I have read that the "goal" of economy is to eliminate scarcity. Capitalism is just a method that spurs COMPETITION to give an advantage to groups who do the best to serve the goal of the economy. This takes advantage of the inherent nature of humans to be greedy, because a successful capitalist will become wealthy (as Gates has demonstrated).
If Gates is so satisfied with his wealth, power to him. I would say that, "Bill Gates has won capitalism" (and eliminated scarcity for himself).
The challenge of empowering "poor" societies (his proposition) is harder, though. It isn't capitalist. It is welfare and socialist and genuinely good (if done right). If he wants to eliminate scarcity for groups where resources are currently *very scarce*, he should looks towards sustainable production methods. Is energy a concern? Develop wind/solar/hydro power for the "poor". Is food a concern? Better agricultural techniques can be employed in the "poorer" areas of the world. Is the top concern health and medical related? Better medical facilities, doctors, and drugs should be setup in the poor countries. Is housing an issue? Construct strong and beautiful structures that the locals would be proud to move into.
As for Gates' proposition of "a kinder capitalism", I think he is looking at it wrong. I think he would have Microsoft be a monetary vehicle that produces a product for $x and sells it for $x+y dollars to "rich" peoples. This gives the "rich" societies a product they need (software) and leaves $y for socialism and welfare and genuine good for the "poor" world.
And to be honest, if Gates' efforts result in prosperity in the third world at the cost of $y (the Microsoft tax) which is paid willingly by the first world... then he will have succeeded in ways that pure "charity" organizations like UNICEF, the Red Cross, and the United Way never could.
Then again, it is Bill Gates and he is notorious for being a businessman first, so any "charity" from him should be taken with a grain of sand.
And if you'd care to delve into more of my ideas on the topic, they are buried throughout a novel that I've written which is available here. Granted, the novel is mostly about a group of citizens who aren't happy with things in a post-Capitalist world, but there is a lot of description about how such a world might be structured (and free feel to grep "Gates" in the text to see what I think about *that*).
it will reflect well on a company that, till now, has been floundering
I'm sorry, how do you define floundering [link to Sunoco stock chart]??
You quoted stock symbol "SUN" rather than "SUNW" which is the former symbol for Sun Microsystems. FYI, they currently trade under the symbol "JAVA".
As a stock, they have changed their name and done a reverse split recently. They are currently trading at about where they have been for the last year.
Though, their action on Wall Street is much like Apple BEFORE the iPod. I am not suggesting that Sun has the capability of releasing a iPod caliber killer product... but they have a strong technology portfolio and I wouldn't bet AGAINST them at this point in time.
Time to adopt the SCO tactic and sue IBM for ownership of OS/2!!! How dare IBM have proprietary software.
In all seriousness, I recall reading that besides Microsoft, that IBM is the world's largest software companies (as measured by employees on the payroll) and thanks to acquisitions such as Tivoli, Rational, and Telelogic they own a TON of proprietary software franchises.
That said, this is a non-story. Failed petitions are a dime-a-dozen. The only thing that *might* develop from this story is the motivation to get a petition signed by 100,000 people and see if IBM will take *that* seriously. In the end, they won't. If they are letting OS/2 die, then they are doing it for a reason. If they are simply relegating it to the back burner for a few years so they can modernize and re-introduce it later, good for them.
Maybe there is something that I am missing which would make it beneficial to be able to run OS/2? Wouldn't it require special hardware and/or many software changes before I could run it in my living room? Isn't most of the hardware so ancient that you can't find it anymore? Are there people who actually want to port OS/2 so that it will run on a Dell?
Aside from "Geek Value", there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me for having access to the OS/2 code (and for real geek value, I would prefer being able to read System V sources by Thompson and Ritchie (though, for all I know that is available somewhere and I just don't know where to look)).
My recommendation would be PGP, too. That would be the way to go. As long as the members of your company can secure their private/public keys, you can keep good control over who will have access to what.
If the members of your company fail to secure their keys? Well...
The vast majority of them earn every penny of that.
And yet, many people will gladly spend $0.99 for internet downloads at iTunes...
I agree that most bloggers are mostly worthless, but from time to time I will click on blog links within the signature of an insightful comment on Slashdot and find that to be worthwhile. So at least *some* blogs are not worthless.
And hell... their competition is essentially the Associate Press and Reuters which are both HORRIBLE companies. I frequently see reprinted AP stories on the website for Time Warner Company's news affiliate and it is not uncommon for those stories to have bad grammar and misspellings.
I would welcome the legitimate competition that a Union of Bloggers could give to the typical news aggregators.
The only thing I fear is that the leaders of the Blog Union would be greedy sons of bitches and effectively run the whole concept into the ground before it even gets going.
If you really want my opinion, the only blog worth reading on a daily basis is here. This is mainly because of moderated content, lots of relevant stories, and a wealth of (insightful) opinions.
I don't think it is realistic to collect empirical evidence of the benefits of a diverse education. You failed to mention OECD studies related to sports, art, music, or literature (though, you did touch on "reading", but the two are vastly different).
In any case... it remains a Theory that diverse education is best. However, the Theory was outlined very clearly by Plato in The Republic and much of his wisdom has served as a pretty descent framework for the American system through the last 200 years or so.
We might be in agreement that reform is needed. It certainly isn't a good thing for the average student is below average. Teachers in public schools should be paid better to make the profession more desirable.
The World is Flat talks about how the American advantage is having a broad education that includes history and literature and art. Is it really a surprise to find that half of the country does poorly in Math and Science when students are encouraged to immerse themselves in a diverse landscape of experiences including sports and music?
Are we suggesting that the average baby boomer once had an attention span large enough to compile compelling research and formulate a well-thought out essay?
Because I don't think that was the case either. Across the board, I think the "average" person tends to be undisciplined and there is a minority of individuals in any generation who are disciplined enough to make advances that move humanity forward.
I don't think Google should be evidence that people are lazy. I think Google should be evidence that 10 years ago, there was a need to be able to get information quickly and easily and a pair of highly disciplined individuals figured out a way to do it.
Maybe we can make some "stars" in the Open Movie world - script writers, voice actors, what have you.
There is some fiction listed here. I don't know how much of it allows for derivative works, but that would be one important distinction. Furthermore, I don't know how much of it would be fit for main stream consumption.
Personally, one of the novels there was written by me. The link on the page points here. You'll notice that I am not currently allowing for derivative works... but if the right production crew were to approach me with a script and a plan then it is a distinct possibility that I would take advantage of my author's rights and let them produce a derivative work.
I think Hollywood and conventional wisdom have perverted the term "success" for their own power so that it implies "commercial success".
A more general definition is "an achievement of an objective or goal". To some extent, this is rather arbitrary but having created my own movies (all videos licensed under Creative Commons), I would say that it would be a success for them to just finish it.
Now, to inject my own selfish opinion into the argument of the definition of what success might be for an "Open" project like this, I would list the following, "an work that makes a positive contribution to the culture of humanity". It doesn't have to be a large contribution, but as long as people can gain something from it (a lesson, some entertainment, faith and hope) then it would qualify in my mind as a "success".
This is what I aim for when I mark a publication with the Creative Commons license (which, in addition to the movies, includes this).
They offer you the chance to send them $2 in exchange for mailing you a CDs with their release on it. This is "selling it".
Furthermore, they would be within the scope of the license to package and charge you to download their distribution (as long as your payment included the right to obtain source code).
What they would NOT be able to do, is stop somebody from setting up an FTP site and giving away the copy they bought to everybody and anybody who wanted it. Thus, Red Hat users can get CentOS instead of purchasing the "Official" releases of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Apparently, my claim only stands for Light Beers. You are correct about Bud being 5.0%. Bud Light is 4.2% and an economic analysis would hold for comparing that to a 7.0-8.0% beer (which is fairly common).
I found this article insightful, interesting, funny, and supportive of my overall point.
BGFG? Not true... I know non-geeks who use OpenOffice. The largest contributions to OpenSource have been from corporations either (a) pursuing a business model or (b) looking to save money.
And I would be surprised to see a majority position within the leaders of top Open Source projects who would claim that marketshare isn't a goal. Look at Ubuntu... marketshare is a very strong part of the goal of promoting communities.
Strange how a discussion about the link between liberty and artistic expression degenerates into a simplistic two-sided rant about money.
Philosophers, no matter how great, are fools if they ignore economic ramifications. If the changes they advocate don't fit within an economic model that cannot be understood, their ideas are doomed.
That said... corporations need capitalism to empower their feudalistic controls of the market and individuals are hurt by giving up so much control to so few corporations.
Try the fun of being an extra or set builder or prop maker or wardrobe designer or such and you'll realize there's a lot of jobs in the "creative industries" that aren't fun.
Imagine being financially secure for life. Imagine getting the chance to build any of the sets for Lord of the Rings. Would you volunteer, or say "fuck it" because it isn't fun? Would you insist on being paid, even if you knew that you were already financially secure for life?
Anything worth doing, is worth doing for free. The fact that *some things* worth doing actually pay a salary makes those things a bonus in our capitalist economy.
In general, I disagreed with your entire post, but that one point was worth making. Just because *you* wouldn't enjoy doing something doesn't mean nobody would.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The marketing department claims that it is "the shit"
Users first impression is that it is "shit"
After a dozen or so uses, user eventually gets the job done
AND... Total Cost of Ownership misrepresent the facts
Bud *seems* cheap because $3 is less than the $5 it costs for better beer that has more than twice as much alcohol content.
Microsoft argues that they are cheap because users are "familiar with the UI", when in fact their draconian menus and taskbars take much longer, particularly when doing repetitive tasks.
how can tales of drunkenness, prostitutes, and smoking pot be considered dystopian?
I imagine that even in a perfect world, prostitutes would spread nasty, horrible diseases to their clientèle. Interestingly enough, there is a scene in my novel that offers a completely Utopian solution to the wonders of getting stoned and getting laid. This is in the chapter called "Low Men".
As to your journal... I have never before seen anybody with more than 3 posts. I congratulate your dedication. I read the back story about your Signature. Quite interesting. I look forward to reading more. I seemed like you are writing some kind of plot in there. Could you explain that and point me where to start?
Wouldn't the difference between utopia and dystopia be a matter of perspective? Certainly, O'Brien would claim that 1984 was Utopian, even while Winston disagreed.
The old adage resonates... "You cannot please all of the people, all of the time."
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent answer to the question! Simple and well-stated!
I have read that the "goal" of economy is to eliminate scarcity. Capitalism is just a method that spurs COMPETITION to give an advantage to groups who do the best to serve the goal of the economy. This takes advantage of the inherent nature of humans to be greedy, because a successful capitalist will become wealthy (as Gates has demonstrated).
If Gates is so satisfied with his wealth, power to him. I would say that, "Bill Gates has won capitalism" (and eliminated scarcity for himself).
The challenge of empowering "poor" societies (his proposition) is harder, though. It isn't capitalist. It is welfare and socialist and genuinely good (if done right). If he wants to eliminate scarcity for groups where resources are currently *very scarce*, he should looks towards sustainable production methods. Is energy a concern? Develop wind/solar/hydro power for the "poor". Is food a concern? Better agricultural techniques can be employed in the "poorer" areas of the world. Is the top concern health and medical related? Better medical facilities, doctors, and drugs should be setup in the poor countries. Is housing an issue? Construct strong and beautiful structures that the locals would be proud to move into.
As for Gates' proposition of "a kinder capitalism", I think he is looking at it wrong. I think he would have Microsoft be a monetary vehicle that produces a product for $x and sells it for $x+y dollars to "rich" peoples. This gives the "rich" societies a product they need (software) and leaves $y for socialism and welfare and genuine good for the "poor" world.
And to be honest, if Gates' efforts result in prosperity in the third world at the cost of $y (the Microsoft tax) which is paid willingly by the first world... then he will have succeeded in ways that pure "charity" organizations like UNICEF, the Red Cross, and the United Way never could.
Then again, it is Bill Gates and he is notorious for being a businessman first, so any "charity" from him should be taken with a grain of sand.
And if you'd care to delve into more of my ideas on the topic, they are buried throughout a novel that I've written which is available here. Granted, the novel is mostly about a group of citizens who aren't happy with things in a post-Capitalist world, but there is a lot of description about how such a world might be structured (and free feel to grep "Gates" in the text to see what I think about *that*).
Thanks for clarifying that for everybody reading this who didn't understand the initial but of sarcasm for the Power Button Art. :)
But they are *artistic* breasts.
Plus a vagina being covered up by a Power button. I wonder what *that* is trying to imply.
You quoted stock symbol "SUN" rather than "SUNW" which is the former symbol for Sun Microsystems. FYI, they currently trade under the symbol "JAVA".
As a stock, they have changed their name and done a reverse split recently. They are currently trading at about where they have been for the last year.
Though, their action on Wall Street is much like Apple BEFORE the iPod. I am not suggesting that Sun has the capability of releasing a iPod caliber killer product... but they have a strong technology portfolio and I wouldn't bet AGAINST them at this point in time.
Time to adopt the SCO tactic and sue IBM for ownership of OS/2!!! How dare IBM have proprietary software.
In all seriousness, I recall reading that besides Microsoft, that IBM is the world's largest software companies (as measured by employees on the payroll) and thanks to acquisitions such as Tivoli, Rational, and Telelogic they own a TON of proprietary software franchises.
That said, this is a non-story. Failed petitions are a dime-a-dozen. The only thing that *might* develop from this story is the motivation to get a petition signed by 100,000 people and see if IBM will take *that* seriously. In the end, they won't. If they are letting OS/2 die, then they are doing it for a reason. If they are simply relegating it to the back burner for a few years so they can modernize and re-introduce it later, good for them.
Maybe there is something that I am missing which would make it beneficial to be able to run OS/2? Wouldn't it require special hardware and/or many software changes before I could run it in my living room? Isn't most of the hardware so ancient that you can't find it anymore? Are there people who actually want to port OS/2 so that it will run on a Dell?
Aside from "Geek Value", there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to me for having access to the OS/2 code (and for real geek value, I would prefer being able to read System V sources by Thompson and Ritchie (though, for all I know that is available somewhere and I just don't know where to look)).
My recommendation would be PGP, too. That would be the way to go. As long as the members of your company can secure their private/public keys, you can keep good control over who will have access to what.
If the members of your company fail to secure their keys? Well...
Responsible Behavior: "I got too drunk. I screwed up, bad".
And yet, many people will gladly spend $0.99 for internet downloads at iTunes...
I agree that most bloggers are mostly worthless, but from time to time I will click on blog links within the signature of an insightful comment on Slashdot and find that to be worthwhile. So at least *some* blogs are not worthless.
And hell... their competition is essentially the Associate Press and Reuters which are both HORRIBLE companies. I frequently see reprinted AP stories on the website for Time Warner Company's news affiliate and it is not uncommon for those stories to have bad grammar and misspellings.
I would welcome the legitimate competition that a Union of Bloggers could give to the typical news aggregators.
The only thing I fear is that the leaders of the Blog Union would be greedy sons of bitches and effectively run the whole concept into the ground before it even gets going.
If you really want my opinion, the only blog worth reading on a daily basis is here. This is mainly because of moderated content, lots of relevant stories, and a wealth of (insightful) opinions.
This takes that joke to a whole new level. I hope this isn't a sign of the apocalypse. I'm gonna go to my bomb shelter now, just in case.
I don't think it is realistic to collect empirical evidence of the benefits of a diverse education. You failed to mention OECD studies related to sports, art, music, or literature (though, you did touch on "reading", but the two are vastly different).
In any case... it remains a Theory that diverse education is best. However, the Theory was outlined very clearly by Plato in The Republic and much of his wisdom has served as a pretty descent framework for the American system through the last 200 years or so.
We might be in agreement that reform is needed. It certainly isn't a good thing for the average student is below average. Teachers in public schools should be paid better to make the profession more desirable.
The World is Flat talks about how the American advantage is having a broad education that includes history and literature and art. Is it really a surprise to find that half of the country does poorly in Math and Science when students are encouraged to immerse themselves in a diverse landscape of experiences including sports and music?
Are we suggesting that the average baby boomer once had an attention span large enough to compile compelling research and formulate a well-thought out essay?
Because I don't think that was the case either. Across the board, I think the "average" person tends to be undisciplined and there is a minority of individuals in any generation who are disciplined enough to make advances that move humanity forward.
I don't think Google should be evidence that people are lazy. I think Google should be evidence that 10 years ago, there was a need to be able to get information quickly and easily and a pair of highly disciplined individuals figured out a way to do it.
It is a shame that they don't offer "naughty list" caliber films at public libraries.
"Okay honey, you haven't been holding up your end of the bargain, so I borrowed 'Debbie does Dallas' to give you extra motivation this week."
There is some fiction listed here. I don't know how much of it allows for derivative works, but that would be one important distinction. Furthermore, I don't know how much of it would be fit for main stream consumption.
Personally, one of the novels there was written by me. The link on the page points here. You'll notice that I am not currently allowing for derivative works... but if the right production crew were to approach me with a script and a plan then it is a distinct possibility that I would take advantage of my author's rights and let them produce a derivative work.
I think Hollywood and conventional wisdom have perverted the term "success" for their own power so that it implies "commercial success".
A more general definition is "an achievement of an objective or goal". To some extent, this is rather arbitrary but having created my own movies (all videos licensed under Creative Commons), I would say that it would be a success for them to just finish it.
Now, to inject my own selfish opinion into the argument of the definition of what success might be for an "Open" project like this, I would list the following, "an work that makes a positive contribution to the culture of humanity". It doesn't have to be a large contribution, but as long as people can gain something from it (a lesson, some entertainment, faith and hope) then it would qualify in my mind as a "success".
This is what I aim for when I mark a publication with the Creative Commons license (which, in addition to the movies, includes this).
Seriously, the TimeCube page must have more than a couple "All Your Base..." gems buried in it.
They offer you the chance to send them $2 in exchange for mailing you a CDs with their release on it. This is "selling it".
Furthermore, they would be within the scope of the license to package and charge you to download their distribution (as long as your payment included the right to obtain source code).
What they would NOT be able to do, is stop somebody from setting up an FTP site and giving away the copy they bought to everybody and anybody who wanted it. Thus, Red Hat users can get CentOS instead of purchasing the "Official" releases of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Apparently, my claim only stands for Light Beers. You are correct about Bud being 5.0%. Bud Light is 4.2% and an economic analysis would hold for comparing that to a 7.0-8.0% beer (which is fairly common).
I found this article insightful, interesting, funny, and supportive of my overall point.
by geeks for geeks
BGFG? Not true... I know non-geeks who use OpenOffice. The largest contributions to OpenSource have been from corporations either (a) pursuing a business model or (b) looking to save money.
And I would be surprised to see a majority position within the leaders of top Open Source projects who would claim that marketshare isn't a goal. Look at Ubuntu... marketshare is a very strong part of the goal of promoting communities.
Philosophers, no matter how great, are fools if they ignore economic ramifications. If the changes they advocate don't fit within an economic model that cannot be understood, their ideas are doomed.
That said... corporations need capitalism to empower their feudalistic controls of the market and individuals are hurt by giving up so much control to so few corporations.
Imagine being financially secure for life. Imagine getting the chance to build any of the sets for Lord of the Rings. Would you volunteer, or say "fuck it" because it isn't fun? Would you insist on being paid, even if you knew that you were already financially secure for life?
Anything worth doing, is worth doing for free. The fact that *some things* worth doing actually pay a salary makes those things a bonus in our capitalist economy.
In general, I disagreed with your entire post, but that one point was worth making. Just because *you* wouldn't enjoy doing something doesn't mean nobody would.
Responding to sig:
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.The marketing department claims that it is "the shit"
Users first impression is that it is "shit"
After a dozen or so uses, user eventually gets the job done
AND... Total Cost of Ownership misrepresent the facts
So... excellent comparison and good sig!
I imagine that even in a perfect world, prostitutes would spread nasty, horrible diseases to their clientèle. Interestingly enough, there is a scene in my novel that offers a completely Utopian solution to the wonders of getting stoned and getting laid. This is in the chapter called "Low Men".
As to your journal... I have never before seen anybody with more than 3 posts. I congratulate your dedication. I read the back story about your Signature. Quite interesting. I look forward to reading more. I seemed like you are writing some kind of plot in there. Could you explain that and point me where to start?
Clouds. But I'll give you a pass because the systems that rely on stars to navigate fly above the clouds.
Wouldn't the difference between utopia and dystopia be a matter of perspective? Certainly, O'Brien would claim that 1984 was Utopian, even while Winston disagreed.
The old adage resonates... "You cannot please all of the people, all of the time."