gnu=borg - discuss

[Jenda]

Well, with that I agree. It is a non-renewable, not a fossil.

[skyman8081]

Except that fissionable material isn't going to run out for a long time.

The 50 years number, that I know will get thrown out here, is from existing reserves with current mining techniques, and doesn't account for other reserves and techniques. And doesn't take into account the fact that the other nuclear fuel, thorium-232.

ALL resources run out. We shouldn't discard a useful, and viable method of power generation, because it will run out of fuel one day.

Do you wan't humanity to live naked in the bush? Because thats EXACTLY where we will be if you continue that line of thought. The slippery slope goes both ways fuckers.

[worker201]

It's capitalism, it's wonderful.

Live with it.  It works, and it works in the feild.

Communism has never worked outside the lab/book.

I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that.  Because, to my knowledge, true textbook open-market capitalism has never been tried.  True Marxism has never been tried either.  What we have can be characterised by "technocratic regulated capitalism".  Meaning that the microeconomics of current US society are based on trade secrets, branding, and government regulation, as opposed to perfect supply and demand and marginal utility.

[Kintaro]

Where the FUCK do you get this shit from??? Please enlighten me if I am mistaken, but the Nazis were officially The Nationalist Socialist Party - i.e definite left, nothing about capitalism whatsoever!
No comment to the second POC.

Yes, but if Capitalist France wasn't so fucking greedy after World War One, Germany wouldn't have got so fucked up to get in that position.

Also: FACISM is the far right.

China is facist, they call themselves communist, but then the conservatives in Australia call themselves Liberals, China is the far right. As was the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany.

[piratePenguin]

OK, so I've said that writing some program and keeping it to yourself (greed) is evil. Therefore, I won't support that program, instead I'll support/create an alternative to that program.

Alright you haven't directly said it but you've implied it, by saying something's evil it means you hate it and therefore should be eliminated and if you eliminate all proprietary software only free software will be left.

Exactly correct. The fact that I would like to see non-free software eliminated does not mean that I'd even support some totalitarian policy to eliminate it, so don't assume so.

I like the way things are hopefully headed - non-free software eating up market share bit by bit (people chosing it because the software is just plain better (and it will be better (I did say that this is the way things are hopefully headed.).), and hopefully because they like the philosophical end of it too.). And then, when the non-free software companies decide they can't compete, they make their software free.

ALL resources run out. We shouldn't discard a useful, and viable method of power generation, because it will run out of fuel one day.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable. It has some other disadvantages - but they've already been discussed.
I'd like to see more renewable energy being produced in the future.

[Aloone_Jonez]

OK, so I've said that writing some program and keeping it to yourself (greed) is evil.

No doubt you or your parents are earning money and you/they don't share most of it, so how does this make them evil?

If I design something and I keep the designs to myself I'm being selfish but no more than anyone else who doesn't share everthing.

Therefore, I won't support that program, instead I'll support/create an alternative to that program.

Fair enough support what you want, I personally support any software that suits my needs and is generally excelent, and if it so happens to be free, then I'll go even more out of my way to support it.

Exactly correct. The fact that I would like to see non-free software eliminated does not mean that I'd even support some totalitarian policy to eliminate it, so don't assume so.

Good, I'm gald you've made yourself clear on that one.

I like the way things are hopefully headed - non-free software eating up market share bit by bit (people chosing it because the software is just plain better (and it will be better (I did say that this is the way things are hopefully headed.).), and hopefully because they like the philosophical end of it too.). And then, when the non-free software companies decide they can't compete, they make their software free.

I have very mixed feelings about this, firstly I doubt this'll ever happen and I am yet to be convinced that it'll be the best thing for the economy or software in general. Making software free will reduce its cost drastically and as a result the programmers will get paid less so less people will want to become developers.

Nuclear energy isn't renewable. It has some other disadvantages - but they've already been discussed.
I'd like to see more renewable energy being produced in the future.

I agree, nuclear energy should be used until we renewable sources are strong enough to support our needs.

[piratePenguin]

No doubt you or your parents are earning money and you/they don't share most of it, so how does this make them evil?

To produce software, you write code. For non-free software, you keep this code to yourself and distribute the software in binary form. That is, by definition, selfish.

Money, unlike software, is essential for survival. You need a certain amount of it to pay for your needs, then maybe some more for whatever it is you want, and, sometimes, after that, at least in my opinion, some people do become greedy slash evil, unless they share a bit of their wealth (by giving to charity, for example).

Ofcourse some people will disagree - if you earn money you should be able to keep it for yourself. But when you consider all the problems in the world... At least in my books, any billionaire who hasn't given over INSERT_FIGURE_HERE to charity, is greedy slash evil.

If I design something and I keep the designs to myself I'm being selfish but no more than anyone else who doesn't share everthing.

For some people it just isn't possible to share everything - they just would not survive.
Different story for sharing software.

Making software free will reduce its cost drastically and as a result the programmers will get paid less so less people will want to become developers.

I dunno if things, price-wise, would be much different from today in a mature free software economy.

[skyman8081]

You are deserving of a hard slap across the face by the Invisible Hand

[KernelPanic]

blab

I would respect this opinion far more if you actually had bills to pay.
Get over yourself, proprietary software is here for the long-haul.

[Orethrius]

I would respect this opinion far more if you actually had bills to pay.
Get over yourself, proprietary software is here for the long-haul.

What you're saying is that those who have that viewpoint have no expenses, and thus no right to speak.
To that, I give my considered response: Bite. Me.
First off, all my balances are fucking RED for a reason.
Second off, if more people would SHARE, proprietary software wouldn't have the majority stranglehold it enjoys today.
That is all.

[KernelPanic]

What you're saying is that those who have that viewpoint have no expenses, and thus no right to speak.
To that, I give my considered response: Bite. Me.
First off, all my balances are fucking RED for a reason.

Thankyou for misrepresenting me.
What I was saying was:
The comments of a 12 year old - with little experience of fiscal matters - about economics don't carry much weight with me. He can say what he likes but I will call bullshit when I see fit.

Eliminating proprietary software would eliminate jobs, family breadwinners would no longer have incomes. How would PP explain that to their kids?
He can comment, but as neither a wage earner or parent he doesn't have the perspective.

Second off, if more people would SHARE, proprietary software wouldn't have the majority stranglehold it enjoys today.
That is all.

We'll that's stating the obvious since FOSS and proprietary are mutexes.

[skyman8081]

I'm seeing a lot of this guy here, he's sad, he hates being used in arguments, he wan't to go away and never be used.

[worker201]

Eliminating proprietary software would eliminate jobs, family breadwinners would no longer have incomes. How would PP explain that to their kids?

That's a situation proprietary software companies created and enforced.  Everyone thought it was a good idea, since it created jobs.  Now, if they go under, all the workers go under, and society as a whole has a responsibility to them - we have to buy software to keep the programmers from getting fired.  But when HP or IBM or whoever decides to lay off 5000 workers, no big deal, that's just how it is in the busines world.

Besides, the same argument was once used against television, saying that it would destroy the film and radio industries.  Imagine if we had listened?  Hindsight proves that the advent of television created a lot of profit for a lot of people, and that film and radio have never been stronger.

And if you're really all that concerned about the welfare of proprietary software creators, why do you use Linux?  Hell, why do you use bittorrent?

[piratePenguin]

I would respect this opinion far more if you actually had bills to pay.
Get over yourself, proprietary software is here for the long-haul.

Did you even read my post you fucking arsehole?

Eliminating proprietary software would eliminate jobs, family breadwinners would no longer have incomes. How would PP explain that to their kids?

Again, did you even read my post you fucking arsehole?

I dunno if things, price-wise, would be much different from today in a mature free software economy.

And before that:

I like the way things are hopefully headed - non-free software eating up market share bit by bit (people chosing it because the software is just plain better (and it will be better (I did say that this is the way things are hopefully headed.).), and hopefully because they like the philosophical end of it too.). And then, when the non-free software companies decide they can't compete, they make their software free.

[piratePenguin]

I dunno if things, price-wise, would be much different from today in a mature free software economy.

And to back that up (or down): http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/eur5greve.en.html
And the good thing is,
THEY PAY BILLS!

Structure of a Free Software economy
The differences are much smaller than many people would make you believe. The financially most important sector today is software for business activities and most of the revenue is generated through service. This is unlikely to change.

It is true that license revenue will most likely go down, probably significantly. However this only affects a very small part of the software generated revenue; a part which generates a negative trade balance between Europe and the United States today.

The by orders of magnitude largest source of revenue today is service. This sector will be able to grow significantly in a Free Software economy.

In the current system, dominated by proprietary software, only those companies supported by the monopolies can offer services; usually only a small part of what would be possible. The remainder is either done by the monopolies themselves