Why do you continually misinterpret what I wrote and throw back something that makes utterly no sense to this conversation?
What *liberty* to be able to buy a computer that isn't pre-infected with Windows, the *liberty* to not pay that $25 charge tacked on for an OS you do not plan to use? What *liberty* to reverse-engineer a piece of hardware I own so I can make it do what I need?
I didn't know isolating the essential principle behind what you said (whether you realize it or not) is misinterpreting what you wrote and throwing back something that makes utterly no sense to this conversation.
One of the most common arguments against IP is that it prevents people from using their physical property however they want. IE, copyright prevents you from using your paper and ink however you want. But the truth is, you don't have a right to violate someone's rights. The proper justification for property rights, including intellectual property rights, is that people have the right to be the beneficiaries of their actions. Including people who create an abstract value such as a song or software or an invention, a hardware design.
I already know the principle you're pushing, and I know how it's wrong. It's not my fault that you think in isolated concretes rather than principles and essences derived from the facts of reality. Just because every phenomenon is something new and unprecedented to you doesn't mean that I can't form true abstractions and generalizations and apply them to new scenarios. Such as applying what I know about IP to your argument that you should be able to reverse-engineer the hardware you buy.
Again, reality is not as stupidly simple as you choose to see it.
See the above paragraph. Also see the post you're responding to where I acknowledge that there are good open source programs. And if I didn't in that post, then I also acknowledge that there are bad proprietary programs too. I think the point I was making is that, A: If you don't like that computers come with Windows, build your own, and B: That I choose to pay for Windows because it works better than the Linux distro I've tried. (Ubuntu.) Granted I enjoyed using the terminal for everything and it's rewarding to break your system and then single-handedly fix it again. But in the end Windows is less of a headache. Windows 7 on an SSD, oh goodness it's so nice. I don't have to do two hours of research every time I want to get a game to work on WinE. And when Ubuntu gave me an upgrade to X that didn't support fglrx and took away the option to downgrade back to the version that worked, I was done with them.
But anyway, so what if Richard Stallman made things and gave them away? Why did he make them? Probably because he liked the idea and wanted to make it a reality. If you want to go holding one person's contribution over the heads of everyone in society to justify the superiority of your morality, then here, have this one. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18419231
Linus Torvalds
In many ways, I actually think the real idea of open source is for it to allow everybody to be "selfish", not about trying to get everybody to contribute to some common good.
In other words, I do not see open source as some big goody-goody "let's all sing kumbaya around the campfire and make the world a better place". No, open source only really works if everybody is contributing for their own selfish reasons.
Now, those selfish reasons by no means need to be about "financial reward", though.
The early "selfish" reasons to do Linux tended to be centred about just the pleasure of tinkering. That was why I did it - programming was my hobby - passion, really - and learning how to control the hardware was my own selfish goal. And it turned out that I was not all that alone in that.
---
Ahhhh, you're a global-warming denialist
Consensus does not equal truth. Correspondence to reality does. The reason there's such a big consensus is because environmentalism is popular. Environmentalist scientists, as was demonstrated by the leaked e-mails, tend to A: start from a conclusion and work backwards, cherry-picking and fudging the evidence to fit their pre-formed conclusion, and B: believe the ends justify the means. IE, it's okay to be dishonest because we're working for the "greater good".
There are scientists challenging their position and claiming that we're experiencing natural temperature shifts due to something to do with the atmosphere and cloud cover trapping in more heat from the sun. The effect humans have on the climate is barely detectable. You can't ignore what a minority of scientists say just because it goes against the consensus. If we always went with the consensus, we'd all be flat-earthers and we'd all live in the stone-age still.
I didn't know isolating the essential principle behind what you said (whether you realize it or not) is misinterpreting what you wrote and throwing back something that makes utterly no sense to this conversation.
One of the most common arguments against IP is that it prevents people from using their physical property however they want. IE, copyright prevents you from using your paper and ink however you want. But the truth is, you don't have a right to violate someone's rights. The proper justification for property rights, including intellectual property rights, is that people have the right to be the beneficiaries of their actions. Including people who create an abstract value such as a song or software or an invention, a hardware design.
I already know the principle you're pushing, and I know how it's wrong. It's not my fault that you think in isolated concretes rather than principles and essences derived from the facts of reality. Just because every phenomenon is something new and unprecedented to you doesn't mean that I can't form true abstractions and generalizations and apply them to new scenarios. Such as applying what I know about IP to your argument that you should be able to reverse-engineer the hardware you buy.
See the above paragraph. Also see the post you're responding to where I acknowledge that there are good open source programs. And if I didn't in that post, then I also acknowledge that there are bad proprietary programs too. I think the point I was making is that, A: If you don't like that computers come with Windows, build your own, and B: That I choose to pay for Windows because it works better than the Linux distro I've tried. (Ubuntu.) Granted I enjoyed using the terminal for everything and it's rewarding to break your system and then single-handedly fix it again. But in the end Windows is less of a headache. Windows 7 on an SSD, oh goodness it's so nice. I don't have to do two hours of research every time I want to get a game to work on WinE. And when Ubuntu gave me an upgrade to X that didn't support fglrx and took away the option to downgrade back to the version that worked, I was done with them.
But anyway, so what if Richard Stallman made things and gave them away? Why did he make them? Probably because he liked the idea and wanted to make it a reality. If you want to go holding one person's contribution over the heads of everyone in society to justify the superiority of your morality, then here, have this one.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18419231
Linus Torvalds
---
Consensus does not equal truth. Correspondence to reality does. The reason there's such a big consensus is because environmentalism is popular. Environmentalist scientists, as was demonstrated by the leaked e-mails, tend to A: start from a conclusion and work backwards, cherry-picking and fudging the evidence to fit their pre-formed conclusion, and B: believe the ends justify the means. IE, it's okay to be dishonest because we're working for the "greater good".
There are scientists challenging their position and claiming that we're experiencing natural temperature shifts due to something to do with the atmosphere and cloud cover trapping in more heat from the sun. The effect humans have on the climate is barely detectable. You can't ignore what a minority of scientists say just because it goes against the consensus. If we always went with the consensus, we'd all be flat-earthers and we'd all live in the stone-age still.