But now take the source code, and place it on a server connected to the Internet. The code comes extremely close to becoming a limitless resource.
True, but this makes the assumption that the developer wants/is willing to place his/her code on the Internet under the GPL. While you or I might think it a good idea, not doing so isn't necessarily making it artificially scarce. It might make it a bug-ridden and impractical tool (Win 98 anyone?) but that simply makes it a poor choice of software to use. I definitely think that software under the GPL is a better idea, more practical, potentially longer lasting and more robust, etc. However, I don't think that makes proprietary software unethical, it's just (imho) a less desirable choice.
So I pose this question to you, and answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?
I'm not trolling I promise, but I object to the question. Software (and it's creation) is not exactly "air" (it's supply is not limitless). While hackers, coders and programmers of all flavors may be "freely available" (meaning in abundant supply these days) they are not limitless (in number or ability). Without getting into the specifics of the vast array of hardware or language constraints or varying degrees of programmer ability, there will always be opportunity costs of time, resources, etc in developing software, free or otherwise.
Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck? no.
Is software and it's development/support a limitless resource? no.
Is it ethical to limit software development/support to make a buck? yes... it may not be a good idea, but it's not unethical.
The point I was making was that flying in that manner was risky. Yes driving on the freeways of LA is risky, but driving 100 miles an hour with no seat belt certainly involves more risk than following posted limits and wearing a seat belt. The fact that LA freeways are dangerous doesn't change the risk factor of flying over a highly populated area at low altitude (unless you have to land on said LA freeway!)
I wasn't suggesting that spontaneous mechanical failure would be the issue. Cross-shear wind conditions for example, which are not all that uncommon, could be a very serious issue at such a low altitude.
True most competent pilots probably would know to stay out of an airport's traffic pattern, but there are a great many small aircraft flying that are not on registered flight patterns and are outside of airport traffic patterns (and hence can end up uncharted except to the watchful pilots eye) and not all pilots are competent.
Flying a four seater beechcraft over a heavily populated area (and one which hosts a lot of air traffic as well) at 1400 feet (1000 feet is the legal minimum) for 75 minutes seems rather, um...
adventurous.
At that altitude you'd have about 90 seconds to get your wheels on the ground and there are probably few options to make an emergency landing within 90 seconds in LA.
"and never have sex with your girlfriend again.
Giving a Slashdot subscription is like getting married?"
What if I give the gift of Slashdot to my wife? Two negatives equal a positive right?
Woohoo I'm gettin' some for Christmas!
I've had Verizon in San Diego for a couple years now and the coverage here is good (and I've used it in Seattle without trouble as well.) The customer service has always been at least average or better. I think Verizon service is a little bit more costly, but not uncomfortably so. Given that I've had no real problems with service, billing or equipment I certainly have no complaints.
-- "Seriously though, if the leader of the free world runs IIS, I'm scared. .."
What are you talking about, of course Bill Gates runs IIS! (we're all scared.)
Slashdot Mirror
You... are... my Hero!
Yeah, but I think his wife is something like a five-time national Karate champion in Finland, so he's probably safe if he goes back!
But now take the source code, and place it on a server connected to the Internet. The code comes extremely close to becoming a limitless resource.
True, but this makes the assumption that the developer wants/is willing to place his/her code on the Internet under the GPL. While you or I might think it a good idea, not doing so isn't necessarily making it artificially scarce. It might make it a bug-ridden and impractical tool (Win 98 anyone?) but that simply makes it a poor choice of software to use. I definitely think that software under the GPL is a better idea, more practical, potentially longer lasting and more robust, etc. However, I don't think that makes proprietary software unethical, it's just (imho) a less desirable choice.
So I pose this question to you, and answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?
I'm not trolling I promise, but I object to the question. Software (and it's creation) is not exactly "air" (it's supply is not limitless). While hackers, coders and programmers of all flavors may be "freely available" (meaning in abundant supply these days) they are not limitless (in number or ability). Without getting into the specifics of the vast array of hardware or language constraints or varying degrees of programmer ability, there will always be opportunity costs of time, resources, etc in developing software, free or otherwise.
Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?
no.
Is software and it's development/support a limitless resource?
no.
Is it ethical to limit software development/support to make a buck?
yes... it may not be a good idea, but it's not unethical.
It's called an href tag.
actually it's called an a tag with an href attribute.
The point I was making was that flying in that manner was risky. Yes driving on the freeways of LA is risky, but driving 100 miles an hour with no seat belt certainly involves more risk than following posted limits and wearing a seat belt. The fact that LA freeways are dangerous doesn't change the risk factor of flying over a highly populated area at low altitude (unless you have to land on said LA freeway!)
I wasn't suggesting that spontaneous mechanical failure would be the issue. Cross-shear wind conditions for example, which are not all that uncommon, could be a very serious issue at such a low altitude.
True most competent pilots probably would know to stay out of an airport's traffic pattern, but there are a great many small aircraft flying that are not on registered flight patterns and are outside of airport traffic patterns (and hence can end up uncharted except to the watchful pilots eye) and not all pilots are competent.
Flying a four seater beechcraft over a heavily populated area (and one which hosts a lot of air traffic as well) at 1400 feet (1000 feet is the legal minimum) for 75 minutes seems rather, um...
adventurous.
At that altitude you'd have about 90 seconds to get your wheels on the ground and there are probably few options to make an emergency landing within 90 seconds in LA.
"and never have sex with your girlfriend again. Giving a Slashdot subscription is like getting married?" What if I give the gift of Slashdot to my wife? Two negatives equal a positive right? Woohoo I'm gettin' some for Christmas!
I've had Verizon in San Diego for a couple years now and the coverage here is good (and I've used it in Seattle without trouble as well.) The customer service has always been at least average or better. I think Verizon service is a little bit more costly, but not uncomfortably so. Given that I've had no real problems with service, billing or equipment I certainly have no complaints.
-- "Seriously though, if the leader of the free world runs IIS, I'm scared. . ."
What are you talking about, of course Bill Gates runs IIS! (we're all scared.)