A natural monopoly? You're talking about gov't subsidized services that are anything but efficient, which is why some of them even have competition.
I don't think this natural monopoly thing exists. It sounds like you're trying to say a natural monopoly is a good thing cuz its natural. And nature is good, we all know that. Its all BS. Monopolies are bad, m'kay? Just like drugs.
Competition is a good thing. When you compete you see the flaws in your way of doing things. If you have no competition these flaws may never be exposed. So you become lazy and allow your infrastructure to crumble until it becomes inefficient, insecure, obsolete, stupid and annoying. All at the same time. All monopolies end up this way.
No, actually I just made that up. But think about it, it has been observed and repeated many times in our history. The only good monopoly would be one of, by, and for the people. Much like open source. Where everyone gets to fix the problems they see.
If lives can be and are lost for a good cause in Afghanistan, Iraq, in fighting domestic crime, and in firefighting, I say, we are overly protective of the space crews.
Or we undervalue life. Money isn't worth very much when you're dead.
Does OSX give credit to the original developers on the cover of the box? I believe that is what they were talking about. Of course credit is given buried somewhere in the source code. But aside from the credit that remains in the source code, which isn't required to be released at all, the company using your BSD code has to do nothing else.
So I see very little if any benefit from using the BSD license, since I want my source code to be available to anyone, and anyone who uses it to share their modifications in the same way.
espouse the greatness of the much more complex GPL?
Its complex? Really? Seemed rather simple to me. I read it a few times. Its actually somewhat enjoyable to read, IMO. Also I enjoy using the GPL because I know how it forces people like you to do things you don't want to do.. share.
So many people seem like selfish children throwing tantrums from my perspective.
Yeah, and he also called IBM a pickle a while back. Why would they want to deal with someone who acts as childish as Jonathan Schwartz? He'd probably throw a tantrum if things didn't go his way.
What it needs is propoganda. If you had TV shows that excite people about space in a fun and creative way it would easily change public perception. Star Trek did this. But what I'm talking about is something that would reach the audience.
Then again, who is the audience? Judging by the election I think they are mostly Christian Republicans who think Jesus will be coming back any day now. So how about a show about Jesus returning from space and NASA helping him land on the earth after some sort of accident aboard his space craft or something lame like that. But seriously, spending a little time to make this stuff fun and entertaining would help a lot.
I saw a show on Titan recently that showed some nice CGI. If it was professional CGI with lots of cool stuff and based in reality it would excite people. Space is exciting. Its hard to imagine why people find it boring. Maybe it has something to do with all those horror movies about dying alone in the dark or whatever.
Under what system of morality is copyright infringement worse than drugging somebody and raping them?
Uh, that would be capitalism.
Now if they had lots of money, wore suits and drove around in limos the DoJ wouldn't even have arrested them. They would have probably just got a C&D letter in the mail or a call from their lawyer. Maybe next time they'll think ahead and sell their stolen movies for the millions it takes to avoid legal problems. Cuz we all know millionaires never break the law.
Yeah, you're right. I guess in the theoretical sense of "we the people" it might be possible to get rid of the RIAA. But in reality it just isn't possible. Too many differing opinions and invested interests.
Look, the RIAA exists only because they have money. If they stop getting money they will shrink until eventually they cease to exist. Then their laws can be repealed, etc.
But only if we stop giving them money.
Is that really all that hard to understand?
Its quite simple, buy indie! Just do a little homework before you give any media company your money. Go to their homepage and look for affiliates. Anything you see in Wal-Mart probably is affiliated with the RIAA. Think, before you shop.
Or don't, its your rights. I don't pay attention to these laws anyway.
In many cases the overlooked how-the-brain-got-this-way question is much more relevant to the case at hand, but doesn't seem to get studied (or referenced) as much.
That's because in a capitalist system we would rather not have to spend all the money it would take to give us all the right environment. We're too selfish to care that our lack of caring is causing a lot of people mental health problems.
So to be good at math you must spend your free time practicing math, reading books, focusing, etc. But society won't give you a free ride through college to learn that stuff. If you didn't do this while you were in high school it will cost you lots of $$. Hope you were born rich.
I would rather we spent our time working together instead of competing eachother out of jobs. Maybe we could get more accomplished with a few more mathematicians. And maybe we all could work a little less and still have the same quality of life. Or maybe I'm just crazy, thinking anything is possible with this group of freaks.
As long as we don't work together its every man for themselves. Hope you were born a man.
What happens to all the displaced jobs and workers when robots are used to automate most simple labor?
If we had the opportunity, would it be beneficial to outsource all of our jobs to some advanced alien race for less than it costs us to do it ourselves?
At what point do we consider the economic consequences of our actions?
I believe robots are good for the economy, but not if it most people lose their jobs. And I think it would be great to automate people out of a job, as long as we had the social framework to allow them to keep their quality of life. More people staying home with free time to learn, innovate and be social is a good thing, IMO. More people put out on the street because of automation and selfish capitalists is a bad thing. There's no reason to crush the peons beneath our feet now that we can outsource them much cheaper, but what remains to be seen is if we care about them enough.
Or will we erect more gated communities and just stereotype all the lazy bums?
I think that to work somewhere where you can post a blog entry about technical glitches at CES and not get fired is pretty cool.
I think that we even have the expectation of getting fired for flexing our constitutional rights says a lot about the state of our nation. Something is very deeply wrong here.
What, exactly, do you think it is? What is at the root of our social problem?
Well, I've used both Solaris X86 and Linux in production and desktop environments for many years. And from my perspective and experience I believe Solaris on X86 is a joke. Maybe not a very good one but you get what you pay for, I guess.
Now Jonathan Schwartz comes out calling Linux a toy and IBM a pickle and you expect Linus Torvalds to think highly of Solaris X86, which at the moment is mostly hype?
I will think something malicious is happening when I see signs that something malicious is happening. But downloading firefox has never raised any red flags in my experience.
Now you could always reconnect from another location if you suspect the attack is coming from your upstream. Or pick another mirror to grab the binary from, such as the mozilla.org web/ftp site, if you suspect the server has been compromised. But I wouldn't worry too much about their binaries being insecure. I'd worry more about my credit card numbers being stolen as I read them over the unencrypted phone line or when I hand my card to an unfamiliar clerk.
Cuz they haven't been convicted of being a monopoly yet.
Cuz its free.
Cuz its FREE.
And cuz, unlike *BSD, monopolies can't embrace and extend it.
We're all like, "But can't we all just get along? This code is good too. Its free and open source and production quality. Why don't you want to use it?" But in the real world I've learned that some things are more important than money or economic value or even access to source code. Take freedom, for example, how much would you sells yours for?
I would love to have access to such a database. It would be very informative to know everyone's religious and political affiliations. This data could then be used to manipulate people, or possibly convert them.
I'm all for collecting more data as long as everyone gets access to it.
But privacy would be nice... Peace would be nice... Freedom would be nice... There are many things that would be nice if people didn't have to go and fuck 'em up.
I would argue that believing in something because it is good (for some/most people) and free (so they can afford to live) and directly impacts reality in a possitive way is better than believing in something you can't prove actually exists and possibly has no direct impact on reality (besides the sum of the actions of its believers).
This is why I think science would make a good religion.
If technology continues to improve I think there will be financial reason to move to something more efficient. Unless we find a way to lower gas prices.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not the "open source" way of doing things.
Open source just requires you release your source code. It does NOT require anyone else release their modifications.
This is the GNU model, forcing others to release their changes.
Pay more attention!
WTF?
A natural monopoly? You're talking about gov't subsidized services that are anything but efficient, which is why some of them even have competition.
I don't think this natural monopoly thing exists. It sounds like you're trying to say a natural monopoly is a good thing cuz its natural. And nature is good, we all know that. Its all BS. Monopolies are bad, m'kay? Just like drugs.
Competition is a good thing. When you compete you see the flaws in your way of doing things. If you have no competition these flaws may never be exposed. So you become lazy and allow your infrastructure to crumble until it becomes inefficient, insecure, obsolete, stupid and annoying. All at the same time. All monopolies end up this way.
No, actually I just made that up. But think about it, it has been observed and repeated many times in our history. The only good monopoly would be one of, by, and for the people. Much like open source. Where everyone gets to fix the problems they see.
If lives can be and are lost for a good cause in Afghanistan, Iraq, in fighting domestic crime, and in firefighting, I say, we are overly protective of the space crews.
Or we undervalue life. Money isn't worth very much when you're dead.
You're full of shit.
Not really..
Does OSX give credit to the original developers on the cover of the box? I believe that is what they were talking about. Of course credit is given buried somewhere in the source code. But aside from the credit that remains in the source code, which isn't required to be released at all, the company using your BSD code has to do nothing else.
So I see very little if any benefit from using the BSD license, since I want my source code to be available to anyone, and anyone who uses it to share their modifications in the same way.
espouse the greatness of the much more complex GPL?
Its complex? Really? Seemed rather simple to me. I read it a few times. Its actually somewhat enjoyable to read, IMO. Also I enjoy using the GPL because I know how it forces people like you to do things you don't want to do.. share.
So many people seem like selfish children throwing tantrums from my perspective.
Well, they did say their bandwidth was limited. Maybe it would be better to have a bit of a learning curve to skim off the weakest links.
Yeah, and he also called IBM a pickle a while back. Why would they want to deal with someone who acts as childish as Jonathan Schwartz? He'd probably throw a tantrum if things didn't go his way.
Would such a thing be done in a commercial product?
No, in a commercial product they would just put advertisements in their changelog.
What it needs is propoganda. If you had TV shows that excite people about space in a fun and creative way it would easily change public perception. Star Trek did this. But what I'm talking about is something that would reach the audience.
Then again, who is the audience? Judging by the election I think they are mostly Christian Republicans who think Jesus will be coming back any day now. So how about a show about Jesus returning from space and NASA helping him land on the earth after some sort of accident aboard his space craft or something lame like that. But seriously, spending a little time to make this stuff fun and entertaining would help a lot.
I saw a show on Titan recently that showed some nice CGI. If it was professional CGI with lots of cool stuff and based in reality it would excite people. Space is exciting. Its hard to imagine why people find it boring. Maybe it has something to do with all those horror movies about dying alone in the dark or whatever.
Under what system of morality is copyright infringement worse than drugging somebody and raping them?
Uh, that would be capitalism.
Now if they had lots of money, wore suits and drove around in limos the DoJ wouldn't even have arrested them. They would have probably just got a C&D letter in the mail or a call from their lawyer. Maybe next time they'll think ahead and sell their stolen movies for the millions it takes to avoid legal problems. Cuz we all know millionaires never break the law.
Yeah, you're right. I guess in the theoretical sense of "we the people" it might be possible to get rid of the RIAA. But in reality it just isn't possible. Too many differing opinions and invested interests.
Look, the RIAA exists only because they have money. If they stop getting money they will shrink until eventually they cease to exist. Then their laws can be repealed, etc.
But only if we stop giving them money.
Is that really all that hard to understand?
Its quite simple, buy indie! Just do a little homework before you give any media company your money. Go to their homepage and look for affiliates. Anything you see in Wal-Mart probably is affiliated with the RIAA. Think, before you shop.
Or don't, its your rights. I don't pay attention to these laws anyway.
In many cases the overlooked how-the-brain-got-this-way question is much more relevant to the case at hand, but doesn't seem to get studied (or referenced) as much.
That's because in a capitalist system we would rather not have to spend all the money it would take to give us all the right environment. We're too selfish to care that our lack of caring is causing a lot of people mental health problems.
So to be good at math you must spend your free time practicing math, reading books, focusing, etc. But society won't give you a free ride through college to learn that stuff. If you didn't do this while you were in high school it will cost you lots of $$. Hope you were born rich.
I would rather we spent our time working together instead of competing eachother out of jobs. Maybe we could get more accomplished with a few more mathematicians. And maybe we all could work a little less and still have the same quality of life. Or maybe I'm just crazy, thinking anything is possible with this group of freaks.
As long as we don't work together its every man for themselves. Hope you were born a man.
What happens to all the displaced jobs and workers when robots are used to automate most simple labor?
If we had the opportunity, would it be beneficial to outsource all of our jobs to some advanced alien race for less than it costs us to do it ourselves?
At what point do we consider the economic consequences of our actions?
I believe robots are good for the economy, but not if it most people lose their jobs. And I think it would be great to automate people out of a job, as long as we had the social framework to allow them to keep their quality of life. More people staying home with free time to learn, innovate and be social is a good thing, IMO. More people put out on the street because of automation and selfish capitalists is a bad thing. There's no reason to crush the peons beneath our feet now that we can outsource them much cheaper, but what remains to be seen is if we care about them enough.
Or will we erect more gated communities and just stereotype all the lazy bums?
I think that to work somewhere where you can post a blog entry about technical glitches at CES and not get fired is pretty cool.
I think that we even have the expectation of getting fired for flexing our constitutional rights says a lot about the state of our nation. Something is very deeply wrong here.
What, exactly, do you think it is? What is at the root of our social problem?
I don't think the consumer can win.
Sure we can.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Boycott!
Well, I've used both Solaris X86 and Linux in production and desktop environments for many years. And from my perspective and experience I believe Solaris on X86 is a joke. Maybe not a very good one but you get what you pay for, I guess.
Now Jonathan Schwartz comes out calling Linux a toy and IBM a pickle and you expect Linus Torvalds to think highly of Solaris X86, which at the moment is mostly hype?
What's you been smoking?
There's a limit to my paranoia..
I will think something malicious is happening when I see signs that something malicious is happening. But downloading firefox has never raised any red flags in my experience.
Now you could always reconnect from another location if you suspect the attack is coming from your upstream. Or pick another mirror to grab the binary from, such as the mozilla.org web/ftp site, if you suspect the server has been compromised. But I wouldn't worry too much about their binaries being insecure. I'd worry more about my credit card numbers being stolen as I read them over the unencrypted phone line or when I hand my card to an unfamiliar clerk.
You gotta watch those people.
Why Linux?
Cuz they haven't been convicted of being a monopoly yet.
Cuz its free.
Cuz its FREE.
And cuz, unlike *BSD, monopolies can't embrace and extend it.
We're all like, "But can't we all just get along? This code is good too. Its free and open source and production quality. Why don't you want to use it?" But in the real world I've learned that some things are more important than money or economic value or even access to source code. Take freedom, for example, how much would you sells yours for?
I would love to have access to such a database. It would be very informative to know everyone's religious and political affiliations. This data could then be used to manipulate people, or possibly convert them.
I'm all for collecting more data as long as everyone gets access to it.
But privacy would be nice...
Peace would be nice...
Freedom would be nice...
There are many things that would be nice if people didn't have to go and fuck 'em up.
I would argue that believing in something because it is good (for some/most people) and free (so they can afford to live) and directly impacts reality in a possitive way is better than believing in something you can't prove actually exists and possibly has no direct impact on reality (besides the sum of the actions of its believers).
This is why I think science would make a good religion.
The only way to Heaven is through Jesus.
Or maybe Linux would verify the patch before applying..
Is combustion the only source of power you understand? Maybe you get steam power, too, but only when its fueled by coal.
Oh please, this discussion has already deteriorated to a point where we barely understand each other.
Like so many other discussions.
Let me guess, you're a proud card-carrying member of the christian right.
I'm glad you have personal beliefs and all, but please keep them to yourself.
gas:
@$2.00/ga, 30 ga/month: $720/yr
@$2.50/ga, 30 ga/month: $900/yr
@$3.00/ga, 30 ga/month: $1080/yr
@$5.00/ga, 30 ga/month: $1800/yr
Plus the environmental costs.
If technology continues to improve I think there will be financial reason to move to something more efficient. Unless we find a way to lower gas prices.