There is a definite sub-culture of folks out there, many of whom play on SlashDot, that do not want to see any sort of cheap and clean alternative to fossil fuels. These are the same people who say things like "we've got to get people out of their cars".
These folks are utopianists. They harbor a social agenda to force you to live your life on their terms. They see the rising costs and pollution from fossile fuels as a lever for gaining the control they need to remake society against most people's free will. They want to do things like move everyone into locally dense housing. Nobody will have their own free standing home and nobody will have the freedom to choose to drive their own car, on their own terms, whenever and wherever they like.
If this sounds like a nightmare to you then pray for clean and cheap alternative energy sources.
Our Universities are doing the right thing by exposing students to the technology used to write the large majority of new softwre being written. It would be a mistake to train students to prop up a dying segment of our industry. This is almost like a lament that all of the remaining blacksmiths were getting old in the days of Henry Ford and the Model T. It was true, but so what?
You made the voluntary choice to live in a rural area where there is not a cost effective infrastructure for broadband. That is a lifestyle choice you made. Why should the rest of us be coereced by force to subsidize that lifestyle choice with government provided broadband? You want cheap broadband? Fine, move to town.
Can you give me an example of how the US government is moving to limit the freedom of expression of citizens in the USA? Even Cindy Sheehan is freely calling George W. Bush the biggest terrorist in the world.
Why is it the role of the federal government to ensure cheap broadband by 2007? I'm much more comfortable with an array of choice from private sources. That's much less likely to lead to bad things like censorship and limits on free expression.
I see the students benefiting from this as long as they have the free and voluntary choice to buy the discounted ebook or buy the full priced paper book. How is offering a voluntary choice to to students considered 'screwing'?
I've worked in Silicon Valley high tech companies for over a decade. I've never signed one of these agreements and I have never seen any of my employers sue anyone like Microsoft is trying to do. Your premise of common place victimization is bogus.
Well, if consumers are stupid then maybe it's time for a benevolent elite to step in and make consumers choices for them. Shall I annoint you to do what's best for mankind?
Well, Michael. I guess that you are just being victimized from all directions. Perhaps we should reshape the world with your vision of enforced utopia. Why don't you reply with a description of how you would remake the world?
If you don't like the copy protection then please work hard to win the hearts and minds of consumers. If they make a free and voluntary choice to agree with you then an effective boycott will change the distributors minds. Let's let the market decide this one. Consumers are not stupid.
I agree. But, let's make sure that all choices regarding developing or consuming open or commercial software are made on a voluntary basis. Don't you agree?
I can see where distributed development can work well when a project is an open source labor of love. However, I don't see it working well for purely commercial or in-house proprietary software. In my experience, those commercial developers who insist on working remotely are disinterested mercenaries that only see their employer as a means to their preferred remote lifestyle. I admire folks who know what they want, in terms of where they live, but I don't think it's in the best interests of a business to fund the lifestyle of someone who want to live in a rural resort community rather than being a full participant who comes to the office each day.
You are implying that I am simply playing a team sport. My reasoning is deeper than that. I see a clear absolute moral choice hear. I don't want to fund the Chinese army or the unjust actions of the USA army.
It looks to me like your comfort zone is in the simple minded view of politics as a team sport rather than a conscientous moral decision.
They own other commercial enterprises in China. I'd like to know because I would like to avoid funding their activities. I feel a moral obligation to avoid buying bullets for their guns and treads for their tanks.
The consumer has the ultimate voluntary choice. They can buy the product or not. There is no force applied in my scenario. Contrast that with the ripping of DRM'ed material. In that case you are forcing the distribution against the producer's wishes.
I think it is a fine thing that Doctorow, a content producer, made a free and voluntary choice to release his content without DRM. Likewise, I also think it is a fine thing that I, another content producer, can make a free and voluntary choice to release content with DRM.
We already live in this perfect world. All choices in this matter are voluntary.
If Karl Marx is such a genius then it should be easy for you to set up a communist society where participation is voluntary. Win the hearts and minds of the citizens and you'll get your utopia. Please, though, let those of us who do not agree continue to make the free and voluntary choice to remain capitalists. Does this sound OK to you? How come it has not worked in the past?
China may not resemble a true communist state today, but it is a totalitarian state and became so because of communism.
Implementing communism on a large scale requires absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. China may have started down the road to Communism with good intentions but its leaders, who were more equal than the peasants, were corrupted by the power granted to them to run things. This always happens in large scale experiments in communism.
Bush was elected. Hitler was elected. That's where the similarity ends. Bush's term will expire without the possibility of re-election in 2008. Bush has to compromise with congress to make laws. Bush could be peacefully removed through impeachment. Hitler did not face these pesky inconveniences.
It sounds like you are arguing for enforcing limits to campaign reach and messaging. How would you achieve this whilst protecting a candidate's right to free speech?
If people are 'too stupid' then why have democracy at all?
Perhaps we'd be better off with a benevolent elite that wields absolute power. You sound like a smart guy. Would you be willing to assume absolute power for the good of your fellow man?
Europe has, once again, shown why it is on its way to becoming a historical museum rather than a full participant in global innovation. Europe has a core cultural value of punishing personal achievement. Rather than cultivate their great minds, Europe listens to the jealous under-achievers who want to utilize other people's inventions without paying for them.
Europe should wake up and see this issue as a root cause of the massive brain drain of the best and brightest who are leaving Europe to live in the USA where they know they'll have some opportunity to be rewarded for inventiveness and hard work.
Slashdot Mirror
Your vision does sound nice for people who voluntarily choose it. Your way of life seems fine, just don't use tyranny to force me to adopt it.
There is a definite sub-culture of folks out there, many of whom play on SlashDot, that do not want to see any sort of cheap and clean alternative to fossil fuels. These are the same people who say things like "we've got to get people out of their cars".
These folks are utopianists. They harbor a social agenda to force you to live your life on their terms. They see the rising costs and pollution from fossile fuels as a lever for gaining the control they need to remake society against most people's free will. They want to do things like move everyone into locally dense housing. Nobody will have their own free standing home and nobody will have the freedom to choose to drive their own car, on their own terms, whenever and wherever they like.
If this sounds like a nightmare to you then pray for clean and cheap alternative energy sources.
Our Universities are doing the right thing by exposing students to the technology used to write the large majority of new softwre being written. It would be a mistake to train students to prop up a dying segment of our industry. This is almost like a lament that all of the remaining blacksmiths were getting old in the days of Henry Ford and the Model T. It was true, but so what?
You made the voluntary choice to live in a rural area where there is not a cost effective infrastructure for broadband. That is a lifestyle choice you made. Why should the rest of us be coereced by force to subsidize that lifestyle choice with government provided broadband? You want cheap broadband? Fine, move to town.
Can you give me an example of how the US government is moving to limit the freedom of expression of citizens in the USA? Even Cindy Sheehan is freely calling George W. Bush the biggest terrorist in the world.
Why is it the role of the federal government to ensure cheap broadband by 2007? I'm much more comfortable with an array of choice from private sources. That's much less likely to lead to bad things like censorship and limits on free expression.
So, what do you propose to do? Should we use the weight of statutory law to deny that choice today to the publishers and the students?
I see the students benefiting from this as long as they have the free and voluntary choice to buy the discounted ebook or buy the full priced paper book. How is offering a voluntary choice to to students considered 'screwing'?
I've worked in Silicon Valley high tech companies for over a decade. I've never signed one of these agreements and I have never seen any of my employers sue anyone like Microsoft is trying to do. Your premise of common place victimization is bogus.
If you see a non-compete clause that you do not like, you are free to make a voluntary choice to not sign it.
Well, if consumers are stupid then maybe it's time for a benevolent elite to step in and make consumers choices for them. Shall I annoint you to do what's best for mankind?
Well, Michael. I guess that you are just being victimized from all directions. Perhaps we should reshape the world with your vision of enforced utopia. Why don't you reply with a description of how you would remake the world?
If you don't like the copy protection then please work hard to win the hearts and minds of consumers. If they make a free and voluntary choice to agree with you then an effective boycott will change the distributors minds. Let's let the market decide this one. Consumers are not stupid.
I agree. But, let's make sure that all choices regarding developing or consuming open or commercial software are made on a voluntary basis. Don't you agree?
I can see where distributed development can work well when a project is an open source labor of love. However, I don't see it working well for purely commercial or in-house proprietary software. In my experience, those commercial developers who insist on working remotely are disinterested mercenaries that only see their employer as a means to their preferred remote lifestyle. I admire folks who know what they want, in terms of where they live, but I don't think it's in the best interests of a business to fund the lifestyle of someone who want to live in a rural resort community rather than being a full participant who comes to the office each day.
You are implying that I am simply playing a team sport. My reasoning is deeper than that. I see a clear absolute moral choice hear. I don't want to fund the Chinese army or the unjust actions of the USA army.
It looks to me like your comfort zone is in the simple minded view of politics as a team sport rather than a conscientous moral decision.
They own other commercial enterprises in China. I'd like to know because I would like to avoid funding their activities. I feel a moral obligation to avoid buying bullets for their guns and treads for their tanks.
The consumer has the ultimate voluntary choice. They can buy the product or not. There is no force applied in my scenario. Contrast that with the ripping of DRM'ed material. In that case you are forcing the distribution against the producer's wishes.
I think it is a fine thing that Doctorow, a content producer, made a free and voluntary choice to release his content without DRM. Likewise, I also think it is a fine thing that I, another content producer, can make a free and voluntary choice to release content with DRM.
We already live in this perfect world. All choices in this matter are voluntary.
If Karl Marx is such a genius then it should be easy for you to set up a communist society where participation is voluntary. Win the hearts and minds of the citizens and you'll get your utopia. Please, though, let those of us who do not agree continue to make the free and voluntary choice to remain capitalists. Does this sound OK to you? How come it has not worked in the past?
China may not resemble a true communist state today, but it is a totalitarian state and became so because of communism.
Implementing communism on a large scale requires absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. China may have started down the road to Communism with good intentions but its leaders, who were more equal than the peasants, were corrupted by the power granted to them to run things. This always happens in large scale experiments in communism.
Bush was elected. Hitler was elected. That's where the similarity ends. Bush's term will expire without the possibility of re-election in 2008. Bush has to compromise with congress to make laws. Bush could be peacefully removed through impeachment. Hitler did not face these pesky inconveniences.
It sounds like you are arguing for enforcing limits to campaign reach and messaging. How would you achieve this whilst protecting a candidate's right to free speech?
If people are 'too stupid' then why have democracy at all?
Perhaps we'd be better off with a benevolent elite that wields absolute power. You sound like a smart guy. Would you be willing to assume absolute power for the good of your fellow man?
Europe has, once again, shown why it is on its way to becoming a historical museum rather than a full participant in global innovation. Europe has a core cultural value of punishing personal achievement. Rather than cultivate their great minds, Europe listens to the jealous under-achievers who want to utilize other people's inventions without paying for them.
Europe should wake up and see this issue as a root cause of the massive brain drain of the best and brightest who are leaving Europe to live in the USA where they know they'll have some opportunity to be rewarded for inventiveness and hard work.