George Soros is far closer to the mark when he describes the market as "a theoretical construction of great elegance that resembles natural science but does not resemble reality. It relates to an ideal world... it has little relevance to the real world. Market prices are always wrong."
However, I have to say this: whenever I find capitalists and socialists arguing about "Capitalism", I always find that they're talking about different things.
If you'd studied physics, you'd see that Vagary's comment is entirely in the spirit of natural science, but it is most probably wrong, as government is itself part of the system that is being optimised, and besides, that a system optimises in a particular way is no proof of its goodness.
Interesting!
If the issue is breach of contract, not intellectual property rights, how does SCO have any leverage against anyone but IBM in order to claim a licence fee? The code's been released; although IBM can potentially be sued, perhaps for a lot of money, why would anyone else be liable?
This is a genuine question: perhaps I'm missing something!
Slashdot Mirror
If you'd studied physics, you'd see that Vagary's comment is entirely in the spirit of natural science, but it is most probably wrong, as government is itself part of the system that is being optimised, and besides, that a system optimises in a particular way is no proof of its goodness.
Interesting!
If the issue is breach of contract, not intellectual property rights, how does SCO have any leverage against anyone but IBM in order to claim a licence fee? The code's been released; although IBM can potentially be sued, perhaps for a lot of money, why would anyone else be liable?
This is a genuine question: perhaps I'm missing something!