It's sheer genius on Microsoft's part. They save money by not packaging the SP with MSDN, they have developers wooing users to their OS, and they get to sue the developers for way more than a regular license fee or MSDN price.
I know you're trying to sound clever and smart and in-the-know and so on, but I am dubious that Microsoft have decided to withhold a beta from the public to make a business decision of suing developers. Maybe I'm just being absurd with probabilities here, but perhaps it is more likely that the company originally responsible for delivering a poor quality product, missing many planned features, massively overbudget and over a year late just slipped up? We may never know.
This is because politicalcompass.org consistantly fails to differintiate between personal positions, and positions that the individual thinks the state should hold. If I answer the quiz as I normally would, I don't end up as far in the libertarian direction as I really ought to. If I answer the quiz from the point of view of what I think the state should do, I get a better answer, but then I have probably caused other issues by manipulating the system.
Libertarians are generally unique in that the majority of beliefs they hold are not ones that they would like to see reflected in the legal system. This makes us difficult to measure, and very easy to misinterpret. Additionally, I imagine Ron Pauls' anti-abortion position is probably different from typical libertarian positions (though it's doesn't really clash).
Anyone with money can enter and compete - are you suggesting that everyone has access to money in a market based system?
Nope. In fact, it's not even required that you have money - you only require investment. Startup companies rarely finance themselves (does anyone expect it). Banks and such are often willing to fund good ideas (in fact, many of them are also willing to fund bad ideas, but that is beside the point).
Markets are competitions. Competitions have winners and losers. Most competitions have one winner - and history has shown, that in markets, there tends to be more losers than winners, and often times you end up with exactly 1 winner (we even have word for it - monopoly).
This is all correct, but not relevant. The issue is not that a monopoly develops. The issue is that monopolies can and often do use their market strength to increase the selling price of their products. However, as soon as this price rises a high enough level, a competitor is then able to enter the market and cause competition and both of the companies will provide the product at a lower price.
Where are you getting this stuff? Hong Kong is the shining beacon according "free market" academics. If I had more time I'd provide more editing, and more references, but evidence and facts don't seem to matter much to ideologs, so it probably doesn't matter anyway.
I think I didn't make myself clear enough. It's possible I misread your post - I wasn't trying to say that Hong Kong is a bad example of a free market. The way I saw the back and forth; you say Hong Kong isn't that impressive, I say Hong Kong is actually pretty impressive, and especially so because of the poor geographical situation they have going for them (the only natural resource they have is a medium quality habour).
Sure use the old mime - attack my lack of editing and my writing style, misrepresent my comparisons and call that evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about. You have cited 0 sources, and offered very little in the way of evidence to support your position
I'm not expecting a scholarly work here; there is no need for sources. Expecting that level of response would simply slow our discussion down, I expect you'll agree. My issue was with the strange analogy to religion - I am not arguing on blind faith here. Neither of us are. The point of persuasive argument is surely to attempt to convince your opponent that he is mistaken on his points and that his logic. When you try and psychoanalyse my supposed attachments to ideology you are wasting characters that could be spent on attempting to disprove me. Ad hominem doesn't actually prove anything, and I reject it as an argumentative technique.
You said, "there is nothing about a free market that stops dominant players arising" - is that what I've been saying. Sadly, when started the next word with, "the whole point is it stops them abusing their position" that's where you have actually contradicted yourself right in one sentence. If they are dominant, then they can abuse their position. Otherwise, they could not be dominating.
We haven't come to terms here. I am using dominant to mean "the overwhelmingly controlling stake in the market". I separate the act of becoming a monopoly from the act of "abusing" a market position because it is not certain that the latter follows the former. Not all monopolies are unjust; when a monopoly arises because a company is so good at it's job that is a fair situation. The company receives remuneration deserving of it's competency. Slashdot has a pretty big monopoly on FOSS news. There's nothing unjust about that; slashdot is really very good at what it does. (I know this situation isn't really true anymore, it's just an example of a just monopoly). I'm guessing part of our problem from before is we disagreed on this point (at least, I expect you do not agree w
cherry pick your industries all you want. What is your historical model to prove to me and others reading this that an unregulated market does not lead to monopoly?
Cherry pick? My historical model is the entire subject of economics. If you aren't getting this part, you're ignoring the obvious. Adam Smith first covered this subject, in 1776. Markets where anyone is free to enter and compete do not breed monopoly simply because anyone is free to enter and compete.
you can't achieve a "free market" because, in a competitive market (commodities are not so competitive, though still seem to end up with dominant players who rig those markets unfairly too) you will get a winner, someone who at the end controls most of the market.
First: there isn't an "end"; time doesn't just stop - markets continue indefinitely. Part of your problem is that you're taking snapshots of market situations and saying that they're undesirable. This is not representative. Second; dominant players and monopolies aren't the actual problem. There isn't anything inherently wrong with success; the issue is when the success is used to increase market prices too far above natural price. This isn't an issue in a free market, because anyone can enter the market and cause competition. This idea that someone always "wins" is complete shit because markets change far to fast for anyone to win it, and even if they could, they'd have to continue winning over and over forever. The world "win" is so inapplicable that it completely clouds what little logic you have.
I even gave you an example with Microsoft, but if you want more examples, you should simple google the word "monopoly" and find out why we have a word for that - there are plenty of examples.
I'm aware that there are many examples of monopoly. There aren't many in free markets, however there aren't many free markets. What you're doing (and I pointed this out in the earlier post about Microsoft) is pointing at a market that is interfered with by government and going "look! monopoly". This does not prove your point. Microsoft is a monopoly created by copyright. Many other monopolies are indirectly created by government in this way. To prove your point you would have to point out a monopoly in a free market, and this is insanely hard.
Also, and maybe more importantly, it can't be implemented! The rule makers and enforcement - the government, the people People in charge, will always respond to that volatility - and they will usually do so with regulation - now that's the kicker. You're always going to get regulation, good or bad, you are going to get it. You can't have none - it's an ideological pipe dream (which even in the abstract wouldn't work anyway).
In this section, you leave logic behind completely. Your answer to the reason for regulation is "just because!".
And yeah, in that same time period, the grand poo bah of free markets was tried in Hong Kong, and they're big claim to fame is that it took _only_ 50 years to achieve some level of wealth! Funny that it took only a decade or two for everyone else to do it with a mixed market (including mixed international trade policy).
It gets more idiotic. Hong Kong is an area with almost zero natural resources, next to an enormous communist country which blockades them. Hong Kong had no history of wealth or infrastructure. Hong Kong is shockingly affluent considering the cards they hold.
Your post is a mixture of rhetorical speech (comparing free market advocates to religion is totally irrelevant), poor logic (the strange section on regulation reads like a rant from a tabloid newspaper column) and general ignorance of economics (there is nothing about a free market that stops dominant players arising, the whole point is it stops them abusing their position).
The current model ("free market" if you will) seems to have rules designed to enrich the already wealthy, at the expense of the many. The rules are just pursuing that goal (and doing so affectively if you look at actual evidence).
Well, actually, you are mistaken; a totally free market is very much at the expense of the currently wealthy. The current system is at the expense of the poor for a few big reasons;
they are proportionally overtaxed (particularly obvious to me here in the UK; taxation starts on everything that is earned over ~£5000 - far too low)
they are legally liable in their business endeavours (sole traders are liable for their business going under - shareholders in a public limited company are not)
they are served badly by non-scaling taxes like VAT.
The "rules designed to enrich the already wealthy" are rules which are antithetical to a free market (patents are a good example). The current market, both in the UK and in the USA is not free enough. There are many areas where increased freedom would benefit the "little guy".
As for "market anarchy"; not applicable. The term "free market" and it are not interchangeable; free markets are generally agreed to have a set of rules. The banning of fraud is the chief one, and there are others that depend on who you talk to.
Furthermore, your idea that "Left unregulated too long, a market will develop a strong enough player, that can (and will) actually limit participation of everyone else, as in the case of Microsoft..." is simply not true and has no basis. The truth is, that left unregulated (and truly unregulated), a market will never develop a monopoly, except where it is of benefit to the market (examples of these situations are incredibly rare; suffice to say that a monopoly that benefits the market where the nominal price of a product would actually rise if competition occured). A good example of a totally free market is commodity consumables (paper is a pretty free market; is there a monopoly?)
Microsoft is a terrible example of the result of a free market, because Microsoft have never, ever, ever operated in a free market of any kind. Software patents, copyright and trade secrets ensure this.
No, good software does not take any predetermined amount of time to write. The time taken for a good release is proportional to the complexity of the task being attempted. Which means, shockingly, that harder programs take longer to write.
Spolsky, in the linked article, cites Windows NT and Lotus Notes as examples of "good software". Further more, his definition of good software extends only to the kind of release-late-release-rarely, bloated codebase, big company proprietary works that are not representative of the majority of FOSS development.
Here are a few of the holes in his logic; pieces of software where development never ceases (linux kernel), pieces of software which are small and small and fill a predefined need (many quickly thrown together programs), ALL pieces of software for which the aim is not to please a customer directly and a whole host of other situations.
Joel Spolsky, in this article, as in many others, fools himself and many others who lack critical thinking.
Libertarianism : noun, an economic model for the justification of selfishness and abject greed.
Are you trying to be avant garde when you say that?
What're you actually trying to do is quickly get the boot in on libertarianism using the format of a two line slashdot signature. This is as inane as it sounds. You're trying to look clever and cynical, but you're failing, because all but the most stupid (yourself, by the looks of it) knows that philosophy cannot be debated in shouted slogans.
This persistent idea I frequently see that for-profit use deserves less rights than non-profit use.
If something is wrong to do for free, it's wrong to do for profit as well.
Additionally, "fair use" is moronic. What I own is mine, and what you owe is yours. What I do with what I own, so long as it doesn't affect anyone, is no business of anyone. It is not the governments' job to guarantee a market for a business by outlawing normal use (ie copying and resale) of certain pieces of personal property.
At least when it comes down to it, I can go downtown and find a government official to talk to face to face. With the phone company, it's just a bunch of pseudonymous guys with funny accents who I know don't live anywhere near me.
The reason you have such pain with the private company is because there is little competition in the market. So the comparison you make between the government and the private sector is logically fallacious; Comcast is a state blessed monopoly (largely). If there were competition, so long as the relative demand for low bureaucracy was high (and, if bureaucracy is the annoyance you say it is: it will be) it will be competed upon by the private sector.
Net Neutrality is an okish quick-fix to the current threat of paid prioritisation, but competition is a much better long term fix.
Firefox with AdBlock+, EasyElement, EasyList, SpyBot S&D, SpywareBlaster, disable Flash and UPnP, SMC Barricade 7004VBR (w NAT and firewall)...what's the problem?
Clearly you are looking in the wrong places. Here's a top ten from a popular tracker; (the final number is the number of seeds)
Morphine - Cure For Pain [1993/MP3/V0 (VBR)] 1025
Rage Against the Machine - Rage Against the Machine [1992/MP3/XING~256 (VBR)] 937
Nomak - Calm [2007/MP3/V0 (VBR)] 920
Moving Mountains - Pneuma [2007/MP3/V0 (VBR)] 916
madisonave Archive - Lights [2006/MP3/V0 (VBR)] 915
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers - Greatest Hits [1993/MP3/V0 (VBR)] 906
The Delgados - The Great Eastern [2000/MP3/320/] 844
Harvey Danger - Where Have All The Merrymakers Gone [1997/MP3/V0 (VBR)] 732
Incubus - Fungus Amongus [1995/MP3/V0 (VBR)] 569
Jeff Wayne - War of the Worlds [1978/MP3/V0 (VBR)/Log] 541
The statistics page records that for every seeder there are 0.04 leechers.
Debian releases are slow. However, the testing branch is a "rolling update" distribution. There are new packages daily, and stability is good. Debian testing is actually very similar to Ubuntu; GNOME by default, very similar packaging system etc. In fact, if you pick the default settings all the way through the install, it ends up pretty much identical, except that because of the "rolling nature" you don't have to wait for a big release before you get all the new packages.
I've clicked on ads when the ads have been extremely well targeted. Must've happened about 5 times maybe.
What you don't realise is that, with google, many people are unable to distinguish from the adverts and the legitimate results. I'm pretty sure google are aware of this, and a lot of adsense ads essentially act as a paid search result.
Probably the intended meaning: "more time wasted while looking for the right information". The point being, presumably, that the "right information" is harder to find than before.
Monopolies should be regulated before their damage is done. We arrived too late on the scene to stop the damage Microsoft had done to the marketplace. Perhaps we should start thinking ahead a little.
Microsofts monopoly appeared not because they were unregulated, but because copyright and patents actually legislate to their advantage.
Copyright and patents raise the barrier to market entry, allowing Microsoft to charge much more for their product than it is worth. The reason there is no competition is because they don't charge a price so extortionately high that a competitor could enter the market and undercut them while duplicating their product exactly (which isn't something Apple or Free Unix does).
My point is that in every benefit there is a loss.
And this is the part which is just not true. Smith is important because he founded the economic theory that division of labour was a free lunch.
His example of a pin factory:
With standard labour: x workers make x*y pins each day (each worker makes y pins each day)
With the division of labour: x workers make at least x*y+1 pins each day (the workers, now properly divided create more pins than before)
The point here is that the division of labour is gives you at least 1 extra pin for no extra cost. Industry is founded on this concept, whether in it's modern form of mechanisation, computerisation, improved technology or whatever. When that extra pin is created, Smith is the "winner" and there is no "loser" (sorry to use these terms again, but they fit the situation well). In this case, "one doesn't have to lose for another one to win."
Division of labour (ie: specialisation yielding greater results than otherwise) is not just "just theory" or "horribly flawed". It's correct, and it works all the time. The computer you are typing from is one of the results of it.
Right, so, now I've proved that through industry, organisation and efficiency, benefit can be had for no loss, we can debunk this idea that the third world is poor directly because the first world is rich, and that the situation cannot be fixed while the third world is rich. Yes, there is exploitation of the third world, but the wealth of the first world does not depend on this exploitation (though it does benefit). The wealth of the first world depends on the first worlds' own economic strength. The first world was rich and the third world was poor LONG before we started trading.
Most competitive advantages are granted through lack of appreciation of economic potential. A party that doesn't lack this factor takes advantage of another that does.
It's hard to tell if this is a separate point from what was dealt with before. If you're saying that most competitive advantage is gained through capitalising on available resources, then you aren't saying much; after all - how else? If you're saying that competitive advantages are derived from exploitation, then the previous paragraph applies.
I don't see how a system that builds on greed and destruction of competitors can be a basis for any kind of equality.
First of all, capitalism isn't about destruction of competitors. The competition only serves to ensure that efficiency is directly encouraged my market forces, as opposed to a command economy where this is not the case. Command economies can encourage efficiency, but are normally bad at it (normally because of a systematic or deliberate corruption) so they eventually fail.
How else would I refute your ad hominem attack?
That's not more of an ad hominem than your linking to Wikipedia is. It's just rhetorics to suggest (in a somewhat aggressive way, I'll certainly give you that) that you are not seeing something.
You're muddling definitions again. "Ad hominem" is a logical fallacy by which you attack an argument by attacking the character of the speaker, instead of proving their points incorrect.
I said that the AC was wrong, and didn't properly understand the benefits of organised industry, and you, irrelevantly (and wrongly) accused me of being uninformed. This is ad hominem, because you attacked my character instead of making a counterpoint.
You stated that Smiths' theories were "just theories", saying that Smiths' theories were "horribly flawed" (ie, not completely true). This is because *you do not understand the word "theory". So I pointed you at a page which states; "This usage of [the word] theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory."" This is not ad hominem, because I pointed out your argumentative mistake.
I can't tell if you're referring to me or the original AC. For what it's worth, I agree with you that capitalism does not benefit the increased wealth of all participants. I don't know why you mentioned the Kurds, they can't possibly be an example of a third world country made poor by free trade. Mainly Kurdistan is not a country at the moment.
You are extrapolating my original point far further than I did, complete with bungled analogies and a poor grasp of my original point. You may also enjoy the third paragraph of this page.
My original point was "one party does not have to lose in order for another to win.". I certainly did not make the point that there were "no losers" in a competitive system. I know my point would have been easy to disprove if it had been absolutist: but (unfortunately, for your straw man argument) it was not absolutist. The AC's opinion (or so I was led to think - his post isn't particularly clear, as discussed) was that poverty in the third world was a necessity in order for wealth in the first world. This is untrue.
I guess since you put your "reputation" on the line you are necessarily right ? How is that an argument? You can come up with my real name in about 2 seconds if you really care about it.
The reason I stated this is because you accused me of being uninformed, and in order to disprove you, I had to make a statement of myself. How else would I refute your ad hominem attack?
Additionally; software isn't a car. Cars cannot be easily copied.
So if they could, you'd advocate the freedom to copy them?
Yes, I would. If someone owns something, they should obviously be allowed to do as they wish with it, so long as it doesn't physically harm others.
You don't understand what innovation is. If you use something that already exists, you haven't innovated anything: you've just used something that already exists invented by somebody else.
No, you're misunderstanding me. I said: no one can use old work and ideas as the base for new work because it's illegal. If you're thinking that innovations do not depend on prior work then you are in fact disproved by the entire history of mankind.
... primarily the assumption that you still own software you have sold to a customer. You have very little moral right to that software; that software now belongs to the customer, and it's the customers moral right to copy and sell on what he owns.
I don't know where you're getting this. I never said anything about owning the software after it's been sold. Of course the customer can resell it, but he can't legally keep a copy for himself after he transfers ownership to somebody else.
Yes you did, maybe you didn't realise it. You talked about restricted redistribution of software you sell. When you do that, you're taking some ownership rights (specifically: the ability to resell) from the owner of the item in question.
Additionally, if you want to talk law, the discussion might as well stop here. We're both well aware of the law on this subject. The difference between us is that you agree with the current state of the law and I do not. I intend to convince you, and you me. This is the kind of discussion I come to slashdot for;)
There's a lot of bad logic here; primarily the assumption that you still own software you have sold to a customer. You have very little moral right to that software; that software now belongs to the customer, and it's the customers moral right to copy and sell on what he owns.
The other piece of terrible logic is your false dichotomy of freedom to copy and profit. This is simply not true. There are many, many companies who profit from software as a service (IBM, Red Hat etc) in the tech industry alone. These companies' catalogues of software are largely freely re-distributable.
Innovation wouldn't come to a "grinding halt"; that is entirely preposterous. Innovation is, in fact, massively hampered by copyright and patents. Useful reuse of ideas is specifically not allowed: no one can use old work and ideas as the base for new work because it's illegal (and if it isn't, it's wildly expensive). The case you implicitly make is that this reuse wouldn't benefit innovation, and you're wrong.
Additionally; software isn't a car. Cars cannot be easily copied. Cars are therefore a terrible analogy, and one I will not address - there is little need for metaphors when the actual objects of discussion are right in front of us.
I work for a very small start-up. Are you saying that (a) big corporations are within their rights to take our ideas and (b) you to download our product without paying thus driving us out of business?
Yes, I would. And I would add that it is not the laws' job to make your business model work. Everyone wants their business model to work, but manipulation of legislature is not an acceptable way to make this happen. However, you should not be prevented from adding any kind of DRM to control the use of the product, so long as others are allowed by law to attempt to break it.
This is taken from the point of view that neither the seller nor the buyer should be restricted by the law from doing what they want with their personal property for the period it is in their possession. (Assuming they are neither violent nor fraudulent)
I do. In fact, I have read at at least one newspaper each day since I was 11; and read it in an essentially cover-to-cover manner, excluding sports sections etc.
And, since I go by my real name on the internet, I'm willing to put my name and reputation by that. If you think there aren't many examples of mutual trade benefiting both parties, you need to read the newspapers.
Slashdot Mirror
*whoosh*
My joke is that his joke is terrible.
This is because politicalcompass.org consistantly fails to differintiate between personal positions, and positions that the individual thinks the state should hold. If I answer the quiz as I normally would, I don't end up as far in the libertarian direction as I really ought to. If I answer the quiz from the point of view of what I think the state should do, I get a better answer, but then I have probably caused other issues by manipulating the system.
Libertarians are generally unique in that the majority of beliefs they hold are not ones that they would like to see reflected in the legal system. This makes us difficult to measure, and very easy to misinterpret. Additionally, I imagine Ron Pauls' anti-abortion position is probably different from typical libertarian positions (though it's doesn't really clash).
Nope. In fact, it's not even required that you have money - you only require investment. Startup companies rarely finance themselves (does anyone expect it). Banks and such are often willing to fund good ideas (in fact, many of them are also willing to fund bad ideas, but that is beside the point).
This is all correct, but not relevant. The issue is not that a monopoly develops. The issue is that monopolies can and often do use their market strength to increase the selling price of their products. However, as soon as this price rises a high enough level, a competitor is then able to enter the market and cause competition and both of the companies will provide the product at a lower price.
I think I didn't make myself clear enough. It's possible I misread your post - I wasn't trying to say that Hong Kong is a bad example of a free market. The way I saw the back and forth; you say Hong Kong isn't that impressive, I say Hong Kong is actually pretty impressive, and especially so because of the poor geographical situation they have going for them (the only natural resource they have is a medium quality habour).
I'm not expecting a scholarly work here; there is no need for sources. Expecting that level of response would simply slow our discussion down, I expect you'll agree. My issue was with the strange analogy to religion - I am not arguing on blind faith here. Neither of us are. The point of persuasive argument is surely to attempt to convince your opponent that he is mistaken on his points and that his logic. When you try and psychoanalyse my supposed attachments to ideology you are wasting characters that could be spent on attempting to disprove me. Ad hominem doesn't actually prove anything, and I reject it as an argumentative technique.
We haven't come to terms here. I am using dominant to mean "the overwhelmingly controlling stake in the market". I separate the act of becoming a monopoly from the act of "abusing" a market position because it is not certain that the latter follows the former. Not all monopolies are unjust; when a monopoly arises because a company is so good at it's job that is a fair situation. The company receives remuneration deserving of it's competency. Slashdot has a pretty big monopoly on FOSS news. There's nothing unjust about that; slashdot is really very good at what it does. (I know this situation isn't really true anymore, it's just an example of a just monopoly). I'm guessing part of our problem from before is we disagreed on this point (at least, I expect you do not agree w
First: there isn't an "end"; time doesn't just stop - markets continue indefinitely. Part of your problem is that you're taking snapshots of market situations and saying that they're undesirable. This is not representative. Second; dominant players and monopolies aren't the actual problem. There isn't anything inherently wrong with success; the issue is when the success is used to increase market prices too far above natural price. This isn't an issue in a free market, because anyone can enter the market and cause competition. This idea that someone always "wins" is complete shit because markets change far to fast for anyone to win it, and even if they could, they'd have to continue winning over and over forever. The world "win" is so inapplicable that it completely clouds what little logic you have.
I'm aware that there are many examples of monopoly. There aren't many in free markets, however there aren't many free markets. What you're doing (and I pointed this out in the earlier post about Microsoft) is pointing at a market that is interfered with by government and going "look! monopoly". This does not prove your point. Microsoft is a monopoly created by copyright. Many other monopolies are indirectly created by government in this way. To prove your point you would have to point out a monopoly in a free market, and this is insanely hard.
In this section, you leave logic behind completely. Your answer to the reason for regulation is "just because!".
It gets more idiotic. Hong Kong is an area with almost zero natural resources, next to an enormous communist country which blockades them. Hong Kong had no history of wealth or infrastructure. Hong Kong is shockingly affluent considering the cards they hold.
Your post is a mixture of rhetorical speech (comparing free market advocates to religion is totally irrelevant), poor logic (the strange section on regulation reads like a rant from a tabloid newspaper column) and general ignorance of economics (there is nothing about a free market that stops dominant players arising, the whole point is it stops them abusing their position).
- they are proportionally overtaxed (particularly obvious to me here in the UK; taxation starts on everything that is earned over ~£5000 - far too low)
- they are legally liable in their business endeavours (sole traders are liable for their business going under - shareholders in a public limited company are not)
- they are served badly by non-scaling taxes like VAT.
The "rules designed to enrich the already wealthy" are rules which are antithetical to a free market (patents are a good example). The current market, both in the UK and in the USA is not free enough. There are many areas where increased freedom would benefit the "little guy".As for "market anarchy"; not applicable. The term "free market" and it are not interchangeable; free markets are generally agreed to have a set of rules. The banning of fraud is the chief one, and there are others that depend on who you talk to.
Furthermore, your idea that "Left unregulated too long, a market will develop a strong enough player, that can (and will) actually limit participation of everyone else, as in the case of Microsoft..." is simply not true and has no basis. The truth is, that left unregulated (and truly unregulated), a market will never develop a monopoly, except where it is of benefit to the market (examples of these situations are incredibly rare; suffice to say that a monopoly that benefits the market where the nominal price of a product would actually rise if competition occured). A good example of a totally free market is commodity consumables (paper is a pretty free market; is there a monopoly?)
Microsoft is a terrible example of the result of a free market, because Microsoft have never, ever, ever operated in a free market of any kind. Software patents, copyright and trade secrets ensure this.
No, good software does not take any predetermined amount of time to write. The time taken for a good release is proportional to the complexity of the task being attempted. Which means, shockingly, that harder programs take longer to write.
Spolsky, in the linked article, cites Windows NT and Lotus Notes as examples of "good software". Further more, his definition of good software extends only to the kind of release-late-release-rarely, bloated codebase, big company proprietary works that are not representative of the majority of FOSS development.
Here are a few of the holes in his logic; pieces of software where development never ceases (linux kernel), pieces of software which are small and small and fill a predefined need (many quickly thrown together programs), ALL pieces of software for which the aim is not to please a customer directly and a whole host of other situations.
Joel Spolsky, in this article, as in many others, fools himself and many others who lack critical thinking.
What're you actually trying to do is quickly get the boot in on libertarianism using the format of a two line slashdot signature. This is as inane as it sounds. You're trying to look clever and cynical, but you're failing, because all but the most stupid (yourself, by the looks of it) knows that philosophy cannot be debated in shouted slogans.
This persistent idea I frequently see that for-profit use deserves less rights than non-profit use.
If something is wrong to do for free, it's wrong to do for profit as well.
Additionally, "fair use" is moronic. What I own is mine, and what you owe is yours. What I do with what I own, so long as it doesn't affect anyone, is no business of anyone. It is not the governments' job to guarantee a market for a business by outlawing normal use (ie copying and resale) of certain pieces of personal property.
The reason you have such pain with the private company is because there is little competition in the market. So the comparison you make between the government and the private sector is logically fallacious; Comcast is a state blessed monopoly (largely). If there were competition, so long as the relative demand for low bureaucracy was high (and, if bureaucracy is the annoyance you say it is: it will be) it will be competed upon by the private sector.
Net Neutrality is an okish quick-fix to the current threat of paid prioritisation, but competition is a much better long term fix.
The statistics page records that for every seeder there are 0.04 leechers.
Debian releases are slow. However, the testing branch is a "rolling update" distribution. There are new packages daily, and stability is good. Debian testing is actually very similar to Ubuntu; GNOME by default, very similar packaging system etc. In fact, if you pick the default settings all the way through the install, it ends up pretty much identical, except that because of the "rolling nature" you don't have to wait for a big release before you get all the new packages.
Morality does not change with geography. Saudi Arabia are simply wrong.
Morals != Law.
In Saudi Arabia, the law is that homosexuals be put to death.
Not everything your government says comes straight down from heaven.
I've clicked on ads when the ads have been extremely well targeted. Must've happened about 5 times maybe.
What you don't realise is that, with google, many people are unable to distinguish from the adverts and the legitimate results. I'm pretty sure google are aware of this, and a lot of adsense ads essentially act as a paid search result.
Probably the intended meaning: "more time wasted while looking for the right information". The point being, presumably, that the "right information" is harder to find than before.
Copyright and patents raise the barrier to market entry, allowing Microsoft to charge much more for their product than it is worth. The reason there is no competition is because they don't charge a price so extortionately high that a competitor could enter the market and undercut them while duplicating their product exactly (which isn't something Apple or Free Unix does).
His example of a pin factory:
With standard labour: x workers make x*y pins each day (each worker makes y pins each day)
With the division of labour: x workers make at least x*y+1 pins each day (the workers, now properly divided create more pins than before)
The point here is that the division of labour is gives you at least 1 extra pin for no extra cost. Industry is founded on this concept, whether in it's modern form of mechanisation, computerisation, improved technology or whatever. When that extra pin is created, Smith is the "winner" and there is no "loser" (sorry to use these terms again, but they fit the situation well). In this case, "one doesn't have to lose for another one to win."
Division of labour (ie: specialisation yielding greater results than otherwise) is not just "just theory" or "horribly flawed". It's correct, and it works all the time. The computer you are typing from is one of the results of it.
Right, so, now I've proved that through industry, organisation and efficiency, benefit can be had for no loss, we can debunk this idea that the third world is poor directly because the first world is rich, and that the situation cannot be fixed while the third world is rich. Yes, there is exploitation of the third world, but the wealth of the first world does not depend on this exploitation (though it does benefit). The wealth of the first world depends on the first worlds' own economic strength. The first world was rich and the third world was poor LONG before we started trading.
It's hard to tell if this is a separate point from what was dealt with before. If you're saying that most competitive advantage is gained through capitalising on available resources, then you aren't saying much; after all - how else? If you're saying that competitive advantages are derived from exploitation, then the previous paragraph applies.
First of all, capitalism isn't about destruction of competitors. The competition only serves to ensure that efficiency is directly encouraged my market forces, as opposed to a command economy where this is not the case. Command economies can encourage efficiency, but are normally bad at it (normally because of a systematic or deliberate corruption) so they eventually fail.
You're muddling definitions again. "Ad hominem" is a logical fallacy by which you attack an argument by attacking the character of the speaker, instead of proving their points incorrect.
I said that the AC was wrong, and didn't properly understand the benefits of organised industry, and you, irrelevantly (and wrongly) accused me of being uninformed. This is ad hominem, because you attacked my character instead of making a counterpoint.
You stated that Smiths' theories were "just theories", saying that Smiths' theories were "horribly flawed" (ie, not completely true). This is because *you do not understand the word "theory". So I pointed you at a page which states; "This usage of [the word] theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory."" This is not ad hominem, because I pointed out your argumentative mistake.
I can't tell if you're referring to me or the original AC. For what it's worth, I agree with you that capitalism does not benefit the increased wealth of all participants. I don't know why you mentioned the Kurds, they can't possibly be an example of a third world country made poor by free trade. Mainly Kurdistan is not a country at the moment.
My original point was "one party does not have to lose in order for another to win.". I certainly did not make the point that there were "no losers" in a competitive system. I know my point would have been easy to disprove if it had been absolutist: but (unfortunately, for your straw man argument) it was not absolutist. The AC's opinion (or so I was led to think - his post isn't particularly clear, as discussed) was that poverty in the third world was a necessity in order for wealth in the first world. This is untrue. The reason I stated this is because you accused me of being uninformed, and in order to disprove you, I had to make a statement of myself. How else would I refute your ad hominem attack?
Additionally, if you want to talk law, the discussion might as well stop here. We're both well aware of the law on this subject. The difference between us is that you agree with the current state of the law and I do not. I intend to convince you, and you me. This is the kind of discussion I come to slashdot for
There's a lot of bad logic here; primarily the assumption that you still own software you have sold to a customer. You have very little moral right to that software; that software now belongs to the customer, and it's the customers moral right to copy and sell on what he owns.
The other piece of terrible logic is your false dichotomy of freedom to copy and profit. This is simply not true. There are many, many companies who profit from software as a service (IBM, Red Hat etc) in the tech industry alone. These companies' catalogues of software are largely freely re-distributable.
Innovation wouldn't come to a "grinding halt"; that is entirely preposterous. Innovation is, in fact, massively hampered by copyright and patents. Useful reuse of ideas is specifically not allowed: no one can use old work and ideas as the base for new work because it's illegal (and if it isn't, it's wildly expensive). The case you implicitly make is that this reuse wouldn't benefit innovation, and you're wrong.
Additionally; software isn't a car. Cars cannot be easily copied. Cars are therefore a terrible analogy, and one I will not address - there is little need for metaphors when the actual objects of discussion are right in front of us.
This is taken from the point of view that neither the seller nor the buyer should be restricted by the law from doing what they want with their personal property for the period it is in their possession. (Assuming they are neither violent nor fraudulent)
I do. In fact, I have read at at least one newspaper each day since I was 11; and read it in an essentially cover-to-cover manner, excluding sports sections etc.
And, since I go by my real name on the internet, I'm willing to put my name and reputation by that. If you think there aren't many examples of mutual trade benefiting both parties, you need to read the newspapers.