Another problem with your argument goes along with the comment to which you were replying: The government does not have a responsibility to educate people -- once the parents start seeing that the government is taking care of one of their responsibilities (taking care of children), they'll be encouraged to create more children sans responsibility and to hand them off to the government. This is a socialist system because it takes resources (in this case funds in the form of taxes) not just from everyone, but most importantly for this argument, from those who don't use the system, and those funds are used to relieve a responsibility of some citizens. The reason it has failed is that the parents have seen it as a total solution to their children's education, when really they should be involved as well. That's why most of the "non-educated waifs" are in the schools themselves right now. Without a big safety net to fall back on, decent parents will be more concerned about their children's futures and will pay for a better education for them. If that means working more, then it's ultimately good for them, the children, and the economy. It all goes together.
But could it be defended in a court of law if it ever got there? No. My university has the same same policy on wireless access points in residences. I don't live in the residences, so I can't provide any personal experience on the matter, but I haven't heard anything about actual enforcement of this policy. The reason they do it (as stated in this article) is that it can interfere with the operation of the university's wireless network. I think they have the "policy" more to scare students out of installing APs than to actually prohibit it.
entire information equivalent for our global genome
If there is other intelligent life out there, how do we know they're not hostile? Putting our DNA on an asteroid or sending out our genome could give hostile aliens all the information they need to develop deadly biological weapons to use against us. Granted, the chances are extremely slim, but why take the risk? Other things like numerical patterns that don't occur in nature are just as easily recognisable as originating from an intelligent mind.
You're right, certain organisations have been pretty stealing what should be the artists' profits. But those artists DID agree to the terms in exchange for more exposure. Anyway, there's always going independent.
Now I'm not one to preach about the evils of software/music/movie sharing, but anyway:
But this whole thing is starting to look more and more like the enforcement of prohibition back in the roaring twenties, or like the religious persecution that started the American colonies.
In those cases, the people who drank or practiced something other than the state religion weren't harming others. In the case of copyright infringement, someone is being harmed -- property in the form of lost revenues is being stolen from its owners.
Yes, there are fuzzy borders around what constitutes actual property and whatnot. Still, it does harm. In that respect the crackdown on software/music/movie sharing is not like religious persecution or prohibition -- those people of olden days were only hurting themselves.
"Tell it to anyone working hard for minimum wage in this country. I'm sure that they will be sympathetic to your ideas."
I hope they will -- capitalism is the very system that allows them to work for their wages, and even to make more if they prove their ability to earn that extra. Capitalism is what has made America great.
"Capitalism is as much about cooperation as competition. Just look at how many people must cooperate to produce a computer chip."
Right, those people are cooperating -- but because it's in their nature? It's in their nature to want to make money, and they are being paid. It's cooperation, yes, but not selfless cooperation. Someone with a higher goal is employing those chip designers and packagers in order to make money. The expectation of selfless cooperation from everyone is socialism's single flaw.
How? The whole point of capitalism is to make better products than one's competitors in order to make a profit for oneself. If you can prove how that's working for everyone else and not oneself I'll worship you and reject capitalism:-P
Okay, but it's better in performance than current products on the market, right? Someone else will make a smaller platform, and maybe even add features/performance. Better things do result from competition, and this is another step in the process.
True. But what I'm talking about here is the hopelessness of forever working for everyone else and getting nothing out of it but the never-delivered promise of utopia.
So you deny that the Cold War happened? That we as the human race even got to the point of the Cold War through innovation designed to outdo neighbors/enemies? Communism/socialism has never worked, not because they didn't have time, but because the ones who produce are punished for it, and eventually realise they're better off mooching. Then there's no one left to produce, and thereby nothing left to consume, and the system fails. Human nature doesn't like pain, last time I checked.
Without competition, good products would never develop. We wouldn't even have ever made iron, for crying out loud. We'd still be living in caves and whatever else. Capitalism is the perfect system that fits human nature -- human nature is competition. However, I agree that Microsoft has abused the system by (seemingly) intentionally making its products buggy and low-quality in order to force their customers to upgrade/patch. No system is perfect, but capitalism is as close as we've gotten.
"... forged in the white-hot fires of online altruism..."
Okay, this might be nitpicking, but still...
Unless some developers out there really don't give a rip about their careers or their education, open source developers are working for themselves as much as anyone else. Working on an open source project means learning about the tools and techniques used in that project, plus being able to say "I worked on that project." If someone's just coding as a hobby, and they know everything there is to know, they're still getting enjoyment out of it -- unless we've got some monkish programmers out there;-)
If nothing else, open source is good for the free exchange of information. And Red Hat is smart for utilising the ambition of the open source movement.
Wonder when we'll get to see this same technology on production automobiles. I remember hearing about multiple-car pileups in larger cities due only to foggy or otherwise low-visibility conditions. Think of the number of lives this could save.
Slashdot Mirror
Another problem with your argument goes along with the comment to which you were replying: The government does not have a responsibility to educate people -- once the parents start seeing that the government is taking care of one of their responsibilities (taking care of children), they'll be encouraged to create more children sans responsibility and to hand them off to the government. This is a socialist system because it takes resources (in this case funds in the form of taxes) not just from everyone, but most importantly for this argument, from those who don't use the system, and those funds are used to relieve a responsibility of some citizens. The reason it has failed is that the parents have seen it as a total solution to their children's education, when really they should be involved as well. That's why most of the "non-educated waifs" are in the schools themselves right now. Without a big safety net to fall back on, decent parents will be more concerned about their children's futures and will pay for a better education for them. If that means working more, then it's ultimately good for them, the children, and the economy. It all goes together.
Most Slashdotters should love the fellow who did this quiz!!! http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/moral.html
Most Slashdotters should love the fellow who did this quiz: http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/moral.html
But could it be defended in a court of law if it ever got there? No. My university has the same same policy on wireless access points in residences. I don't live in the residences, so I can't provide any personal experience on the matter, but I haven't heard anything about actual enforcement of this policy. The reason they do it (as stated in this article) is that it can interfere with the operation of the university's wireless network. I think they have the "policy" more to scare students out of installing APs than to actually prohibit it.
If there is other intelligent life out there, how do we know they're not hostile? Putting our DNA on an asteroid or sending out our genome could give hostile aliens all the information they need to develop deadly biological weapons to use against us. Granted, the chances are extremely slim, but why take the risk? Other things like numerical patterns that don't occur in nature are just as easily recognisable as originating from an intelligent mind.
You're right, certain organisations have been pretty stealing what should be the artists' profits. But those artists DID agree to the terms in exchange for more exposure. Anyway, there's always going independent.
At least not here in the US. And who knows, maybe the "cyber-terrorists" would like to lull us into a false sense of security this way.
Now I'm not one to preach about the evils of software/music/movie sharing, but anyway:
But this whole thing is starting to look more and more like the enforcement of prohibition back in the roaring twenties, or like the religious persecution that started the American colonies.
In those cases, the people who drank or practiced something other than the state religion weren't harming others. In the case of copyright infringement, someone is being harmed -- property in the form of lost revenues is being stolen from its owners.
Yes, there are fuzzy borders around what constitutes actual property and whatnot. Still, it does harm. In that respect the crackdown on software/music/movie sharing is not like religious persecution or prohibition -- those people of olden days were only hurting themselves.
Posting this to Slashdot's front page is like driving a doughnut cart past a fat camp.
:-P
Except instead of having too much we've had too little
I refer you, oh Wise One, to this comment.
Read some other comments in this thread, too, before you go spouting about my ignorance, please.
"Tell it to anyone working hard for minimum wage in this country. I'm sure that they will be sympathetic to your ideas."
I hope they will -- capitalism is the very system that allows them to work for their wages, and even to make more if they prove their ability to earn that extra. Capitalism is what has made America great.
"Capitalism is as much about cooperation as competition. Just look at how many people must cooperate to produce a computer chip."
Right, those people are cooperating -- but because it's in their nature? It's in their nature to want to make money, and they are being paid. It's cooperation, yes, but not selfless cooperation. Someone with a higher goal is employing those chip designers and packagers in order to make money. The expectation of selfless cooperation from everyone is socialism's single flaw.
How? The whole point of capitalism is to make better products than one's competitors in order to make a profit for oneself. If you can prove how that's working for everyone else and not oneself I'll worship you and reject capitalism :-P
"made iron" -- maybe I should say "forged anything from iron" ;-)
Okay, but it's better in performance than current products on the market, right? Someone else will make a smaller platform, and maybe even add features/performance. Better things do result from competition, and this is another step in the process.
True. But what I'm talking about here is the hopelessness of forever working for everyone else and getting nothing out of it but the never-delivered promise of utopia.
So you deny that the Cold War happened? That we as the human race even got to the point of the Cold War through innovation designed to outdo neighbors/enemies? Communism/socialism has never worked, not because they didn't have time, but because the ones who produce are punished for it, and eventually realise they're better off mooching. Then there's no one left to produce, and thereby nothing left to consume, and the system fails. Human nature doesn't like pain, last time I checked.
:-D
Without competition, good products would never develop. We wouldn't even have ever made iron, for crying out loud. We'd still be living in caves and whatever else. Capitalism is the perfect system that fits human nature -- human nature is competition. However, I agree that Microsoft has abused the system by (seemingly) intentionally making its products buggy and low-quality in order to force their customers to upgrade/patch. No system is perfect, but capitalism is as close as we've gotten.
I love watching technology developers compete, and especially using the better products that result. Go capitalism!
"... forged in the white-hot fires of online altruism ..."
Okay, this might be nitpicking, but still ...
Unless some developers out there really don't give a rip about their careers or their education, open source developers are working for themselves as much as anyone else. Working on an open source project means learning about the tools and techniques used in that project, plus being able to say "I worked on that project." If someone's just coding as a hobby, and they know everything there is to know, they're still getting enjoyment out of it -- unless we've got some monkish programmers out there ;-)
If nothing else, open source is good for the free exchange of information. And Red Hat is smart for utilising the ambition of the open source movement.
Wonder when we'll get to see this same technology on production automobiles. I remember hearing about multiple-car pileups in larger cities due only to foggy or otherwise low-visibility conditions. Think of the number of lives this could save.