Making decisions based on assumptions is often a very bad idea, as you pointed out.
However, what he meant is 'assuming for the sake of argument'. That is a very usefull assumption and it usually does not cause any harm.
Regardless of whether global warming is a natural cycle, human caused, or non-existant, none of these are 'undisputed facts' by any means. Indeed, there seems to be far more disputes than facts....
Correct. Evidence like this says little about the percentage of people who are harmed by porn, vs. total population, and less about the percentage harmed vs. not harmed.
It does say quite a bit about is the fact that it is harmfull, and potentially very harmful for some people. And that the number of people being harmed is growing.
I am just as annoyed by those who claim that porm harms nobody as those who say it harms everybody - both are wrong, and both views cause even more harm to society.
Red Hat makes a linux distro. Microsoft makes an OS. Red Hat sells a linux distro. Microsoft sells an OS. Red Hat sells suppport services for their linux distro. Microsoft sells support services for their OS. Red Hat makes money. Microsoft makes money. The fact[1] that Microsoft makes a larger percent of their revenue from OS sales than Red Hat does is a distinction without a difference. Especially since Red Hat dropped (spun off? , outsourced? what would you call fedora?) their non-enterprise edition.
Pet peeve time. Exceptions don't make rules. they weaken/break them. The phrase makes no sense at all. Exceptions may make you notice that the rule is often true, but at the same time they prove that the rule is weak - or mabe just plain wrong.
"But if your business plan involves selling GPL-dependent software, you'd better keep your resume close at hand."
Sounds a lot like 'But if your business plan involves selling Microsoft-dependent software,(and you are not Microsoft) you'd better keep your resume close at hand." The reason is the same in both cases. Fierce competition. I did not say that GPLed stuff is easy to make money off of, just that it is possible.
That said, your rule only applies if you are trying to sell multiple copies of the same piece of GPLed software - and it is not all your GPLed software. If it is not yours, why the hell do you expect to make money selling it? And if it is all yours, well, AFAIK, MySQL is doing just fine as well.
[1] I assume this is true, but I really don't have any data to prove it. Comments?
Yup, that is why Red Hat went bankrupt so quickly.
Oh, wait a minute..
If you had said, 'the GPL makes the software industry less profitable.' I would have agreed. While Red Hat doesn't make as much as M$, it manages to make money.
I don't know where you got your numbers (link please?) but here are some numbers I found.
USA GDP is about 20% of global GDP For us to only output 25% of global manufactures goods means we are only a little over average. For an Industrialized nation to only beat the avg. by a little when that avg. includes the third world doesn't sound that good.
80% services in USA. compares well to most tourist traps. And almost nothing else. Not good. And only 18% industry, also low. (granted these are old numbers)
How much of those manufactured goods are military goods? (that are bought by the US military?)
That said, my comment was based on bits and pieces that I have read, including modern news media crap. I would like to see some more hard numbers.
Paine was a deist, true. (almost the definition of deist..) I rarely think of him as a founder but...
Franklin said in his autobiography that deism, though may be true, wasn't worth much. He was a deist in his youth, but by the time of the Constitutional Convention he was not. Only if you define 'deny divinity of Christ' as did not subscribe to any particualt denomination does Franklin (or most founders) fit. His autobio is avaliable on Guttenberg, it is worth the read.
Washington: To be a vestryman in that episcopal church, he signed a document stating that he accepted the Episcopal doctrine. If he didn't believe it, Washington of all people would not have signed it. That doesn't mean that he liked or agreed with the 'ostentatious display(s) of religious zeal' that others had. these quotes should put to rest any deistic ideas about washington. A deist doesn't call on God for aid, protection, or call him "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" etc...
Jefferson: He had decided that none of the current denominations were correct, and as such stripped christianity down to what could be proved (in his mind) In a way, he did not 'accept' the divinity of Christ, but it was more of a rejection of the current churches than anything. He at least believed Christ lived, and that his teachings were the best ever. To the christians of his time, and of our time, he was not a normal christian. On the other hand, I could pick and choose quotes from him that make him look totally christian, just like the link you gave made him look atheist. Neither are the truth.
The founders were not fundies like there are today, that much should be obvious. (and the fundies don't like it much either!) On the other side, most were not deists, at least not by the definitions given in your link. (and the anti-christians of today don't like this!) Both sides want the Founders to support their own agenda - The founders would have found both agenda's repulsive.
I am still snickering over that one. There were dozens - not nine.
Second, name them, please. To the best of my knowledge only Jefferson did that, although most of the founders would be very out of place in most christian churches today.
It is hard to retool factories that have been in mothballs for decades. For the most part, our domestic factories don't exist at all, let alone in mothballs. That is the true problem - our fanufacturing base, that was the best and biggest in the world around WWII, is now almost gone.
As for the 'use imports and save domestic resources', how long does it take to go from located ore deposit to functioning steel plant? A long time.
"You excluding me from using a resource is a violation of my rights, but me taking something from you that you have worked for is a violation of yours. Where do we draw the line?"
Good Question. The best answer I have found is by John Locke (see it here) Chapter 5. in particular. It is not perfect in my opinion, but it is a good start for discussion. (Note: Locke is refuting the 'Divine right of kings' argument, also, for some reason this link only has the first part...)
"In a system of democratically controlled resources, people would be collectively responsible for that resource."
From 'The Incredibles' 'When everyone is special, no one will be.' When everyone is responsible - no one will be. The tragedy of the commons occurs because each person individually gets the bennifits, but collectively shares the cost. So it is in the best interests of individuals to take as much as possible. This is rarely good mannagement, and the net bennifit is usually poor. Even if 90% of the people are prudent, the 10% who abuse the commons makes prudent mannagement impossible. However, if the commons were divided up and individually mannaged, not only do the 90% who are prudent derive a greater net and individual bennifit than before, the 10% who abuse theirs are motivared to better mannagement themselves. Their greed motivates better management, where before even a minority of greed hurts all. This is how greed can motivate resource sustainability.
There is another method of mannaging commons than making it private property. Regulation by government. This is better than a unregulated commons, but is rarely as good as private mannagement, because there is no effective control over greedy individuals manipulating the government control such that they get a greater share of the bennifits, and as before, all share the cost. Because of this, where the commons can be privitized, it should be. We still need an effective means of controling greed in government, as not all commons can be privitized. Ideas?
"Most of us are hard wired genetically to be motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity moreso than greed."
Perhaps. I can't think of any counter-examples. However, 'fairness and reciprocity' are not altruism. Fairness dictates that each person who bennifits, share in the cost in equal porporton to the bennifit. While I can think of tons of systems that provide fairness, many far greater than even a true free market could, all of them have two flaws. All are vulnerable to the minority that are greedy. Most much more so than a free market. And all of them unduly restrict the liberty and freedom of the people. The first flaw means that in practice all are much worse than a free market at supplying needs and wants or providing fairness. And the second means that all provide much less happiness than a true free market.
"Ah.. but, in its preamble, the Constitution explicitly declares that one of the its primary purposes is to 'promote the general Welfare'.
The Preamble -
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Let me cut out the unnecessary stuff here -
We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . promote the general Welfare, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . .
The preamble explains why 'We the People' adopted the Constitution. It has nothing to do with any powers delegated to any branch of government beyond hinting that the power is derived from the people.
While I agree that your interpretation has been used, it is so laughably off from the plain text of the preamble that it should never be given a first thought, let alone a second one.
"I don't believe we can move from a corporate-feudal society to a true free market society in any sort of easy fashion."
Mostly agree. If it is possible, it is very unlikely.
"Also, there would have to be some regulation of externalities and natural monopolies (I believe these are some of the failure modes discussed in 'Wealth of Nations,' yes?)"
No, not really. There were no phones, electricity, broadband, or radio & TV stations in 1812 (when WoN was written) There were roads and sewers, but those were generally the same thing... Most natural monopolies did not exist then. Externalities are "a case of poorly-defined property rights." (quote from the wikipedia article.) I can't recall if these were discussed much in WoN.
One failure mode that was used is the example of an occupation such as carpenter in a rural area vs a big city. free markets fail in the rural area because there is not enough work for more than one full-time carpenter. Fixed costs (tools) and lack of practice mean that part-time carpenters can't compete. Only if a new carpenter is enough better/cheaper to put the old one out of business in a hurry can competition function. (If he doesn't do it in a hurry, he goes hungry) This example explains the OS market (closed and OSS) well. This is the real cause of Microsoft's monopoly, and why it is failing. And it explains the rise of OSS. And partly why there is almost no commercial space exploration. . . Point being that free markets do not always (usually?) provide an optimal solution. (see pareto efficiency - wikipedia) Free Market advocates usually don't understand this.
"We need to revise some of the ideas of the free market system to reflect the realities of human nature."
No. Not really. What needs to happen is we need to revise some of the ideas of government to reflect some of the realities of human nature. Greed is not bad at all, as long as you are not allowed to violate others rights to satisfy it. There is no real difference between passing a law to discourage competition and sending in thugs in to beat up the competition. Both are use of force for personal gain.
That said, "The theory of 'homo economicus' or the selfish, rational actor" is a simplification of reality. It is a good enough abstraction for many things in economics, but far from perfect.
"I believe we should come up with a system that rewards fairness and reciprocity instead."
If this system does not satisfy greed to a large extent, it will fail. Greed is simply too much a part of human nature. And the 'tragedy of the commons' problem means that even if only a significant minority prefers greed, it usually trumps all other factors. That said, free markets do an excellent job of rewarding reciprocity. And they usually only reward greed when greed motivates work. They reward work.
Free market ideaoligies do not have greed as their highest ideal. They have it as a prime motivating factor for humans. Whether you consider greed good, bad, or indifferent, doesn't matter - what matters is whether or not it's a prime motivation factor.
"But the free market doesn't seem to work as advertised, given the imbalance created by corporate power."
And just what is a corporation? A legally created entity..... Just why are you surprised that the 'free market' dosen't work well when regulated by corporate law?
Free markets do have failure modes, many of them were discussed in 'Wealth of Nations'. If only free market advocates would read the book... That said, We haven't been close to a free market for a hundred years or so (in the US), so most claims that 'free markets don't work because [rescent example]' are bogus.
Go back to the wikipedia link you posted. Read the three whole paragraphs[1] dedicated to just this issue. Post a reply discussing each of the points raised. That you did not do so in the first place, but only posted the first sentence of the whole article makes you smell like a troll.
[1] All of the paragraphs were there long before you posted. They were not put there after your post to make you look stupid.
"I would be curious to see research on how well a new company does when its people all work from home versus companies that open an office. I think you would find that the centralized office based companies are going to be more successful and consistent in their products."
Exactally! Someone tried this once. He said (to his employees) " this is what you have to do. Do it whenever you like, wherever you like. If your work requires you to talk to other people in the company, then you may need to be here a certain amount. Otherwise we don't care. . . . There were no fixed office hours. I never showed up before 11 in the morning." Can you imagine the colossal failu--- Oh, Wait, you say his name was Paul Graham? He made millions? He is funding eight more startups with the same idea? And this was a quote from TFA ?!?!?
RTFA. Looks like your curiousity will be satisfied. Watch his company - and those eight startups.
Slashdot Mirror
Trolling?
However, what he meant is 'assuming for the sake of argument'. That is a very usefull assumption and it usually does not cause any harm.
Regardless of whether global warming is a natural cycle, human caused, or non-existant, none of these are 'undisputed facts' by any means. Indeed, there seems to be far more disputes than facts....
We did not have to make the sun, the wind, the waves, or the fossil fuels. For the most part, we do have to make the hydrogen.
It does say quite a bit about is the fact that it is harmfull, and potentially very harmful for some people. And that the number of people being harmed is growing.
I am just as annoyed by those who claim that porm harms nobody as those who say it harms everybody - both are wrong, and both views cause even more harm to society.
Pet peeve time. Exceptions don't make rules. they weaken/break them. The phrase makes no sense at all. Exceptions may make you notice that the rule is often true, but at the same time they prove that the rule is weak - or mabe just plain wrong.
"But if your business plan involves selling GPL-dependent software, you'd better keep your resume close at hand."
Sounds a lot like 'But if your business plan involves selling Microsoft-dependent software,(and you are not Microsoft) you'd better keep your resume close at hand." The reason is the same in both cases. Fierce competition. I did not say that GPLed stuff is easy to make money off of, just that it is possible.
That said, your rule only applies if you are trying to sell multiple copies of the same piece of GPLed software - and it is not all your GPLed software. If it is not yours, why the hell do you expect to make money selling it? And if it is all yours, well, AFAIK, MySQL is doing just fine as well.
[1] I assume this is true, but I really don't have any data to prove it. Comments?
Not correct. However the numbers were so small that your point holds. IIRC, there were less than 100 redeployed from Iraq.
Oh, wait a minute..
If you had said, 'the GPL makes the software industry less profitable.' I would have agreed. While Red Hat doesn't make as much as M$, it manages to make money.
FUD.
GOOD! ;-)
USA GDP is about 20% of global GDP For us to only output 25% of global manufactures goods means we are only a little over average. For an Industrialized nation to only beat the avg. by a little when that avg. includes the third world doesn't sound that good.
80% services in USA. compares well to most tourist traps. And almost nothing else. Not good. And only 18% industry, also low. (granted these are old numbers)
How much of those manufactured goods are military goods? (that are bought by the US military?)
That said, my comment was based on bits and pieces that I have read, including modern news media crap. I would like to see some more hard numbers.
I suggest you read the wikipedia article on Greenland
Franklin said in his autobiography that deism, though may be true, wasn't worth much. He was a deist in his youth, but by the time of the Constitutional Convention he was not. Only if you define 'deny divinity of Christ' as did not subscribe to any particualt denomination does Franklin (or most founders) fit. His autobio is avaliable on Guttenberg, it is worth the read.
Washington: To be a vestryman in that episcopal church, he signed a document stating that he accepted the Episcopal doctrine. If he didn't believe it, Washington of all people would not have signed it. That doesn't mean that he liked or agreed with the 'ostentatious display(s) of religious zeal' that others had. these quotes should put to rest any deistic ideas about washington. A deist doesn't call on God for aid, protection, or call him "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" etc...
Jefferson: He had decided that none of the current denominations were correct, and as such stripped christianity down to what could be proved (in his mind) In a way, he did not 'accept' the divinity of Christ, but it was more of a rejection of the current churches than anything. He at least believed Christ lived, and that his teachings were the best ever. To the christians of his time, and of our time, he was not a normal christian. On the other hand, I could pick and choose quotes from him that make him look totally christian, just like the link you gave made him look atheist. Neither are the truth.
The founders were not fundies like there are today, that much should be obvious. (and the fundies don't like it much either!) On the other side, most were not deists, at least not by the definitions given in your link. (and the anti-christians of today don't like this!) Both sides want the Founders to support their own agenda - The founders would have found both agenda's repulsive.
I am still snickering over that one. There were dozens - not nine.
Second, name them, please. To the best of my knowledge only Jefferson did that, although most of the founders would be very out of place in most christian churches today.
As for the 'use imports and save domestic resources', how long does it take to go from located ore deposit to functioning steel plant? A long time.
I'd ask the Romans, since they were the ones making and numbering history at the time in question. Hint: what is the Roman numeral for zero?
"You excluding me from using a resource is a violation of my rights, but me taking something from you that you have worked for is a violation of yours. Where do we draw the line?"
Good Question. The best answer I have found is by John Locke (see it here) Chapter 5. in particular. It is not perfect in my opinion, but it is a good start for discussion. (Note: Locke is refuting the 'Divine right of kings' argument, also, for some reason this link only has the first part...)
"In a system of democratically controlled resources, people would be collectively responsible for that resource."
From 'The Incredibles' 'When everyone is special, no one will be.' When everyone is responsible - no one will be. The tragedy of the commons occurs because each person individually gets the bennifits, but collectively shares the cost. So it is in the best interests of individuals to take as much as possible. This is rarely good mannagement, and the net bennifit is usually poor. Even if 90% of the people are prudent, the 10% who abuse the commons makes prudent mannagement impossible. However, if the commons were divided up and individually mannaged, not only do the 90% who are prudent derive a greater net and individual bennifit than before, the 10% who abuse theirs are motivared to better mannagement themselves. Their greed motivates better management, where before even a minority of greed hurts all. This is how greed can motivate resource sustainability.
There is another method of mannaging commons than making it private property. Regulation by government. This is better than a unregulated commons, but is rarely as good as private mannagement, because there is no effective control over greedy individuals manipulating the government control such that they get a greater share of the bennifits, and as before, all share the cost. Because of this, where the commons can be privitized, it should be. We still need an effective means of controling greed in government, as not all commons can be privitized. Ideas?
"Most of us are hard wired genetically to be motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity moreso than greed."
Perhaps. I can't think of any counter-examples. However, 'fairness and reciprocity' are not altruism. Fairness dictates that each person who bennifits, share in the cost in equal porporton to the bennifit. While I can think of tons of systems that provide fairness, many far greater than even a true free market could, all of them have two flaws. All are vulnerable to the minority that are greedy. Most much more so than a free market. And all of them unduly restrict the liberty and freedom of the people. The first flaw means that in practice all are much worse than a free market at supplying needs and wants or providing fairness. And the second means that all provide much less happiness than a true free market.
The Preamble -
Let me cut out the unnecessary stuff here -The preamble explains why 'We the People' adopted the Constitution. It has nothing to do with any powers delegated to any branch of government beyond hinting that the power is derived from the people.
While I agree that your interpretation has been used, it is so laughably off from the plain text of the preamble that it should never be given a first thought, let alone a second one.
Mostly agree. If it is possible, it is very unlikely.
"Also, there would have to be some regulation of externalities and natural monopolies (I believe these are some of the failure modes discussed in 'Wealth of Nations,' yes?)"
No, not really. There were no phones, electricity, broadband, or radio & TV stations in 1812 (when WoN was written) There were roads and sewers, but those were generally the same thing... Most natural monopolies did not exist then. Externalities are "a case of poorly-defined property rights." (quote from the wikipedia article.) I can't recall if these were discussed much in WoN.
One failure mode that was used is the example of an occupation such as carpenter in a rural area vs a big city. free markets fail in the rural area because there is not enough work for more than one full-time carpenter. Fixed costs (tools) and lack of practice mean that part-time carpenters can't compete. Only if a new carpenter is enough better/cheaper to put the old one out of business in a hurry can competition function. (If he doesn't do it in a hurry, he goes hungry) This example explains the OS market (closed and OSS) well. This is the real cause of Microsoft's monopoly, and why it is failing. And it explains the rise of OSS. And partly why there is almost no commercial space exploration. . . Point being that free markets do not always (usually?) provide an optimal solution. (see pareto efficiency - wikipedia) Free Market advocates usually don't understand this.
"We need to revise some of the ideas of the free market system to reflect the realities of human nature."
No. Not really. What needs to happen is we need to revise some of the ideas of government to reflect some of the realities of human nature. Greed is not bad at all, as long as you are not allowed to violate others rights to satisfy it. There is no real difference between passing a law to discourage competition and sending in thugs in to beat up the competition. Both are use of force for personal gain.
That said, "The theory of 'homo economicus' or the selfish, rational actor" is a simplification of reality. It is a good enough abstraction for many things in economics, but far from perfect.
"I believe we should come up with a system that rewards fairness and reciprocity instead."
If this system does not satisfy greed to a large extent, it will fail. Greed is simply too much a part of human nature. And the 'tragedy of the commons' problem means that even if only a significant minority prefers greed, it usually trumps all other factors. That said, free markets do an excellent job of rewarding reciprocity. And they usually only reward greed when greed motivates work. They reward work.
Free market ideaoligies do not have greed as their highest ideal. They have it as a prime motivating factor for humans. Whether you consider greed good, bad, or indifferent, doesn't matter - what matters is whether or not it's a prime motivation factor.
Granted the analogy isn't perfect, but we could get by just fine with a lot less regulation.
And just what is a corporation? A legally created entity..... Just why are you surprised that the 'free market' dosen't work well when regulated by corporate law?
Free markets do have failure modes, many of them were discussed in 'Wealth of Nations'. If only free market advocates would read the book... That said, We haven't been close to a free market for a hundred years or so (in the US), so most claims that 'free markets don't work because [rescent example]' are bogus.
While I agree on your basic point (technology may give us new options for resources) I recall a quote about nanotech.
It went something like 'using nanotech to transmute elements is as futile as trying to flatten steel balls by beating on them with cotton candy'
Nanotech may let us turn rocks into robots, but not iron into gold.
Is killing in self-defense acceptable or not? (retorical question)
Others have pointed out that this is part of the normal photosynthetic process. And yes, the plants use the oxygen. Sunlight.
[1] All of the paragraphs were there long before you posted. They were not put there after your post to make you look stupid.
Exactally! Someone tried this once. He said (to his employees) " this is what you have to do. Do it whenever you like, wherever you like. If your work requires you to talk to other people in the company, then you may need to be here a certain amount. Otherwise we don't care. . . . There were no fixed office hours. I never showed up before 11 in the morning." Can you imagine the colossal failu--- Oh, Wait, you say his name was Paul Graham? He made millions? He is funding eight more startups with the same idea? And this was a quote from TFA ?!?!?
RTFA. Looks like your curiousity will be satisfied. Watch his company - and those eight startups.
Stop buying hours from your employees and start buying solutions/finnished jobs. That was one of the main points TFA anyhow.