Click Bait - Don't Bite
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| pmpatrick Jan 27, 2012 8:59 AM EDT |
A complete waste of time. The article is just your usual click bait, i.e. say anything outrageous just to get hits. Please do not feed this click-whore. |
| Libervis Jan 27, 2012 9:13 AM EDT |
The difference is I believe in what I said there. If the click bait was the only motive I probably wouldn't have written it. Anyone who knows me, including the guy I work for, knows that. Let people judge for themselves if there's anything of value there OK? |
| ComputerBob Jan 27, 2012 9:43 AM EDT |
I haven't read the article -- I suspected that it was click-bait, just from reading the teaser. As for "let people judge for themselves" -- I'd be happy to do that if you would email me a copy of your article. Then, if I change my mind and decide that it's not click-bait, I will happily click on your link to it. |
| helios Jan 27, 2012 9:43 AM EDT |
I've worked and collaborated with Daniel often over the past several years and while I don't always agree with what he says, I respect his writing ability and the thought he puts into his work. I believe "click bait" is a bit harsh. Many here would disagree with what he says in this article but a dissenting opinion shouldn't be ostracized based on group-think. In fact, labeling it "click bait" without reading it doesn't exactly tune itself with an open mind. If I am any judge of human nature, the title of this thread just might garner him more clicks than a positive one. Penguin Pete did more for the Tux 500 project than its most staunch supporters. |
| Jeff91 Jan 27, 2012 9:47 AM EDT |
Its an utterly stupid article. EDIT: Whoops. Forgot I had my ad block running. ~Jeff |
| tbuitenh Jan 27, 2012 10:03 AM EDT |
I know Daniel/Libervis (or should I say used to know?), and I can confirm that the article fits in perfectly with what I know him to believe. By the way, the problem with lock-in is the same as the problem with buying all the land around someones house and asking for money each time they want to enter or leave their own house. As long as the total amount asked over a lifetime is less than the costs of building a helicopter or zeppelin or something the house owner will choose to pay. If you think that as long as there is no initiation of force, an action cannot be wrong or evil, you'll consider this scenario just fine. How is the above the same as lock-in? Well, agreeing to be locked in tends to be cheaper than rebuilding software from scratch (although open source cooperation is changing that, once there is a decent FLOSS alternative the existence of in-locking software becomes less evil). Also, because of a combination of lock-in, other anticompetitive practices (some peaceful and some involving threats of force through the state) and economy of scale it's usually cheaper to buy a computer with unwanted software preinstalled than it is to buy an identical computer without software or with software you actually want. for the tl;dr crowd: sadly the article isn't clickbait, the author lives in a different reality with a different morality. |
| JaseP Jan 27, 2012 10:05 AM EDT |
I don't think it's click bait. I just totally disagree with the idea of defending vendor lock in. Vendor lock in is why I came to use open source software. I find the practice of holding someone's data hostage to an abhorrent practice. For me it started with QuickBooks. Having to purchase at the tune of $200, an upgrade just to export my tax data, the year after I bought the previous version, is what did me in with vendor lock in. |
| tbuitenh Jan 27, 2012 10:09 AM EDT |
@Jeff91: I don't see the ads either because I block a lot, but according to ghostery there is some ad stuff there. (half on topic disclaimer: I do use some proprietary software, but nothing that locks me in) |
| Khamul Jan 27, 2012 11:06 AM EDT |
Total garbage. This moron is even worse than Ken Hess. I'm sorry I wasted 45 seconds of my time on it and clicked without thinking (I do wish LXer would change their linking so clicking on the article headline brought you to the summary and comments page, not to the article itself; this is the way other sites work). To summarize the article in a nutshell: "it's ok to be a sociopath and screw others over for your own benefit". |
| Fettoosh Jan 27, 2012 11:37 AM EDT |
Quoting:There are two reasons why I am attempting to defend this practice. First is the almost universal unquestioning of the idea that lock-in is always a bad thing, or even something evil. Perhaps by questioning it we may find insight that we would otherwise never have. In that sense, you could at the very least see this defense as playing the devil’s advocate. I strongly disagree with the idea presented in the article, but that doesn't make it a stupid article. His point is, if I own something, I should be totally free to do anything I want with it. I think this point is totally valid and I don't see anything wrong with it. Anyone who believes in freedom and personal liberty would also agree with that. Besides, he himself is asking to at least look at it as if it was a "devil's advocate". I say the article makes sense even though I totally disagree with it. And the reason I disagree with it is because I personally look at the harm lock-in does to a certain field. In software, it is not beneficial for the total good of healthy flourishing society. It is a matter of priorities and preference. |
| Jeff91 Jan 27, 2012 12:53 PM EDT |
"the problem with lock-in is the same as the problem with buying all the land around someones house and asking for money each time they want to enter or leave their own house. As long as the total amount asked over a lifetime is less than the costs of building a helicopter or zeppelin or something the house owner will choose to pay. If you think that as long as there is no initiation of force, an action cannot be wrong or evil, you'll consider this scenario just fine." This is soooooo perfect. ~Jeff |
| kenjennings Jan 27, 2012 1:04 PM EDT |
Vendor lock-in holds your data hostage to the whims of others. Then you buy your yearly subscription/upgrade and find the upgrade no longer supports your data written by their program four versions ago. (Not a mtyh. Microsoft did this multiple times with Microsoft Works.) Now, you're SOL. At least with free and open source you have the opportunity to use your data as long as you can. |
| Libervis Jan 27, 2012 2:08 PM EDT |
Guys/Gals (if any)! This is all I'm gonna say. 1. I'll just ignore remarks like "stupid" and "total garbage" because they are self-evidently stupid and total garbage themselves. ;) And seriously Khamul? All you read there is "it's ok to be a sociopath and screw others over for your own benefit"? So creating a program that supports only certain file formats equals "sociopathy", and bringing government force on someone for doing this is goodness gracious. Black is white, up is down. Got it. 2. ComputerBob, I wont waste time emailing you the article. Nobody is forcing you to click the link if it's so difficult. You're either interested or not. Case closed. :) 3. Helios, thank you for being reasonable, and I hope you're doing well! 4. Tbuitenh, on your "buying land around someone's house" example: yes I think it is "just fine", but there is a long way to go from "just fine" to "a good idea". I can hold something to be *not morally evil* and still strongly oppose it. The key is not confusing emotional outrage with moral reprehension, because there is a difference. It is a difference without which we cannot ensure nobody's sovereignty isn't violated, and without which such violations are in fact a societal norm (AKA our society). Your example assumes a lot. Most of all it assumes that there is no other way to resolve that predicament but government force, and its universal legitimization. 5. For the record I oppose vendor lock-in. I think it's a bad idea, a bad deal, and perhaps more often than not bad for the technology industry. The only difference between me and the outraged souls around here is that I don't consider it "evil", because my standard of evil don't depend on my emotional whims. I may be outraged to see someone painting their house in rainbow colors, but that doesn't make it evil. I may be outraged that a big company produces their software without support for certain file formats, but that doesn't make it evil. You feel locked in? Well, why don't you step back a little and think about why are you using their software to begin with, and what would the world be like if they didn't produce it at all? Turns out you ignore all of the progress made through pursuit of self-interest and leverage seeking (which every business does) and focus on some particular ways of seeking leverage that inconveniences you. And this great inconvenience is enough for you to call in the big guns of government to make eeeeverything right again through this magic called "regulation". Unfortunately, all you're doing is imposing your opinions on others by force, because there is no magic, regulation is simply some people telling others how they may live their lives and do their business, or else. I opted out of that ideology. You suit yourselves. |
| Khamul Jan 27, 2012 2:32 PM EDT |
@Libervis: You're advocating evil, even though you try to claim you aren't. Let's look at the definition of evil, from Wiktionary: "The forces/behaviors that are the opposite or enemy of good. Evil generally seeks own benefit at the expense of others and is based on general malevolence." Pushing a closed file format so that you can derive benefit for yourself, at the expense of others, fits this definition precisely. That's evil. Of course, you're advocating the kind of sociopathic behavior that's being encouraged so much in society these days, so maybe you're just a product of society. |
| Jeff91 Jan 27, 2012 2:36 PM EDT |
Man, we really need to get like +1 or "like" buttons for comments these forum threads :D ~Jeff |
| Libervis Jan 27, 2012 3:22 PM EDT |
Khamul, am I evil for selling a device that lacks a certain functionality just because you, who happen to be my willing customer, are inconvenienced by that feature missing? You're confused. If I do something with my own property then it is my own property that I've used, not yours, thus it is not at your expense I did it because it was not your property that I used against your will. Furthermore, I am not forcing you to buy, download or use my products meaning you are still completely sovereign in your control over that which is yours. Like I said, black is white, up is down (for you it appears). You define someone using, creating or modifying his own stuff as "evil", just because it has ripple effects that inconvenience you (we're not in a vacuum you know, if you buy the last can of beer from the store you've inconvenienced the next customer who might have wanted it). Yet you don't think it is evil to actually, positively, explicitly control how someone uses his own property (hint: it's not yours to dictate) through government force? You seem to be just a product of society. I opted out. |
| Khamul Jan 27, 2012 4:00 PM EDT |
@Libervis: You're not talking about missing features, you're talking about deliberately setting up roadblocks so that your customers can't get away from you. If your product or service is really that great, then you don't need to resort to dirty tricks to keep customers hooked. Moreover, many customers are not "willing" customers: market forces force people to become customers of companies they don't like because there's no real free market, and monopoly forces conspire to force them into certain choices. When there's a monopoly like MS was back in ~2000, customers didn't have a whole lot of choice if they wanted to be able to interoperate with other people in their industry. "You seem to be just a product of society. I opted out." Sounds like something a sociopath would say. @Jeff91: "Man, we really need to get like +1 or "like" buttons for comments these forum threads :D" What we really need is +1 and -1 buttons for the articles themselves, so we can mod them "+1 Informative", or like this one, "-1 Troll". |
| 2briancox Jan 27, 2012 4:00 PM EDT |
He won't post my comment on his website: So, because it is of moral importance that owners be allowed to control what they own ... it is ok to make something that prevents owners from being allowed to control what they own ... ??? That's the argument he's making! |
| ComputerBob Jan 27, 2012 4:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:ComputerBob, I wont waste time emailing you the article. Nobody is forcing you to click the link if it's so difficult. You're either interested or not... Not. |
| flufferbeer Jan 27, 2012 4:37 PM EDT |
++1 for jeff91, khamul, 2braincox, computerbob,... :D Thanks, I didn't bite libervis's points either. Even though he wrote that the above was all he was gonna say, I'd betcha he'll be back for more ONCE (not if!) he notices that fewer and fewer fall for his clickbait. 2c |
| BernardSwiss Jan 27, 2012 7:51 PM EDT |
sabotaged functionality =|= "missing features" The rest of his argument is just as silly and/or besides the point. |
| Libervis Jan 27, 2012 8:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:@Libervis: You're not talking about missing features, you're talking about deliberately setting up roadblocks so that your customers can't get away from you. The difference that makes no difference to my argument. In both cases he's doing to his property what he has a right to do, just like you do, so as much as you have no right to dictate what he does to his stuff you have no right to dictate his motivations and purposes. And it is indeed akin to missing features or features you don't like as it reflects the characteristics of the software. You simply opt to call those characteristics "roadblocks". Quoting: If your product or service is really that great, then you don't need to resort to dirty tricks to keep customers hooked. That may be, and you are free to think that, but you're still not right to dictate what he does, no matter how many bad terms you come up with to describe what he's doing. Quoting:Moreover, many customers are not "willing" customers: market forces force people to become customers of companies they don't like because there's no real free market, and monopoly forces conspire to force them into certain choices. And rain forces you to bring an umbrella. What tyranny! You're just whining against the inconvenient circumstances created by people pursuing their self interest, just as you are doing, except you want other people to bow to your desires first, and theirs second, because you feel entitled to them providing for you instead of striving to come up with your own alternatives. Eric Raymond's "shut up and code" comes to mind here. You don't like what's out there? Then make your own! I agree though there is no real free market, and that's something I tend to say as well, and I also realize that these companies (Microsoft, Apple etc.) often use the government themselves to restrict choice. THAT I do not agree with. I argue from a principle, and defend at least the moral legitimacy of a specific tactic. I am not wholesale defending any company, however, and everything they do. I oppose Apple's patent lawsuits, and attempts at using the law against your right to jailbreak your own iPhone just as much as I oppose YOU telling them what they may or may not make a part of the iPhone to begin with. It's sad you'd rather shut me out though than try to understand. Your mind was obviously made up before you even read the article. All this "it's a click-bait" stuff indicates just that, a complete closed mindedness against alternative ways of thinking. Screaming "It's a click bait" so you don't give it any real consideration makes this discussion more into a lynching than any real discussion. But whatever, I came to expect that from dogmatized FOSS fundamentalists. I know I'm already insta-branded as an evil person by the great leader Richard Stallman. Quoting:He won't post my comment on his website: Jumping to conclusion. I approved your comment. I just apparently didn't get to it as soon as would be convenient for you. I guess I'm evil. The truth is I'm not in charge of comments on that site, but personally go and approve comments to my articles so they get published sooner than usual. You can bite your tongue now. Quoting: Software doesn't allow or disallow anything. It is either capable of doing something or not. The problem is that you feel entitled to a certain capability of the software regardless of whether its developer wants to add it or not, and call the developer evil if he doesn't fulfill your wishes. Having full control over your property includes being able to choose not to run the software that you find limiting, and you always do have that choice. So long as that is true you have no grounds to claim that developers are trying to control your own stuff by simply failing to cater to your wish list. As for laws they sometimes lobbie for to restrict your usage, that's a different matter, and like I said I oppose that practice. Quoting:sabotaged functionality =|= "missing features" That's simply drawing an arbitrary line that suits your prejudices. EDIT: Yes, I broke my promise about "this is all I'm gonna say". It's one of my weaknesses, the difficulty in leaving obvious misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my position hanging without a proper response. I think I'm gonna get a beer... :p |
| skelband Jan 27, 2012 8:18 PM EDT |
@Libervis: The debate is actually quite simple. You are arguing that you can do whatever you want with a product you produce. You are correct. Most here are arguing that you are a bad person for doing it. We are also correct. There is no real conflict here. |
| Libervis Jan 27, 2012 8:26 PM EDT |
Right skelband, but does "bad person" in your view equate to "evil person"? And is someone really a bad person for doing what he's morally right to do? I understand being an @sshole, even a moral @sshole, by simply skipping being nice and polite and doing stuff people don't like while rubbing it in their faces. I might call that a bad person by some aesthetic standard, but not an evil person (moral standard). |
| skelband Jan 27, 2012 8:45 PM EDT |
I think "evil" is a bit strong. You have to understand that the readership here is pretty much a very Open crowd. Let me try to explain why we think that your approach is wrong to us. One of the chief tenets of open software and standards (I don't mean Free software necessarily in this context) is that the software eco-system becomes very large. This is good for the community at large. It encourages innovation, choice and portability. Anyone that produces a product that advocates closedness shrinks that eco-system to something that is inflexible, non-standard and lacking in richness. A small eco-system does not promote innovation so it therefore stagnates. This is one of the chief arguments against software patents. Take an example in the real world: Say you invented a new type of bolt head. Everyone else uses hex-head bolts, but you want everyone to buy your special spanners. Now you convince someone to use your bolt heads because you think they are better. The problem is, that anyone that has to service that product has to get your special spanners. That's great for you, but this is an issue for the service engineer who has a large array of high quality, expensive hex-head spanners already. He has to buy your spanners, which is extra expense for him, and problematic for him if he can't get them at the time he needs to work on the product. Then, you go bust. You stop making the special spanners. Anyone that subsequently has to work on that product can't get the special spanners. They cannot repair the product. You have built in obsolescence. This is bad for the owner of the product. He has to throw it away and buy a new one, instead of repairing the otherwise serviceable product. Therefore it is bad for the environment, the original owner has lost money. Now imagine that product is a file in your special proprietary format. 10 years down the line, you can't get your software so you can't read the file. Truly awful. Markets for anything work well when people compete with their products based on brand loyalty and quality. My view is that products that are sold on the basis of lock-in instantly signal to me that they are not good enough to stand entirely on merit and I avoid them. |
| skelband Jan 27, 2012 9:13 PM EDT |
To emphasise my point a little, according to Wikipedia, the PDF format was created in 1993. It later became an open standard, but I can pretty much guarantee that pretty much ANY of the hundreds of PDF readers around now can be used to read any file created at that time. |
| Libervis Jan 27, 2012 10:03 PM EDT |
You wont get much argument from me on that skelband, if the "wrong" here is not "moral wrong", but rather something more akin to a wrong answer to a certain question. I think it is probably more often than not a bad tactic, and I prefer open standards and open source software in principle. Half of my defense of lock-in was from the moral standpoint. I basically said, sure it is a bad idea, but it is not evil, and therefore government force is not a solution against it. I would emphasize that half of the argument more than the practical half. But speaking of the practical half, I would at least like to acknowledge that there may in specific circumstances be a limited benefit to lock-in, where it could act as an incentive for the producer to produce in the first place. Imagine no software patents, and this tactic being the only way some companies could replace the incentive they get from patents today. I for one choose developer's freedom to employ this tactic over software patents any day! Another caveat I would add to my agreement with you on lock-in being a generally bad idea, though, is that there are some cases where it hasn't led to less innovation, bad technology and obsolescence. I think Apple is a good example. They have through their often not-so-nice tactics actually managed to accelerate adoption of newer technologies. The idea is to create leverage and then use it to universally bring people from old obsolete and inferior technology to new technology (like a switch from floppies to CDs, and now from CDs and hard drives to SSD). They have also been able to build a user experience that is still envied in the industry, even by many Linux folks. It is doubtful they could maintain such an integrated and seamless user experience if they didn't exercise much of the control they did over how their technology works with each other. Of course, with Apple you're kinda either in or out, but you do have to make that choice yourself. Either you buy into their aesthetics and ideas about technology and opt into their ecosystem, or you don't. As inexplicably outrageous as that may seem to some people here I actually like what Apple is doing for the most part, as much as I am annoyed by their patents warfare and certain closedness/lock-in antics that I feel cross the line even for me, but I am glad that Apple and their ecosystem exists as an option for me because it speaks to me on a lot of levels (aesthetics, elegance, simplicity, cohesion, focus etc.). But I am also glad for Free and Open Source Software, as much as I am irked by its ideological side (to which I admit I belonged to myself once). I think the best takeaway from this whole "defense of lock-in" idea would be to stop calling it "evil", because that is not only untrue, but unnecessary to effective opposition of lock-in, and to recognize the issue as a little more complex than the standoffish attitude here seems to suggest even if it *is* considered a bad idea by default. |
| skelband Jan 28, 2012 12:23 AM EDT |
I actually think Apple is a bad example for your purposes. The Apple gear sells well because it is really good quality kit. The people buying it recognise this and they also like the Apple brand, which was my point. They see value in that. The biggest issue that people have against Apple's gear is actually the lock-in that you think is advantageous to them, not that the products are bad per se, although some may argue that the functionality of the early phones were pretty poor. Well, you can argue that or not. What they set out to do was pretty good, but from a quality point of view. The lock-in for them is about control, and for the consumer, that doesn't really give them anything tangible. It is all for the benefit of Apple. I still refer you back to my original point. Quality sells itself. Anyone that has to *rely* on lock-in to sell is probably hawking a poor product. If Apple think that they are relying on lock-in for value are deluding themselves. |
| BernardSwiss Jan 28, 2012 1:06 AM EDT |
In other fields, we actually pass laws against this sort of thing. Before the "Digital Era" this manifested as "planned obsolescence" (ie. deficient by design). For example lawnmowers were deliberately engineered to break down in about a season and a half. When this was figured out, it became TV news. The general public saw this as a form of fraud, and quite rightly so. I am constantly and repeatedly confounded at so many people's willingness to accept this sort of con just because the realm of activity has transferred to electronics or other "high technology". |
| Libervis Jan 28, 2012 1:26 AM EDT |
Agreed that quality sells itself, albeit it is not the only factor since people often sacrifice on quality and get something just good enough to save money. Apple was never a dominant PC maker for example. Today it is only dominant if you count iPad sales among PC sales. My point was something else though, that the control they exercise over their ecosystem played a role in them achieving the level of quality that they did, and in the field they did. Control means a kind of dictatorship for Apple, with a fairly brilliant man on top, a family like atmosphere in the top management, no councils, no focus groups, and certainly no asking customers for direct input on what their products should be like. IOW, an exact opposite of the open creed promoted by FOSS. So instead of having to account for a wide variety of different opinions, ideas and so on, they can rely on the ideas of a handful of experts and/or visionaries to decide what shall be done, and easily maintain razor sharp focus. It turns out this works for them, as people like what Santa Jobs (and now Santa Cook I suppose) comes up with. I see this playing out over and over again when I think about Apple's tight grasp on their ecosystem. Take for instance the App Store. A lot of people criticize Apple's strict rules over what gets in, but there is evidence that this results in a selection of apps that has a greater average quality and is generally much cleaner. Then there is the issue of fragmentation plaguing both Android and Linux in general whereas Apple has only a limited number of well supported devices to account for. If Mac OS X or iOS were open source, this would throw a monkey wrench into this arrangement. Now Apple is also criticized for coming up with a proprietary variant of the ePub3 format for the just announced interactive Textbooks in iBooks 2, but chances are they had to do that to support the interactivity that they want these textbooks to have, but even if not, maintaining a level of lock-in over the format in which interactive textbooks can be published in the iBooks Store allows them to keep a tight control of the process of producing these textbooks (everything must go through the iBooks Author) which is an easy way to ensure that all textbooks maintain a certain quality standard (since they all have a predictable and under-control pathway of production). Even if their closed tactics aren't entirely to blame for the level of quality they put up, I think it does play a big part. When your business operates the way Apple's does, where you aren't really interested in crowd sourcing anything, but rather envision everything yourself and bank on that, then all the noise generated by openness actually becomes a liability; a distraction. It's simply a different way of doing things. Both are equally morally legitimate in my book, and as evidence shows, equally legitimate in practical terms as well. To some extent they also show that different approaches work better for different things. Open Source appears to excel at producing quality infrastructure stuff, but Apple's closed approach seems to work better at integrating this infrastructure into a seamless whole that "just works" for most users. |
| Libervis Jan 28, 2012 1:32 AM EDT |
BernardSwiss, fraud is actually a form of theft if you realize that by deceiving someone to sell something you've actually gotten something that you wouldn't if the customer knew the truth. Since I don't support invasions of people's individual sovereignty (property violations) I don't support that either. It would be fine if companies whom produce their devices with planned obsolescence were clear and open about this. Then the customers could simply refuse to buy, switching to competition or creating competition themselves. When customers don't know what's the deal though, or are even deliberately misinformed then we indeed have an ethical problem. Lock-in types of tactics, however, don't have to and don't always involve misleading customers. Companies typically disclose that their program doesn't support certain formats or that it works only with their own stuff. |
| tbuitenh Jan 28, 2012 11:04 AM EDT |
Libervis wrote:4. Tbuitenh, on your "buying land around someone's house" example: yes I think it is "just fine", but there is a long way to go from "just fine" to "a good idea". I can hold something to be *not morally evil* and still strongly oppose it. The key is not confusing emotional outrage with moral reprehension, because there is a difference. It is a difference without which we cannot ensure nobody's sovereignty isn't violated, and without which such violations are in fact a societal norm (AKA our society). Your example assumes a lot. Most of all it assumes that there is no other way to resolve that predicament but government force, and its universal legitimization. First of all, I don't understand why you think my analogy has anything to do with the government at all. Maybe you're trying to use a straw man, or maybe it's an ad hominem against me because I'm not an anarchist, or... what? I don't get it. Second, no, there is no difference between emotional outrage and moral reprehension. You *feel* that sovereignty/property is more important than anything else, I and others don't. From those different emotional bases we derive different systems of morality (or, in my case, a lack of a system, which I consider more honest and which prevents me from reasoning away guilty feelings about treating others badly. But this isn't about me :) ). I know it's difficult to let go of the idea of absolute truth in morality, it makes the world much more confusing and you'll lose the ability to call anything evil (well, it becomes a synonym for intense dislike). And it makes sense that while you believe in absolute and logical truth in morality, those who don't or who see a different absolute truth will look incredibly wrong. |
| Libervis Jan 28, 2012 1:04 PM EDT |
You don't get it? You're feigning ignorance. You get it. You used the same example years ago, and it was about defending the legitimacy of government force, because we wouldn't have much of a disagreement otherwise. The difference between emotional outrage and moral reprehension lies in the difference between wanting something to be true (where you're describing something subjective), and calling something true (where you're describing something objective). If you want to accomplish something, like for example throw a ball as far as possible, reality compels you (laws of physics) to follow a particular procedure in order to accomplish this. You have to account for gravity, inertia, wind etc. You can say you dislike this procedure, and that you'd rather it be easier, but to say that this procedure isn't a way to do it would be irrational. You can say you dislike a particular behavior of some human beings, but to say that this behavior is not within their right when it is would be irrational. Of course, this depends on you believing in objective morality to begin with, which you don't. IMHO, this is feigning ignorance again, since there is plenty of evidence suggesting that when we respect individual's sovereignty and property (based on his mostly self-evident self-ownership) we get more prosperous and happy societies in general, and when there is less, we have societies more riddled with strife and rushing to their collapse. Look at North Korea for an extreme disrespect for sovereignty, then to China for a relatively more respect for it after the farmer's revolution, and then to the early USA (at least for the white society unfortunately). By telling us how things work science can tell us what we have to do to accomplish a certain result, which obviously applies to morality if you see it as a method of ensuring the happiness and freedom of each individual in an universally sustainable way. No other solution other than a more complete sovereignty of each individual proved able to ensure this. I find it dogmatic to believe there is no objective morality, in fact, because it's a pretty huge assumption you are stating as a truth, and one that leaves rights of each individual to the emotional whims of random people in society. |
| djohnston Jan 28, 2012 4:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:He won't post my comment on his website: Quoting:Jumping to conclusion. I approved your comment. I just apparently didn't get to it as soon as would be convenient for you. I guess I'm evil. The truth is I'm not in charge of comments on that site, but personally go and approve comments to my articles so they get published sooner than usual. You can bite your tongue now.Well, I'm not jumping to conclusions. 12 hours is more than sufficient time. And I'm not biting my tongue, either. You wouldn't publish my comments, so I'll post them here. Quoting:This is not to say that true tyranny does not exist or that nobody ever does anything immoral, but these have their rightful place.Tyranny has a rightful place? Quoting:If the other party actually tried to take control over your own actions by force then they would be doing something immoral, because they would be invading your own personal space, your individual sovereignty.Now you’re making sense. You must be talking about the gaming of the ISO committees over the final ratification of the OODF document format. https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9034139/Microsoft_gaming_ISO_system_in_Open_XML_vote_bid_say_critics Or, perhaps you are talking about Microsoft’s exclusionary contracts with OEMs that prohibit the OEMs from offering competing software or face stiff pricing penalties from Microsoft. http://techrights.org/2007/10/29/exclusionary-deals-linux/ Maybe that’s the kind of “personal space” and “individual sovereignty” invasions you are referring to. Quoting:I prefer open systems and open standards, and believe that creating well integrated, powerful and sophisticated systems which are simultaneously based on open source and open standards would be the holy grail.Yet, you argue in favor of the opposite. |
| Libervis Jan 29, 2012 8:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:Well, I'm not jumping to conclusions. 12 hours is more than sufficient time. And I'm not biting my tongue, either. You wouldn't publish my comments, so I'll post them here. I don't see your comment, unless you posted a different one under a different name. All comments which have been submit were approved. I don't get why do you have to be so fast to assume the worst, that I deliberately want to filter comments and critique. As if there is no way there are other reasons for the delay ffs. Quoting:Tyranny has a rightful place? No. The concept of immoral and tyrannical has its rightful place, as in there are things you could rightfully call immoral and tyrannical, and things you can't. Quoting:Now you’re making sense. You must be talking about the gaming of the ISO committees over the final ratification of the OODF document format. https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9034139/Microsoft_ga... If they committed fraud (lies, deception etc.) then I would agree they are wrong to do it. Rallying more obscure governments in support of their cause may fall in the same category given the nature of government. But if they simply called up partners to help them out voluntarily then I would say the ISO process is flawed if it allows for this sort of thing to sway their decision making. If MS went against some ISO rules then they were wrong too. As for exclusionary contracts, I believe in the right to free contract for the reasons I already elaborated, so the contracts being exclusionary I don't necessarily see as morally wrong. Software patents are an issue there though, and shouldn't exist, and I believe they form the bulk of the problem for Linux wrt these contracts. Quoting:Yet, you argue in favor of the opposite. Reread the sentences after I said that. It is possible to prefer something under certain conditions, such as the condition of that something being *possible* or even *probable* to begin with. As of right now there is no such thing as a well integrated, powerful, sophisticated system that is completely open source and open standards based. I'm talking about something akin to Mac OS X. Linux desktop doesn't even come close. Android comes close, but is plagued with problems that largely stem from openness itself OR Google's inability to lead it in a way that avoids those shortcomings. But in *theory* it would be possible to have a completely open system that is simultaneously as well integrated and user-friendly as Apple's stuff, but it would require something that tends to needlessly piss off the FOSS community whom go all up in arms when Ubuntu dares to implement a feature without immediately sending it upstream. I mean the entitlement mentality in the FOSS community is staggering. You can't do anything with even a hint of exclusivity, even when what you're doing is fully open source and open standards compliant, without people complaining. But that's how the FOSS movement sabotages itself. You just keep on doing it, you know. It's not like the world gives a damn at this point. The train for Linux desktop has left the station. And believe me this wouldn't piss me off as much as it does if it wasn't for the years I was betting on it, writing about it, supporting it, promoting it etc. myself. EDIT: Your link is breaking the layout of the thread and making comments hard to read. Technically this is an LXer bug though. |
| DrGeoffrey Jan 29, 2012 9:41 AM EDT |
Quoting:EDIT: Your link is breaking the layout of the thread and making comments hard to read. Technically this is an LXer bug though. If so, then why don't I see the bug? |
| Libervis Jan 29, 2012 10:18 AM EDT |
Ah, looks this happens only in Chrome for some reason. I just looked through Firefox and it's fine. Never mind. |
| tbuitenh Jan 29, 2012 12:06 PM EDT |
@Libervis, I'm not feigning ignorance, but you may call me lazy. The "buying all the land around someones house" thing is the most well known textbook example of what's odd about anarcho-capitalism (or whatever you want to call that ideology). It's always easy to reuse that one. Although in this case, it is so similar to software lock-in that I personally wouldn't call it lazy to use this old argument in a new context. Of course an example that shows there's something wrong with anarcho-capitalism is practically the same thing as an argument in favor of having a government, but that doesn't change that I wasn't talking about government. Maybe there is some other way to make lock-in tactics impossible (both with land and with software), I don't know what that would be, it doesn't matter here because I was explaining the problem, not proposing any particular solution. You're making a strange argument about not believing in objective morality being dogmatic. It's like a theist telling an atheist that he's being dogmatic... There is absolutely nothing scientific about morality, other than that your logic may be consistent and you might call logic a science. All logical reasoning starts axioms, and I'm sorry to tell you the axioms of morality are based in feelings. There are no moral particles or waves of morality. Yes, "morality" does depend on the whims of the majority and/or the powerful, and yes, that [can I swear here?]. You can see that happening here in this very thread. You're not any more right or wrong than anyone else here, your base assumptions are different. The others are disagreeing with you because you're defending something that logic plus their own base assumptions tells them is wrong... but it's pointless to say assumptions are wrong when there is no way to rebase them on other assumptions that everyone agrees with. Meanwhile I'm using circular logic: "lock-in is bad because I dislike the effects of lock-in". But that's only natural when one refuses to build a system to reason about something :) . tl;dr: the whole debate is completely pointless |
| ComputerBob Jan 29, 2012 1:46 PM EDT |
Wow -- I can hardly believe that people are still taking the time to read (and post) the long, pedantic lectures in this thread. |
| Libervis Jan 29, 2012 9:32 PM EDT |
Most well known in your world perhaps, and I already told you I'm a voluntaryist primary. Anarcho-capitalism may simply be one possible (even if likely) outcome of society at large ceasing to believe in initiating violence as the solution to social problems. About science and morality, if it doesn't have anything to do with science then I suppose science cannot describe methodologies of achieving certain measurable results by, you know, observing action and reaction and making conclusions. Good luck with that proposition. You simply choose to see some parts of reality as somehow immeasurable and thus subject to what are essentially whims of those in power, the majority, or whatever, as you say yourself. Although, it appears you don't really believe in objective anything, since it's all just assumptions. I am not at all surprised that pointlessness is where you end up with those kinds of attitudes. Really, every debate is pointless then, so why are you even talking? Don't answer that. In fact, if I just shift my assumptions a bit you turn into nothing more than a figment of my imagination, and therefore I can simply choose to wish you away. Goodbye. Have fun in an alternate universe of some other mind. ;) |
| tbuitenh Jan 30, 2012 12:01 PM EDT |
@ComputerBob: It seems the click bait became typing bait. I think I'm done here, though. @Libervis: Sure you can measure (but maybe not with much accuracy) how actions achieve a desired effect. But the choice of what's desired has nothing to do with science. You think property rights and non-initiation of violence (with a narrow definition of violence) are more important than everything else combined. That's a choice, a feeling even. Your personal preferences are not laws of nature. Not every debate is pointless. When you can agree on the assumptions, you can debate to find the right conclusions, and the person who was previously drawing the wrong conclusions may be able to figure out what facts he used to miss. You can wish me away, but I'm a measurable fact, not an assumption along the lines of "hey, it would be nice if tbuitenh existed". So in addition to calling imaginary things real, you'd be calling real things imaginary. If you think those two are the same, maybe you should read a real book about philosophy, instead of those written by people who think Ayn Rand makes any sense at all ;) . tl;dr: @Libervis is not a god. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!