A monopoly in the free market can only interact with others on a voluntary basis. It cannot force companies to deal with it, nor can it force individuals to buy their products. (In fact, companies must be very careful to maintain a good reputation, which is only important in free markets, where people are free to choose.
When the government institutes a monopoly (a la public services) it enforces this monopoly by force.
As a matter of fact, the goverment actually has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force in society, which is precisely why you need to keep goverment out of business.
I require no proof for that and neither do I expect science to provide me with any
You claim to be a physicist, and yet you openly claim that the universe is at the complete subjective mercy of a conscious being.
How can you try to find any real answers to the nature of things, when any pattern of nature may really only be the arbitrary imprint of "power" of a mystical consciousness?
Where does your mystical master's supernatural powers end, and the rational, logical unfolding of the universe begin?
Microsoft has managed to convince many people that it is normal for computers to crash regularly and perform in an incomprehensible way
I help people out frequently whose Windows boxes have problems. The source of their problems is their ignorance at maintaining their system. These people would have the same problems running Linux, Mac or any other OS.
I run a Windows network at home that runs great unless their is a power spike, and then a reboot fixes it up.
corporations will sue private citizens giving things away for free
Private citizens giving away things for free is completely different than the government giving something away - or the government subsidizing/franchising a company that gives something away.
The difference is that the government can only do this by taking money from some people in order to give it to other people, and the government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force (do what it says or go to jail.)
In fact, the government use of its monopoly on physical force is the only real way of creating a coercive monopoly, where competition is stifled by subsidies and franchises that are granted through political favor.
Microsoft with all that money they have can't deliver at least something which doesn't annoy their users
Just for the record:
I am not annoyed by Microsoft products, in general, so you can stop speaking for me, thank you very much
Frankly, using and configuring Linux is much more annoying to me (not that you asked anybody their opinion before you made a general statement about people's belief's).
What's really funny is that some web engineer probably got a $10 check and a certificate of appreciation for engineering the site that led to the patent - and he's probably scratching his head saying "huh?".
There are really no new "rights" - as all rights derive from the right of the individual. Intellectual property rights are a form of "property rights", which is the right of the individual to the fruits of their intellectual labor. (Which of course, an individual is free to give away).
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive
on
Open Source Molecules
·
· Score: 1
Governments cannot "provide" competition. The existence of competition is a given, so long as goverment doesn't interfere. It is through government franchises, subsidies, etc. that real competition is kept out.
In a free society, nobody can stop you from competing. In a non-free society, the government can put up barriers, grant special priveleges, etc.
Thanks for the correction. Novell is the corporation I was referring to.
And, of course, as you know, quite a few other corporations (whose goal it is to make money) are involved in open source.
I've read in some forums that these companies are using open source developers as cheap, serf-like labor to make their millions. Of course, if that is in any way accurate, I don't think it could last forever - so at some point something would have to give. My poor powers of prognostication would point to a mass exodus from the open source model.
On the other hand, there may be some other paradigm shift that occurs that I am not fathoming. But I have not seen any kind of real, detailed philosophic manifesto of what open source activitist think that would entail.
As far as why I install free software on my PC: I have no problem encouraging open source development, since - as I said, there may be a great financial model to tap into. Why else are large corporations getting involved? In the meantime, I don't want to miss the train if it really arrives.
Of course, buying the most expensive software I can sounds pretty ridiculous. I want to make money. Not throw it into the marketplace indiscriminantly.
I really would like to try Ubuntu out, but I can't get past their abhorrent manifesto:
"... software whould be available free of charge..."
As someone who used to make a living developing software, I would prefer something more like:
"...software should cost as much as people are willing to pay, and software developers should expect to be paid top dollar for creating top-notch software that make people and corporations productive, happy, and wealthy!"
Of course this idea extends beyond software... you get the idea!
London Street is now coverered by a free municipal wireless hotspot
the first local government to offer alfresco Web surfing at no charge.
With respect to "free" stuff from the government:
Bear in mind that governments do not produce anything. They can only take from some people and give to others (Usually through taxation). NOTHING a goverment produces is "free"!
Times may change, but the fundamental nature of things does not.
Did it ever occur to you, some things just cost too much for what their worth?
Actually a things worth is determined differently by each individual.
Envy for the things other people have (cars, homes, high speed internet) is a sign of low self-esteem - a sign that a person judges their self-worth by what they own, or by what other people think of them.
...with some old man and woman in their 90's who are unable to physically work and have been retired for 20+ years
If an old couple did not stock up for old age, then it is indeed a tragedy that they did not look ahead enough. That certainly won't happen to me - almost everybody is perfectly capable of saving for retirement.
There are no guarantees in life, and if you don't save up for your retirement, don't come to me later and demand I support you. Your failure in life is not a club over my head to take what I have earned.
you gonna tell me homeless people are morally corrupt cause they steal food
A homeless person who thinks he can live by stealing instead of working his way out of poverty is corrupt, yes.
Take a look at the new movie with Russel Crowe: Cinderella Man. About a man during the depression who is barely surviving, but doesn't give up, keeps striving, and eventually wins out. Even while poor, he is teaching his kids that it is not ok to steal. And for him, going on goverment assistance is an absolute shame. (as well it should be)
I absolutely agree that a consumer has the responsibility to inform himself.
And yes, companies negotiate for discounts from Microsoft. Negotiation is a standard practice in business, personal life, and elsewhere.
And despite the large license fees that companies pay for MS products, many of these companies are productive and pulling in good profits. So you I don't see what the problem is here.
so yes we do pirate. Not because we can, or because we are cheap, because we simply cannot afford it and in alot of cases it's nessicary.
There used to be a time when a man would not cheapen his image by stealing something he could not afford.
This kind of man knows that his life is formed of the decisions and virtues he holds, and that any choice of "demanding the unearned", or saying "I am poor, therefore the world owes ME" would only lead a man down a path of future suffering and failed objectives.
There was a time when man who could barely feed his family could still hold his head high, because he was honest and earned everything he received.
Getting $1 for the copy of windows does not "give them the right to pirate", it is a means of minimizing an irrecoverable loss due to theft, and prevent future occurrences. (Did you even read that the government will buy legally in the future??
Slashdot Mirror
When the government institutes a monopoly (a la public services) it enforces this monopoly by force.
As a matter of fact, the goverment actually has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force in society, which is precisely why you need to keep goverment out of business.
Deism was a polite way to tell a Christian you are an atheist.
You claim to be a physicist, and yet you openly claim that the universe is at the complete subjective mercy of a conscious being.
How can you try to find any real answers to the nature of things, when any pattern of nature may really only be the arbitrary imprint of "power" of a mystical consciousness?
Where does your mystical master's supernatural powers end, and the rational, logical unfolding of the universe begin?
People will be on mars in 10 years, at no cost to taxpayers.
Is this that the mythical version of Linux that runs the moon?
I help people out frequently whose Windows boxes have problems. The source of their problems is their ignorance at maintaining their system. These people would have the same problems running Linux, Mac or any other OS.
I run a Windows network at home that runs great unless their is a power spike, and then a reboot fixes it up.
You still have a free market unless the government bans entry into the market (via law, subsidies, franchises, etc.)
If you want to see Mars colonized REALLY fast, and at no expense to taxpayers, just stipulate that whoever colonizes Mars first, owns it.
Private citizens giving away things for free is completely different than the government giving something away - or the government subsidizing/franchising a company that gives something away.
The difference is that the government can only do this by taking money from some people in order to give it to other people, and the government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force (do what it says or go to jail.)
In fact, the government use of its monopoly on physical force is the only real way of creating a coercive monopoly, where competition is stifled by subsidies and franchises that are granted through political favor.
The answer is to get politicians out of business!
Just for the record:
I am not annoyed by Microsoft products, in general, so you can stop speaking for me, thank you very much
Frankly, using and configuring Linux is much more annoying to me (not that you asked anybody their opinion before you made a general statement about people's belief's).
What's really funny is that some web engineer probably got a $10 check and a certificate of appreciation for engineering the site that led to the patent - and he's probably scratching his head saying "huh?".
There are really no new "rights" - as all rights derive from the right of the individual. Intellectual property rights are a form of "property rights", which is the right of the individual to the fruits of their intellectual labor. (Which of course, an individual is free to give away).
In a free society, nobody can stop you from competing. In a non-free society, the government can put up barriers, grant special priveleges, etc.
And, of course, as you know, quite a few other corporations (whose goal it is to make money) are involved in open source.
I've read in some forums that these companies are using open source developers as cheap, serf-like labor to make their millions. Of course, if that is in any way accurate, I don't think it could last forever - so at some point something would have to give. My poor powers of prognostication would point to a mass exodus from the open source model.
On the other hand, there may be some other paradigm shift that occurs that I am not fathoming. But I have not seen any kind of real, detailed philosophic manifesto of what open source activitist think that would entail.
As far as why I install free software on my PC: I have no problem encouraging open source development, since - as I said, there may be a great financial model to tap into. Why else are large corporations getting involved? In the meantime, I don't want to miss the train if it really arrives.
Of course, buying the most expensive software I can sounds pretty ridiculous. I want to make money. Not throw it into the marketplace indiscriminantly.
For that matter, why would IBM purchase SUSE, Ximian, etc.?
OSD Charity?
I think there may be a great profit model in open source, I'm probably just not smart enough to grasp it by myself, with my limited knowledge.
In the meantime, I will not ignore the whole open source phenomenon.
As someone who used to make a living developing software, I would prefer something more like:
Of course this idea extends beyond software ... you get the idea!
Bear in mind that governments do not produce anything. They can only take from some people and give to others (Usually through taxation). NOTHING a goverment produces is "free"!
I thought it was common knowledge that non-commercial research is driven by and large through government special interest.
Times may change, but the fundamental nature of things does not.
Actually a things worth is determined differently by each individual.Envy for the things other people have (cars, homes, high speed internet) is a sign of low self-esteem - a sign that a person judges their self-worth by what they own, or by what other people think of them.
If an old couple did not stock up for old age, then it is indeed a tragedy that they did not look ahead enough. That certainly won't happen to me - almost everybody is perfectly capable of saving for retirement.There are no guarantees in life, and if you don't save up for your retirement, don't come to me later and demand I support you. Your failure in life is not a club over my head to take what I have earned.
A homeless person who thinks he can live by stealing instead of working his way out of poverty is corrupt, yes.Take a look at the new movie with Russel Crowe: Cinderella Man. About a man during the depression who is barely surviving, but doesn't give up, keeps striving, and eventually wins out. Even while poor, he is teaching his kids that it is not ok to steal. And for him, going on goverment assistance is an absolute shame. (as well it should be)
I am starting to wonder whether you actually are capable of making a cogent thought here.
And yes, companies negotiate for discounts from Microsoft. Negotiation is a standard practice in business, personal life, and elsewhere.
And despite the large license fees that companies pay for MS products, many of these companies are productive and pulling in good profits. So you I don't see what the problem is here.
This kind of man knows that his life is formed of the decisions and virtues he holds, and that any choice of "demanding the unearned", or saying "I am poor, therefore the world owes ME" would only lead a man down a path of future suffering and failed objectives.
There was a time when man who could barely feed his family could still hold his head high, because he was honest and earned everything he received.
Apparently, you are a different sort of man.
Your petty hatred is transparent and flatulent in nature.
Getting $1 for the copy of windows does not "give them the right to pirate", it is a means of minimizing an irrecoverable loss due to theft, and prevent future occurrences. (Did you even read that the government will buy legally in the future??