You have no idea what law school is like. You don't learn anything in class. You get more confused and listen to hypothetical situations that have no answer and indirectly discover whether your professor has certain leanings towards various types of analysis (e.g. if they're the law and econ kind, social utility kind, favor strict interpretation, etc.) all of which you can learn while idly listening (or even just asking the other people that have had your professor).
And re: lectures.. we don't have lectures generally. We have the socratic method which is like a sick hazing method where professors batter you with questions until time is up or you start crying (okay, exaggerating slightly, but..). Most likely the impetus behind this is because the professors are sick of students who aren't paying attention in class (and we can't skip because there are ABA requirements regarding class attendance) and they get called on to recite the facts of, say, Frigaliment Importing Co. v. BNS International Sales Corp. and have no freaking clue what's going on (because no one really cares about the difference between hens and stewers and their respective market values. We were satisfied at the "you assume words are defined as trade usage unless explicitly specified otherwise" rule), and then the professor stands there for 10 minutes while the person frantically flips around in their books trying to figure out how to answer the questions.
And (responding more to other people below), if the professors don't want to waste class time, they should go "Gosh, Fred doesn't know the answer, wasn't paying attention, or just didn't read for today" and move on to their next victim or one of the gunners with their hands in the air who are more than to willing to recite the facts of the case and then explain in excruciating detail why they think it's wrong or right or just talk about something random and tangentially related, rather than trying to embarrass the person they decided to pick on.
I doubt this would be considered trespass. Having a road there without a gate or sign saying "Do Not Enter" seems to imply a limited invitation to use the road to get to the house. The courts have ruled that using (even private) side walks to access houses for reasons of petitioning are not trespass if there aren't "Do Not Enter" or "No Soliciting" etc. signs.
Further, marking a road as private is not equivalent to this: there are other reasons you would mark a road private that have nothing to do with wanting to keep people from driving on it (eg, to clearly demarcate that it's not a public forum and thus not open to 1st amendment right exercise, since streets are traditionally considered such).
You might argue that even if this is true, taking pictures exceeded the scope of 'invitation,' but the Courts generally award only nominal damages for that type of thing (and even for Google, I don't think $25k is 'nominal.').
OTOH, IANAL, only a 1L (and we only spent like a day on trespass in my property class).
You have a very warped and unfactual view of libretarian theory.
A libretarian view is that the private sector does most things better than the government does (with the exeception of military and police). The government should stay out of these areas and let the private sector take care of them, since the private sector does things more efficently, more cheaply, and over all better than the government does.
Altrusim in not a libretarian no-no. I don't know where you pulled that bullshit from. In fact, libretarians encourage it and believe that private charities work better than state-sponsored welfare programs. (Because, well, they do). These are funded by altruism.
A libretarian believes in a limited government - a government that stays out of people's private lives (so long as they're not harming other people) and that stays out of the market place, because free markets function best.
What is happening in New Orleans (with regard to the looting) is pure anarchy - it reminds me of what Hobbes said the state of nature would look like...
You've obviously never read Marx's work or taken a serious class in market economic theory, otherwise, you'd realize the GPL is more capitalistic in concept and in no way embodies a communist ideal.
Intially, communism requires a central authority directive whereby others are told what to make, how to make it, etc. by the central authority. As you can plainly see, no one in the Free Software community *forces* anyone else to make certain software to certain standards. In fact, the whole idea of the GPL is that if you dislike the direction a project is moving in, you can fork the project and make your own. Hardly a central planning scheme. You also have to look at what happens after the product is created: there's no central government that forces people to use this software. RMS doesn't come from on high and threaten to kick you out of the FOSS group if you chose to use x instead of y. You can use whatever you want - even none free software! Again, hardly characteristic of communism.
Your point that "It's a way of creating code for the community, and forcing those that use said code to in turn contribute to the community as well" is hardly indicative of communism - not does it force you to do anything. Intially, I can use OpenOffice or any other GPL'ed software without being require to contribute back. If I create derivative works of said product and intend to release my derivative works, I do have to GPL my product. You've entered a contract - it's no different from if I require a liscensing fee of so many dollars - that's the price you pay for entering the contract. You have the option not to create derivative works and instead start from scratch, creating no obligation to GPL your work. You *choose* to use GPL. And that's the fundamental difference between communism and captialism - freedom of choice.
As for why the GPL acutally espouses capitalism, the reasons seem more obfusated and possibly less obvious if you aren't up on your knowledge of free market economics - but, none the less, it's there. The GPL aids in the free flow of information - by being required to distribute your source code, your consumers are able to see exactly what your product does. Furthermore, this requirement for open source helps the market find its equilibrium price: people are able to make the best product possible, at the least price possible. You're in no way required to not sell your product - all the GPL requires is that you distribute your source code with your product. I can still sell my product for $300 if I want, so long as I include the source code with it. However, distributing it at $300 runs the risk that someone will modify my code to make it better and then sell it at a cheaper price, or might just redistribute copies of my software for free. Thus, I might decide to include some sort of support service as part of my price. Another person might decide to do the same at a cheaper price. I might have to lower my price as a result. This will continue until the market equilbrium price is reached (which very well might be zero - often times, however, it is not. Look at how much the commercial versions of Linux sell for, as an example). Rather than prices being artifically high because a monopoly exists on the product, you have a free market where supply/demand drives the price, which is based on the quality and desirability of the product provided.
Another way the GPL is capitalistic is that, above all, it provides *choice*. The whole point of capitalism is to provide a myraid of choices so that the best product at the best price prevails. The GPL ensures this will happen by preventing monopolies and ensuring consumers are informed. It also aids in the creation of new choices by getting rid of the red tape and bureaucracy usually involved in creating a derivative work. Freedom of choice is the antithesis of communism - it is at the very heart of captialism.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the US is not compeletly a free market economy. Things such as p
Sir, are you a developer? If not, why do you care so much about the source code?
I'm not a developer, but I prefer open source too. Why? I can't read alot of it - my coding knowledge leaves much to be desired. Yet, I have the assurance that I *can* take it to someone who does program well, and they can tell me what it does. If I want something changed, same story. I like to know what's in the stuff I'm using. It's the same reason why I'm glad their are ingredient lists or nutritional facts on food. I may not know what everything is or what it does, but I can find out and determine whether or not I want to put it into my body (or in the case of software, onto my machine...)
And beyond that point, OSS isn't just about the source code being avaliable. It's a political statement, much in the same way that some people won't buy stuff from Walmart or only buy Fair Trade Coffee, etc. It's a matter of principle - I believe I should be able to know what in the product I'm buying. I may never exercise that right, but I believe it should be there. I believe in choice, and that's what OSS offers.
Poverty to the extent that you see in third world countries IS non-existant in the US (and other Western countries, for that matter). Most homeless people in the US could easily make/aquire $50 dollars in a month, which is more than the average monthly salary of an Afgahni (~$42).
That's not to say the US doesn't have a problem with poverty or that we don't have poor people. We do. But it's a matter of degrees; there are most certainly people who have it MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than the poor in America. Making $10,000 a year here qualifies you as below the poverty level - that's more than the average yearly salary in almost all 3rd world countries in the world. So, relatively, the US's "poverty" isn't really poverty.
Yes, models used out of context are bad. Obviously.
Economics isn't a science because it... isn't science. It's social science, and the two are vastly different. There is no way to find ceteris paribus effects of most things economists study. Controlled experiments simply aren't possible most of the time.
Being in my senior year as an economics major, I have NEVER been told by a professor or via a text book that the models are to be taken as the absolute truth. They ALL argue that what they present are approximations. Please name me the economists (and they have to have a degree in economics and have peer reviewed material for me to consider them 'economists' - otherwise you could have your friend's little brother write some bullshit) that have made this claim. In my econometrics (or basically statistics for economics) class, one of the first things we talked about is that a correlation coefficent of +/-.4 is really good for a social science; in pure sciences, this is incrediably poor. Also, we discussed the great number of things that can mess up a model - simple things like believing one variable is a good measurement of another, or even leaving a variable to the first power when it should be to the second, or not taking the natural log of the variable. I seriously doubt a true economist would make the claim that what they present are hard facts.
What happened in Australia and what happens in so many places is hardly the fault of economists. It's the fault of politicans that don't actually understand economics and are using their partial understanding to create policy. A true economist would have realized that wool has an incrediably elastic demand and many substitutes and never would have suggested the government implement this.
Don't blame economists because you elect non-economists to office to create (non-monetary) economic policy.
You are dead wrong, and so is Bill Gates. OSS is the exact opposite of communism. It is the best example of true free market capitalism this world has ever seen. Before you dismiss me, hear me out.
The concept of capitalism is supposed to be this spectre of free markets. That commerce is driven by supply and demand - people can create whatever they want, but those that prosper will be the ones that people demand, the ones they are willing to pay for. If there is demand for something, someone will produce it. The products that ultimately survive and are purchased are the best ones for the people. There is free entry and exit into the market, none of this brand monopoly crap, etc.
In a true form of capitalism, there would be none of this bullshit of owning ideas. You only own what is tangible. There would be no such thing as intellectual property. Granted, this means that someone could take your idea and recreate your product for cheaper. However, if someone can do this, it means that you could have also. Capitalism forces producers to do things in the most efficient way possible. No one is going to sell a product for less than it costs them to make it in the long run. It's simply not possible. In a similar manner, people could make a lower quality clone of your product and sell it for much less. One of two things will happen in this case: people will spend the extra money for the better quality or you will learn that people don't want a higher quality product and change your product accordingly.
Now how does all of this apply to Open Source Software?? Let me tell you.
To satisfy some basic definitions of capitalism, open source software satisfies the most basic requirement: free entry into and exit from the market. I can write a program and put it out there and sell support services with very little money or capital. I can just as easily stop supporting my program without any financial repercussions.
Open source, lacking the constraints of IP, copyrights, patents or other crap like that, allows people to truly create the best product for the best price. Anyone can create an open source project of any type, branch another project to create their own, etc. which truly provides the best product available for the lowest price. Choice is not just the characteristic of open source, it is the basis of capitalism. I choose what I want to purchase and by doing so I vote my preference and my thoughts on that product. I mean, there're like 80 browsers competing for the market of web browsers. Which ones come out on top? The best ones. Which ones are able to garner funds, which ones are people willing to pay for? The best ones. Granted, this may mean some products are completely free - that simply indicates that's the equilibrium price. People don't really want them. One might argue the problem then becomes what happens if I create something and am charging money for it, but someone else takes the source code and recreates my product and simply gives it away? I don't deny this might happen, but if you wrote the program, then you're going to be able to support it better, you're going to be able to give consumers a better product for their money (I hope..). If that's what people want, what they need, they WILL pay for it. If that's not what they want, then you'll move on and create another project. In addition, this problem gives companies incentives to continually innovate - if they always have the newest, best features, they will be compensated for them - not everyone is willing to wait for a cheaper version to come along, many will want it immediately.
Furthermore, open source greatly shows the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism. Unlike in communism, where someone dictates how many people will produce how many of what, capitalism and open source respond to what people want. OSS is hardly from each according to their ability, to each according to their need; I'm not even sure how you could define who would "need" what in this context - OSS is pure supply
You're both wrong and have been indoctrinated by American propaganda.
According to Marx in the Communist Manifesto, the people own capital, the means of production: factories, heavy machines, that kind of stuff. That's collectively owned. I still own my shirt, my pants, my dog, my paintings, etc. exclusively.
Extrapolating based on this, only code that functions as capital (eg some sort of production program like a compiler) would be owned by the people. Things that do not do this (games are the best example I can think of at this point) would still be owned by their creators, at least in theory.
I don't remember Marx touching on the subject of owning something that is intangiable, though, so perhaps he says something somewhere that supercedes this and adds ideas to his concept of captial...
And regarding Fascism: every economics course I've taken thus far (and I'm a senior economics major...) says fascism is a political paradigm, not an economic one. Just because it's typical for facism to engage in corporatism doesn't mean that fascism = corporatism. It's similar to the way totalitarianism != communism (though most communists are totalitarian) and democracy != free market capitalism (though again, most democracies engage in capitalism and vice versa).
And just to reiterate, since I didn't come out and say it in the above paragraph, communism is an ECONOMIC system, not a political one. It is entirely plausible that one could be communist and democratic (I would dare say a lot of European countries are headed in this direction...).
In the Communist Manifesto, Part II: Proletairians and Communist, Marx basically says exactly that:
"The communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of power."
Communists were supposed to be like super proletariats, they're the ones above that Lenin referred to. They're the smartest, the best, the most knowledgable. It was never intended that everyone would be a communist. The communists were the leaders. That's why communist party membership in the USSR wasn't open to just anyone. I guess technically Marx didn't really promote dictatorship, but rather just totalitarianism... (more of an oligopoly)
Amazingly, most (though not all..) of what the USSR did/promoted has a definite basis in Marx / Engels.
If you don't like the way cell phone companies do things, don't purchase one: the amazing thing about capitalism is that there is competition, and you're not obligated to buy anything you don't want to.
You do pay corporations to wear their logos, but, again, that's a choice YOU make. Buy some other type of clothes if you don't want to advertise or if you disagree with the way they produce their products.
You do pay to go see movies with ads - again, if you don't like it, don't go see it.
Instead of bitching about things, why don't you change things: start your own company and sell cell phones that don't incur charges for incoming calls or that have an option not to recieve sms messages. That's the other great thing about capitalism: enterpreneurship.
The whole basis of capitalism is that money talks. Don't let corporations make money on something and they won't do it. If people don't buy it, they won't sell it.
Concerning North Korea's invasions: Um, South Korea? It wasn't that long ago; surely you've heard about it... It began what's known as the Korean War...
Also, you neglect to consider that the collapse of the Soviet Empire and general death of mainstream communism has played a large part in why North Korea hasn't invaded anyone else recently - they don't have the people / weaponry to do so (at least until they have a positively working bomb) and they lack the allies to supply them with these. One of the reasons they invaded South Korea was because they had China's and Russia's support (and Russia's support included atomic weaponry).
If you want to see a real war, just wait for when North Korea decides to use the bomb on South Korea and the US is obligated by alliance relations to retaliate (with some of our ICBMs, of course) It'll be WWIII (or morely likely just the end of the world...)
Bill Maher did make that comment and his show was taken off the air, but by ABC, not by the government, because a bunch of the advertisers threaten and/or did pull their ads from the show, thus making it unprofitable.
Yet, a few months later, he had a great show on HBO called Real Time (btw, I highly recommend it; it's a great show), and since HBO is a subscription channel, they don't have to worry about advertisers or any of that shit; he can say whatever he wants.
Hardly an example of a tyrannical government supressing dissent... I'd say if anything that Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect situation is a great example of the triumph of the way the US and her free enterprise / freedom of expression work.
I'm interested, what are these countries with lower unemployment rates, longer life expectancies AND shorter work weeks? To my knowledge, there aren't any...
It may be true that there are some countries with at least one of these, but there is not a single country in the world that has all three, because they're all trade offs. Countries that have shorter work weeks have higher unemployment. Countries with longer life spans are less industrialized and have lower GDPs.
The US isn't the most powerful country because of its military. You're wearing the blinders if you think that's why people think the US is powerful - anyone with a few hydrogen bombs has the power to destroy most of the world, and it's been a few decades since the US held the monopoly on that.
What the US does have is one of the strongest economies. She has low inflation, and a strong exchange rate. She has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates, She has amongst the highest life expectancies, and She has (barring the Vatican and possibly some other very small countries with few inhabitants...) the highest GDP and GDP per capita in the world. It's not the military that makes the US the most powerful, it's Her economic power.
Assuming everyone who thinks the US is the most powerful feels that way because the US has a decent military is a hallmark of stereotyping and shortsightedness... Isn't the pot calling the kettle black?
One person one vote is hardly disenfranchising anyone. Why should 2000 square miles of empty space be given the same representation as a real live person?
Since when have Electoral College votes been based on the size of a state rather than its population?
No, I personally thought that all you had to do to get mono is make out with someone who had it, and was confused as to why people would need a whole book to explain this.
There are always books explaining how to accomplish difficult tasks. Most people here would be hard pressed to contract mono the way you described.
Sorry, but I live at the apartments in question. The University says they are NOT my landlord - when my washer broke and it took 3 monthes to repair, the Unversity said I had to take that up with Waterview Apartments because they don't own the apartments. I was told the same thing about the lights being out in my stairwell (which have been out since I moved in during July...)
You can't say the University is the landlord for wireless purposes, but not for the rest of the things a landlord is responsible for...
And as for changing the lease agreement - I have yet to be sent anything from Waterview saying this is a new stipulation to my lease, as the lease that I signed said would occur if any changes happened.... Plus, my leases says I'm not subject to those changes until my lease ends (which occurs in July of 2005, well after Sept 15th anyway...)
Um, I think your brain is starting to cook from wearing that tinfoil hat out in the sun all the time...
Re-read what you posted - you sound like some conspiracy theorist. While I completely agree that the US has some problems and corruption, it could be a lot worse. Nothing that exists now isn't anything that can't be changed if people wake up from their stupor and start to realize and give a damn about what's going on.
If you want to see lies, corruption, and coverups, let's look at Russia/USSR, or Zimbabwe, or Saudi Arabia... (No offense to any persons who may be inhabitants of said countries)
You're a fool if you think the US citizen have it worse than people in those countries.
And the problem is?? I don't understand what flaw your example highlights.
Here's what would happen though:
Those superrich invest their money in various things (capital, stocks, bonds, even just letting it sit in a savings account, etc.) and expand the US's production function, so the US becomes even more prosperous. (Which, in theory, will trickle down in some way to even the poorest persons...)
The problem with the US's current tax system is the people get taxed twice for investment. First, you get taxed for your income. Then, if you invest in stuff, you get taxed on it, via capital gains. This means people don't invest, and the economy become stagnent and will eventually fall into a recession. The sales tax eliminates those disincentives.
I know someone's going to say this just benefits the rich, but the truth is the middle class gets screwed also by this too.
Funny, I thought what made the US (I assume that's what you mean when you say America) the US was that constituents had the right to question the government's actions and try to bring about change as they saw fit.
Damn, I really need to start paying attention in class, because you're making me think I totally missed the point and/or significance of all that Revolutionary war, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, etc. stuff in history class...
Slashdot Mirror
You have no idea what law school is like. You don't learn anything in class. You get more confused and listen to hypothetical situations that have no answer and indirectly discover whether your professor has certain leanings towards various types of analysis (e.g. if they're the law and econ kind, social utility kind, favor strict interpretation, etc.) all of which you can learn while idly listening (or even just asking the other people that have had your professor).
And re: lectures.. we don't have lectures generally. We have the socratic method which is like a sick hazing method where professors batter you with questions until time is up or you start crying (okay, exaggerating slightly, but..). Most likely the impetus behind this is because the professors are sick of students who aren't paying attention in class (and we can't skip because there are ABA requirements regarding class attendance) and they get called on to recite the facts of, say, Frigaliment Importing Co. v. BNS International Sales Corp. and have no freaking clue what's going on (because no one really cares about the difference between hens and stewers and their respective market values. We were satisfied at the "you assume words are defined as trade usage unless explicitly specified otherwise" rule), and then the professor stands there for 10 minutes while the person frantically flips around in their books trying to figure out how to answer the questions.
And (responding more to other people below), if the professors don't want to waste class time, they should go "Gosh, Fred doesn't know the answer, wasn't paying attention, or just didn't read for today" and move on to their next victim or one of the gunners with their hands in the air who are more than to willing to recite the facts of the case and then explain in excruciating detail why they think it's wrong or right or just talk about something random and tangentially related, rather than trying to embarrass the person they decided to pick on.
I doubt this would be considered trespass. Having a road there without a gate or sign saying "Do Not Enter" seems to imply a limited invitation to use the road to get to the house. The courts have ruled that using (even private) side walks to access houses for reasons of petitioning are not trespass if there aren't "Do Not Enter" or "No Soliciting" etc. signs.
Further, marking a road as private is not equivalent to this: there are other reasons you would mark a road private that have nothing to do with wanting to keep people from driving on it (eg, to clearly demarcate that it's not a public forum and thus not open to 1st amendment right exercise, since streets are traditionally considered such).
You might argue that even if this is true, taking pictures exceeded the scope of 'invitation,' but the Courts generally award only nominal damages for that type of thing (and even for Google, I don't think $25k is 'nominal.').
OTOH, IANAL, only a 1L (and we only spent like a day on trespass in my property class).
You have a very warped and unfactual view of libretarian theory.
A libretarian view is that the private sector does most things better than the government does (with the exeception of military and police). The government should stay out of these areas and let the private sector take care of them, since the private sector does things more efficently, more cheaply, and over all better than the government does.
Altrusim in not a libretarian no-no. I don't know where you pulled that bullshit from. In fact, libretarians encourage it and believe that private charities work better than state-sponsored welfare programs. (Because, well, they do). These are funded by altruism.
A libretarian believes in a limited government - a government that stays out of people's private lives (so long as they're not harming other people) and that stays out of the market place, because free markets function best.
For more information on Libretarian views, visit http://www.cato.org/.
What is happening in New Orleans (with regard to the looting) is pure anarchy - it reminds me of what Hobbes said the state of nature would look like...
You've obviously never read Marx's work or taken a serious class in market economic theory, otherwise, you'd realize the GPL is more capitalistic in concept and in no way embodies a communist ideal.
Intially, communism requires a central authority directive whereby others are told what to make, how to make it, etc. by the central authority. As you can plainly see, no one in the Free Software community *forces* anyone else to make certain software to certain standards. In fact, the whole idea of the GPL is that if you dislike the direction a project is moving in, you can fork the project and make your own. Hardly a central planning scheme. You also have to look at what happens after the product is created: there's no central government that forces people to use this software. RMS doesn't come from on high and threaten to kick you out of the FOSS group if you chose to use x instead of y. You can use whatever you want - even none free software! Again, hardly characteristic of communism.
Your point that "It's a way of creating code for the community, and forcing those that use said code to in turn contribute to the community as well" is hardly indicative of communism - not does it force you to do anything. Intially, I can use OpenOffice or any other GPL'ed software without being require to contribute back. If I create derivative works of said product and intend to release my derivative works, I do have to GPL my product. You've entered a contract - it's no different from if I require a liscensing fee of so many dollars - that's the price you pay for entering the contract. You have the option not to create derivative works and instead start from scratch, creating no obligation to GPL your work. You *choose* to use GPL. And that's the fundamental difference between communism and captialism - freedom of choice.
As for why the GPL acutally espouses capitalism, the reasons seem more obfusated and possibly less obvious if you aren't up on your knowledge of free market economics - but, none the less, it's there. The GPL aids in the free flow of information - by being required to distribute your source code, your consumers are able to see exactly what your product does. Furthermore, this requirement for open source helps the market find its equilibrium price: people are able to make the best product possible, at the least price possible. You're in no way required to not sell your product - all the GPL requires is that you distribute your source code with your product. I can still sell my product for $300 if I want, so long as I include the source code with it. However, distributing it at $300 runs the risk that someone will modify my code to make it better and then sell it at a cheaper price, or might just redistribute copies of my software for free. Thus, I might decide to include some sort of support service as part of my price. Another person might decide to do the same at a cheaper price. I might have to lower my price as a result. This will continue until the market equilbrium price is reached (which very well might be zero - often times, however, it is not. Look at how much the commercial versions of Linux sell for, as an example). Rather than prices being artifically high because a monopoly exists on the product, you have a free market where supply/demand drives the price, which is based on the quality and desirability of the product provided.
Another way the GPL is capitalistic is that, above all, it provides *choice*. The whole point of capitalism is to provide a myraid of choices so that the best product at the best price prevails. The GPL ensures this will happen by preventing monopolies and ensuring consumers are informed. It also aids in the creation of new choices by getting rid of the red tape and bureaucracy usually involved in creating a derivative work. Freedom of choice is the antithesis of communism - it is at the very heart of captialism.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the US is not compeletly a free market economy. Things such as p
I'm not a developer, but I prefer open source too. Why? I can't read alot of it - my coding knowledge leaves much to be desired. Yet, I have the assurance that I *can* take it to someone who does program well, and they can tell me what it does. If I want something changed, same story. I like to know what's in the stuff I'm using. It's the same reason why I'm glad their are ingredient lists or nutritional facts on food. I may not know what everything is or what it does, but I can find out and determine whether or not I want to put it into my body (or in the case of software, onto my machine...)
And beyond that point, OSS isn't just about the source code being avaliable. It's a political statement, much in the same way that some people won't buy stuff from Walmart or only buy Fair Trade Coffee, etc. It's a matter of principle - I believe I should be able to know what in the product I'm buying. I may never exercise that right, but I believe it should be there. I believe in choice, and that's what OSS offers.
Poverty to the extent that you see in third world countries IS non-existant in the US (and other Western countries, for that matter). Most homeless people in the US could easily make/aquire $50 dollars in a month, which is more than the average monthly salary of an Afgahni (~$42).
That's not to say the US doesn't have a problem with poverty or that we don't have poor people. We do. But it's a matter of degrees; there are most certainly people who have it MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than the poor in America. Making $10,000 a year here qualifies you as below the poverty level - that's more than the average yearly salary in almost all 3rd world countries in the world. So, relatively, the US's "poverty" isn't really poverty.
Yes, models used out of context are bad. Obviously. Economics isn't a science because it... isn't science. It's social science, and the two are vastly different. There is no way to find ceteris paribus effects of most things economists study. Controlled experiments simply aren't possible most of the time. Being in my senior year as an economics major, I have NEVER been told by a professor or via a text book that the models are to be taken as the absolute truth. They ALL argue that what they present are approximations. Please name me the economists (and they have to have a degree in economics and have peer reviewed material for me to consider them 'economists' - otherwise you could have your friend's little brother write some bullshit) that have made this claim. In my econometrics (or basically statistics for economics) class, one of the first things we talked about is that a correlation coefficent of +/- .4 is really good for a social science; in pure sciences, this is incrediably poor. Also, we discussed the great number of things that can mess up a model - simple things like believing one variable is a good measurement of another, or even leaving a variable to the first power when it should be to the second, or not taking the natural log of the variable. I seriously doubt a true economist would make the claim that what they present are hard facts.
What happened in Australia and what happens in so many places is hardly the fault of economists. It's the fault of politicans that don't actually understand economics and are using their partial understanding to create policy. A true economist would have realized that wool has an incrediably elastic demand and many substitutes and never would have suggested the government implement this.
Don't blame economists because you elect non-economists to office to create (non-monetary) economic policy.
You are dead wrong, and so is Bill Gates. OSS is the exact opposite of communism. It is the best example of true free market capitalism this world has ever seen. Before you dismiss me, hear me out.
The concept of capitalism is supposed to be this spectre of free markets. That commerce is driven by supply and demand - people can create whatever they want, but those that prosper will be the ones that people demand, the ones they are willing to pay for. If there is demand for something, someone will produce it. The products that ultimately survive and are purchased are the best ones for the people. There is free entry and exit into the market, none of this brand monopoly crap, etc.
In a true form of capitalism, there would be none of this bullshit of owning ideas. You only own what is tangible. There would be no such thing as intellectual property. Granted, this means that someone could take your idea and recreate your product for cheaper. However, if someone can do this, it means that you could have also. Capitalism forces producers to do things in the most efficient way possible. No one is going to sell a product for less than it costs them to make it in the long run. It's simply not possible. In a similar manner, people could make a lower quality clone of your product and sell it for much less. One of two things will happen in this case: people will spend the extra money for the better quality or you will learn that people don't want a higher quality product and change your product accordingly.
Now how does all of this apply to Open Source Software?? Let me tell you.
To satisfy some basic definitions of capitalism, open source software satisfies the most basic requirement: free entry into and exit from the market. I can write a program and put it out there and sell support services with very little money or capital. I can just as easily stop supporting my program without any financial repercussions.
Open source, lacking the constraints of IP, copyrights, patents or other crap like that, allows people to truly create the best product for the best price. Anyone can create an open source project of any type, branch another project to create their own, etc. which truly provides the best product available for the lowest price. Choice is not just the characteristic of open source, it is the basis of capitalism. I choose what I want to purchase and by doing so I vote my preference and my thoughts on that product. I mean, there're like 80 browsers competing for the market of web browsers. Which ones come out on top? The best ones. Which ones are able to garner funds, which ones are people willing to pay for? The best ones. Granted, this may mean some products are completely free - that simply indicates that's the equilibrium price. People don't really want them. One might argue the problem then becomes what happens if I create something and am charging money for it, but someone else takes the source code and recreates my product and simply gives it away? I don't deny this might happen, but if you wrote the program, then you're going to be able to support it better, you're going to be able to give consumers a better product for their money (I hope..). If that's what people want, what they need, they WILL pay for it. If that's not what they want, then you'll move on and create another project. In addition, this problem gives companies incentives to continually innovate - if they always have the newest, best features, they will be compensated for them - not everyone is willing to wait for a cheaper version to come along, many will want it immediately.
Furthermore, open source greatly shows the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism. Unlike in communism, where someone dictates how many people will produce how many of what, capitalism and open source respond to what people want. OSS is hardly from each according to their ability, to each according to their need; I'm not even sure how you could define who would "need" what in this context - OSS is pure supply
You're both wrong and have been indoctrinated by American propaganda.
According to Marx in the Communist Manifesto, the people own capital, the means of production: factories, heavy machines, that kind of stuff. That's collectively owned. I still own my shirt, my pants, my dog, my paintings, etc. exclusively.
Extrapolating based on this, only code that functions as capital (eg some sort of production program like a compiler) would be owned by the people. Things that do not do this (games are the best example I can think of at this point) would still be owned by their creators, at least in theory.
I don't remember Marx touching on the subject of owning something that is intangiable, though, so perhaps he says something somewhere that supercedes this and adds ideas to his concept of captial...
And regarding Fascism: every economics course I've taken thus far (and I'm a senior economics major...) says fascism is a political paradigm, not an economic one. Just because it's typical for facism to engage in corporatism doesn't mean that fascism = corporatism. It's similar to the way totalitarianism != communism (though most communists are totalitarian) and democracy != free market capitalism (though again, most democracies engage in capitalism and vice versa).
And just to reiterate, since I didn't come out and say it in the above paragraph, communism is an ECONOMIC system, not a political one. It is entirely plausible that one could be communist and democratic (I would dare say a lot of European countries are headed in this direction...).
In the Communist Manifesto, Part II: Proletairians and Communist, Marx basically says exactly that:
"The communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of power."
Communists were supposed to be like super proletariats, they're the ones above that Lenin referred to. They're the smartest, the best, the most knowledgable. It was never intended that everyone would be a communist. The communists were the leaders. That's why communist party membership in the USSR wasn't open to just anyone. I guess technically Marx didn't really promote dictatorship, but rather just totalitarianism... (more of an oligopoly)
Amazingly, most (though not all..) of what the USSR did/promoted has a definite basis in Marx / Engels.
If you don't like the way cell phone companies do things, don't purchase one: the amazing thing about capitalism is that there is competition, and you're not obligated to buy anything you don't want to.
You do pay corporations to wear their logos, but, again, that's a choice YOU make. Buy some other type of clothes if you don't want to advertise or if you disagree with the way they produce their products.
You do pay to go see movies with ads - again, if you don't like it, don't go see it.
Instead of bitching about things, why don't you change things: start your own company and sell cell phones that don't incur charges for incoming calls or that have an option not to recieve sms messages. That's the other great thing about capitalism: enterpreneurship.
The whole basis of capitalism is that money talks. Don't let corporations make money on something and they won't do it. If people don't buy it, they won't sell it.
I'm singing my praises for capitalism.
In all fairness, Germany did it to Britian first... We played dirty because they did.
Yeah, and I guess the French should have said "Hell, let the Americans earn the right to taxation only with representation by themselves."
Um, South Korea was democratic BEFORE the Korean War. The US controlled it after WWII, remember?
The Korean War was fought because North Korea's Kim Il Sung wanted a united communist Korea.
South Korea's a bad example for US/UN bombing working or not working at instilling democracy since it was, you know, already instilled.
Concerning North Korea's invasions: Um, South Korea? It wasn't that long ago; surely you've heard about it... It began what's known as the Korean War...
Also, you neglect to consider that the collapse of the Soviet Empire and general death of mainstream communism has played a large part in why North Korea hasn't invaded anyone else recently - they don't have the people / weaponry to do so (at least until they have a positively working bomb) and they lack the allies to supply them with these. One of the reasons they invaded South Korea was because they had China's and Russia's support (and Russia's support included atomic weaponry).
If you want to see a real war, just wait for when North Korea decides to use the bomb on South Korea and the US is obligated by alliance relations to retaliate (with some of our ICBMs, of course) It'll be WWIII (or morely likely just the end of the world...)
Bill Maher did make that comment and his show was taken off the air, but by ABC, not by the government, because a bunch of the advertisers threaten and/or did pull their ads from the show, thus making it unprofitable.
Yet, a few months later, he had a great show on HBO called Real Time (btw, I highly recommend it; it's a great show), and since HBO is a subscription channel, they don't have to worry about advertisers or any of that shit; he can say whatever he wants.
Hardly an example of a tyrannical government supressing dissent... I'd say if anything that Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect situation is a great example of the triumph of the way the US and her free enterprise / freedom of expression work.
I'm interested, what are these countries with lower unemployment rates, longer life expectancies AND shorter work weeks? To my knowledge, there aren't any...
It may be true that there are some countries with at least one of these, but there is not a single country in the world that has all three, because they're all trade offs. Countries that have shorter work weeks have higher unemployment. Countries with longer life spans are less industrialized and have lower GDPs.
The US isn't the most powerful country because of its military. You're wearing the blinders if you think that's why people think the US is powerful - anyone with a few hydrogen bombs has the power to destroy most of the world, and it's been a few decades since the US held the monopoly on that.
What the US does have is one of the strongest economies. She has low inflation, and a strong exchange rate. She has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates, She has amongst the highest life expectancies, and She has (barring the Vatican and possibly some other very small countries with few inhabitants...) the highest GDP and GDP per capita in the world. It's not the military that makes the US the most powerful, it's Her economic power.
Assuming everyone who thinks the US is the most powerful feels that way because the US has a decent military is a hallmark of stereotyping and shortsightedness... Isn't the pot calling the kettle black?
One person one vote is hardly disenfranchising anyone. Why should 2000 square miles of empty space be given the same representation as a real live person? Since when have Electoral College votes been based on the size of a state rather than its population?
The best voting method I've seen is Condorcet voting. But even that isn't perfect.
Anyone interested in reading more about Condorcet voting should go to electionmethods.org.
And her backdoor's probably open too.
No, I personally thought that all you had to do to get mono is make out with someone who had it, and was confused as to why people would need a whole book to explain this.
There are always books explaining how to accomplish difficult tasks. Most people here would be hard pressed to contract mono the way you described.
Sorry, but I live at the apartments in question. The University says they are NOT my landlord - when my washer broke and it took 3 monthes to repair, the Unversity said I had to take that up with Waterview Apartments because they don't own the apartments. I was told the same thing about the lights being out in my stairwell (which have been out since I moved in during July...)
You can't say the University is the landlord for wireless purposes, but not for the rest of the things a landlord is responsible for...
And as for changing the lease agreement - I have yet to be sent anything from Waterview saying this is a new stipulation to my lease, as the lease that I signed said would occur if any changes happened.... Plus, my leases says I'm not subject to those changes until my lease ends (which occurs in July of 2005, well after Sept 15th anyway...)
Re-read what you posted - you sound like some conspiracy theorist. While I completely agree that the US has some problems and corruption, it could be a lot worse. Nothing that exists now isn't anything that can't be changed if people wake up from their stupor and start to realize and give a damn about what's going on.
If you want to see lies, corruption, and coverups, let's look at Russia/USSR, or Zimbabwe, or Saudi Arabia... (No offense to any persons who may be inhabitants of said countries)
You're a fool if you think the US citizen have it worse than people in those countries.
Here's what would happen though: Those superrich invest their money in various things (capital, stocks, bonds, even just letting it sit in a savings account, etc.) and expand the US's production function, so the US becomes even more prosperous. (Which, in theory, will trickle down in some way to even the poorest persons...)
The problem with the US's current tax system is the people get taxed twice for investment. First, you get taxed for your income. Then, if you invest in stuff, you get taxed on it, via capital gains. This means people don't invest, and the economy become stagnent and will eventually fall into a recession. The sales tax eliminates those disincentives.
I know someone's going to say this just benefits the rich, but the truth is the middle class gets screwed also by this too.
Damn, I really need to start paying attention in class, because you're making me think I totally missed the point and/or significance of all that Revolutionary war, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, etc. stuff in history class...