painkillers, endorphins and stress byproducts make for a heady mix, which may be why I wrote such bollocks about the EU structure. Sneer if you must. Anyway, I conceed the point.
The underlying point remains though: Peter Mandleson has no more reason to care than did Kinnock in his day.
Again, I can just ask you, what do you want?
Did you ask me that before? Sorry (no sarcasm) but I must have missed it. Anyway, what I want is a Europe where all legislators are directly elected. For all nations, because I belive the current setup is unfair to all. I want a democratic Europe, by my understanding of the word, and not yours, whatever that might be.
And if I can't have that, then yes, I'l take a rollback to the EEC free trade agreement that must have had something going for it judging by the way it lifted us poor grubby imperialist warmongers... but we've done that bit, haven't we?
Why do you keep complaining about the EU as if it were some monarch or dictator imposed from the outside? The EU does what its member governments decide it should do, no more and no less. Your democratically elected government decided that your nation should be part of the EU and helped define the way the EU operates. What's your problem with that?
I think it's systematically unjust, and unrepresentative, and I think that as a citizen, I'm entitled both to complain and to criticise. Do you disagree?
That is, unless, of course, you actually agree with the policies of your own government, and you would like the clock turned back and the EU become less of a federation and more of an economic union again.
I've dealt with this already, but just to be clear. The current UK govt are a pack of lying tosspots. I do not support their activities. I`don't know what their stated policies are, but I doubt I endorse them either, unless Tony is having one of his soundbyte days, in which case he could be saying anything at all.
I have no idea why I'm offering this data, considering your extreme reluctance to express any conviction at all, except for negative ones regarding myself and my nation anyway. Tell you what: consider it a token of good faith.
I suspect that that's your real agenda. But please don't hide that agenda under a pretense of making the EU more democratic, because in actual fact, that agenda has the opposite as its goal.
Not that you're being at all self righteous or judgemental here.
But even so: the crux of the argument remains the question of what you think a democracy is for. As long as you refuse to answer that question, I have no way to tell if your position is consistent, or if you're changing your premise every five seconds
Obviously, I deny any anti-democratic agenda.
I've stated my aims and defined my terms. I encourage you to do likewise.
Until you do, we're not going to get anywhere.
Ahem.
While we're reviewing:
I'm not talking about the UK's role in Europe either. I'm saying that the EU doesn't choose who represents you in the EU bodies, so you can't hold the EU responsible if you aren't happy with your representatives. The members of the European Parliament are already elected by the citizens, so you presumably had an opportunity to vote for yours
Yes, but the MEPs are not legislators. Their role is advisory. They have very little power, and as has been recently demonstrated, no power that cannot be overruled. So my vote there is next to meaningless.
The other legislative body, the Council of Ministers, consists of representatives appointed by your own national government. If you think their choice is undemocratic, you have to take that up with your own national government; nobody but your national government has a say in that.
Cute, but wrong. EU commisoners seem to be lifetime appointments. Neil Kinnock can do what he likes - I cannot unelect him. What incentive has he to represent my inerests? On the one hand there is the electorate that never brought him to power, and have no effect on his position. On the other hand there are multinational corporations lobbying for anti-competive legislation who offer substantial incentives for complisnt commissoners.
In an accountable democracy, there might be checks and limits to this sort of corruption.
As it is - well just hit google news with "eu corruption" and see what you get back. It's hardly controversial.
First of all, there is an ambiguity regarding the verb expect. On the one hand it means antcipate or pedict. e.g. "I expect it's going to rain this afternoon".
On the other hand, it can also mean to insist upon or require. e.g. "I expect better service than this in a restaurant that charges these prices!".
So while my expectations/anticipations regarding the quality of modern corporate ethics may have fallen in the face of recent behaviour from a few well publicised cases, I still expect/require ethical behaviour from corporations.
I hope that clarifies my position.
Granted. I offered an extreme example to illustrate where corporate behaviour may end up if we appear to sanction coropate contempt for the law. And when we say "what did you expect?" that is what we do.
Well, without commenting on the liklihood or the sensationslism of your scenario, we can at least say that it;s a lot more work than openly hiring thugs. At the very least, we should try not to make corporate scumbaggery any easier than it already is.
You're talking about how they work. I'm talking abouyt what they are supposed to do. I'm not interested in making excuses for non-representative democracies. I want fair and equal representation for everyone.
Furthermore, you are placing blame in the wrong place. The only people who decide who is going to represent the UK at the EU is the UK government. If you think that the selection is "undemocratic", then that's a problem internal to the UK, not a problem with the EU.
Please stop trying to project your petty nationalism onto me. It is tiresome, counter-productive and juvenile.
I'm not talking about the UK's role in Europe. My point concerns the unrepresentative nature of the EU. You will find that I am not the only european dissatisfied with the setup in the EU, nor is the UK the only nation whose citizens have expressed doubts as to the viability of the Union. The recent rejection of the EU constitution by France and Holland should testify to that
To say that EU democracy has problems is like saying a car has problems jut because it has no wheels, no engine, no transmission and no bodywork. If you can find anything in the remnants, you could, technically describe it as "a car with problems". But there's no way that car will get you to work in the morning.
And for cars and democracies both, it they can't fulfill their intended purpose, what good are they to anyone?
That turns out not to be the case. The EEC was a free trade zone. The scope and mandate of the two oganisations was entirely different. The EU was a successor organisation - that's not the same thing. Forgive me if I ignore the transparent flamebait. That's just silly. What are you then - a citizen of cyberspace? A child of the cosmos? Maybe you hail from some higher dimension for which we humans have no name?Refuse to answer if you think answering weakens your position, but let's not be childish.
And if so, it could mean we're not heading for a Vingean Singularity. Which seems plausible to me.
On the other hand, it could be that Huebner's analysis is flawed.
See, the problem I see with that is that we have the historic perspective to know what the key innovations of the period were. It's harder to make that judgement in more recent times, and impossible for current developments. You need some distance to separate fads and marketing hype from actual utility. The chances are Heuber hasn't even heard of half the key innovations of recent times, simply because the field is so vast.Personally, I think the increase in dataflow has to mean an increase in the rate of knowledge aquisition. But equally we can't continue on an exponetial growth curve indefinitely, maybe he has a point. I'd have to read his book to really decide
And maybe the rate appears to be slowing because all of the totally common sense innovations have already been done. The stuff that is left requires a huge knowledge base and a large effort on the part of hundreds to achieve.
I think In disagree with you here. Look at something like Chaos Theory. That was just a few guys working independantly. And there's lots of stuff left to do in software. Even in physics, I see Cold Fusion is making a comeback. The death of the lone researcher is a myth.
Pity though; it sounded interesting ;)
Care to enlarge on that idea?
The only virtue of democracy is that it implements the will of the electorate. Democracy is not an end in and of itself. A poor, malfunctional democracy is no democracy at all.
On the whole, I think Europe is doing pretty well.
May I ask where you live? I hail from the UK and I very much disagree. The EU is a mess of corruption, cronyism, and contempt for the democratic process.
The rejection of the EU constitution is putting the brakes on some of the centralization, and maybe it will be a wakeup call to some of the apathetic European populace.
IMHO, the rejection of the EU constitution was europeans shaking off their apathy and exercising their democratic rights. It's just a shame that more nations are not being given the opportunity to express themselves. But of course, no one is going to ask the electorate unless they are confident of getting the desired answer. Which brings me back to pointlessness of a weak democratic process.
What is it you think the EU does so well?
It makes it possible for people who would never be elected to office to nevertheless hold postions of power. The name Peter Mandleson springs to mind for some reason. This can happen since the politics often works on the basis of patronage, and leaders sometimes have to find jobs for unpopular supporters. If the unlected body becomes stuffed with such placemen, then any appointments they may make become further divorced from the will of the people.
And any measures they enact will be likewise unrepresentative.
Furthermore, since these appointees do not owe their jobs to the electorate, they may not feel especially motivated to implement the will of the electorate. In fact, answerable to no-one, they may just decide to line thier own pockets by whatever means necessary.
If this euro-state we keep hearing about uis ever goign to happen we need the power in the hands of the MEPs. Not the Commission, not the council. Otherwise it becomes just another confidence trick to sidestep democracy for the benefit of a few vested interests.
This is the information age. Memes propagate faster, feedback times contract and society is faster to evolve and adapt.
The corporations and the big political interests have a head start is all. But there are more of us than there are on them, and as understanding spreads, we grow in power.
Because software is inherently so much more complex than any physical object.
A better answer, I think, is that source code represents the design of the software. It's an unpopular position. Analysts feel it trivialises the high level design work they do, managers feel it grants too much kudos to the humble developer. Academics feel it constitutes a "hacker's charter". Nevertheless, software fits industrial models a lot better if you consider source code as the blueprint and the compiled binary as the final product.
I don't have the reference, but there's a paper in the back of Robert Martin's Agile Software Developemnt that makes the case much better than I just have.
Getting back on topic, if source code is design, then it is only protectable by copyright, as even the astroturfers in this debate admit. So in that case, patents would only apply to the compiled binary.
There's probably too much work involved in using the idea as an argument against software patents, but I do think it explans the why.
Although the best answer to why is software different from hardware is still "why is it the same?" The only commonality is that both words end in "-ware".
As it stands, all the proposed implementations we've seen satisy only Bill Gates, a few thousand patent lawyers and and a handful of astroturfing trolls on slashdot.
Of course, if you have a proposal for a fair system, I'll be happy to debate its merits with you.
Failing that, I gear I must continue to maintain that software patents are a Bad Thing.
Non disclosure agreements.
Microsoft grew to their current position of power using only these tools. That agrues that they are adequate to the task.
And if existing protection is adequate, then we should not grant additional protection, especially where it is so open to abuse by the same corporations you claim to be so worried about.