- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Fedora 17 Enterprise Preview
|
|
|
Comments (37)
17 earlier comments in the full thread.
You may well be right about this, jdixon. As you correctly point out we have both been dancing at the edge of the TOS and I don't think either of us want to blatantly cross that line in a deliberate way.
Speak for yourself. I have absolutely never thought of that as a reason to use Free Software. Not a once.
> Regulation, as a general concept, is not a good thing.
I understand what you're saying skelband, but that probably overstates the case. Clear and enforceable regulations are what make a marketplace (and to a certain extent, even a civil society) possible. Overly broad, unclear, or poorly written regulations, on the other hand...
I think everyone here can agree to that, as a philosophical ideal. :) As I noted, it's the proper scope of government power and the details we'd disagree on. What industries should be regulated, the type of regulation to be used, etc. These are all political matters, and thus cross the TOS line.
I understand what you're saying skelband, but that probably overstates the case. Clear and enforceable regulations are what make a marketplace (and to a certain extent, even a civil society) possible. Overly broad, unclear, or poorly written regulations, on the other hand...
I think everyone here can agree to that, as a philosophical ideal. :) As I noted, it's the proper scope of government power and the details we'd disagree on. What industries should be regulated, the type of regulation to be used, etc. These are all political matters, and thus cross the TOS line.
Thinking about skelband's last comment some more, I realized we were throwing two very different concepts into the broad term "regulation." My statement about the need for regulation referred to regulation by the government only, and only in a democratic society where people have some redress against such regulation if they feel it is unjust.
What skelband seems to be referring to, other than his reference to taxation, is regulation imposed by proprietary software companies. I do NOT believe in regulation of the general public by private entities at all. Normally we could ignore restrictions placed on us by private companies when there is competition. In other words, if we are free to choose another product those restrictions do not effectively become regulations. When there is a de facto monopoly, such as Microsoft now enjoys on desktop computing in business space and in most of consumer space, then those restrictions become a form of regulation on the general public by private industry. That is something I strongly oppose. I also expect that is where we can find some broad consensus.
What skelband seems to be referring to, other than his reference to taxation, is regulation imposed by proprietary software companies. I do NOT believe in regulation of the general public by private entities at all. Normally we could ignore restrictions placed on us by private companies when there is competition. In other words, if we are free to choose another product those restrictions do not effectively become regulations. When there is a de facto monopoly, such as Microsoft now enjoys on desktop computing in business space and in most of consumer space, then those restrictions become a form of regulation on the general public by private industry. That is something I strongly oppose. I also expect that is where we can find some broad consensus.
@jdixon:
I'm not against regulations per se.
Anti-monopolistic regulation, trademark regulation, etc these are all pre-requisites to a free market. A free market works best where there is a balance between supplier and consumer and in a micro economy that exists fine without help.
Regulation such as copyright and patent (and make no mistake, they are market intervention) bring their own problems which we need to regulate around. If you try to fight the will of the market in general though, expect a protracted and expensive battle which is exactly what we see in the courts endlessly at the moment. What I see is that the Internet and global economy is reasserting the will and power of the free market against regulation. It is a battle that you just can't win. There just isn't enough court time or money to win it in the world. And it's such a waste of time.
I just think that we should be very slow to regulate unless there is no other choice, and that regulation should be removed when it no longer serves a purpose. I think these days, people in positions of power are too quick and too ready to intervene. It is a slippery slope and an expensive one at that, and often either achieves something entirely different from that intended or is at best ineffective.
As someone said above, law in most western countries is by consent. We consent to be ruled by laws because the alternative is anarchy. If a law does not have general approval or is not seen to be just or reasonable, then it is ignored and the law becomes toothless.
I'm not against regulations per se.
Anti-monopolistic regulation, trademark regulation, etc these are all pre-requisites to a free market. A free market works best where there is a balance between supplier and consumer and in a micro economy that exists fine without help.
Regulation such as copyright and patent (and make no mistake, they are market intervention) bring their own problems which we need to regulate around. If you try to fight the will of the market in general though, expect a protracted and expensive battle which is exactly what we see in the courts endlessly at the moment. What I see is that the Internet and global economy is reasserting the will and power of the free market against regulation. It is a battle that you just can't win. There just isn't enough court time or money to win it in the world. And it's such a waste of time.
I just think that we should be very slow to regulate unless there is no other choice, and that regulation should be removed when it no longer serves a purpose. I think these days, people in positions of power are too quick and too ready to intervene. It is a slippery slope and an expensive one at that, and often either achieves something entirely different from that intended or is at best ineffective.
As someone said above, law in most western countries is by consent. We consent to be ruled by laws because the alternative is anarchy. If a law does not have general approval or is not seen to be just or reasonable, then it is ignored and the law becomes toothless.
@caitlyn:
I see no fundamental difference between regulation and restriction via law or EULA.
Both are intended to restrict freedom and in many cases I judge those restrictions to be unreasonable.
>I have absolutely never thought of that as a reason to use Free Software.
Then I suspect that you are in a very small minority here and quite possibly why you end up in so many heated discussions with others. Your basic philosophy entirely different to mine. That might be because I am English and you are American. In the UK, we are used to fighting for our rights and against oppression from all sorts of organisations (including companies, see "Treasure Island Britain": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip-off_Britain) and in the US that freedom is a base given.
When you have to fight for rights and freedoms, one is less eager to give them away, particularly on behalf of others. Believe me, it's a lot easier advocating regulation for others than it is for yourself.
I see no fundamental difference between regulation and restriction via law or EULA.
Both are intended to restrict freedom and in many cases I judge those restrictions to be unreasonable.
>I have absolutely never thought of that as a reason to use Free Software.
Then I suspect that you are in a very small minority here and quite possibly why you end up in so many heated discussions with others. Your basic philosophy entirely different to mine. That might be because I am English and you are American. In the UK, we are used to fighting for our rights and against oppression from all sorts of organisations (including companies, see "Treasure Island Britain": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip-off_Britain) and in the US that freedom is a base given.
When you have to fight for rights and freedoms, one is less eager to give them away, particularly on behalf of others. Believe me, it's a lot easier advocating regulation for others than it is for yourself.
Vendor lock-in is virtually nonexistent with FOSS. Forced upgrade marketing is virtually nonexistent with FOSS. Expensive customization is relatively nonexistent with FOSS. Upgrade expenses are limited with FOSS. Security issues, like virus infections, malware and hacking attacks are seriously limited with FOSS (more so the two former). ... Those are some of the avoidance reasons,...
Benefits? Configuration flexibility, low cost, better trained IT specialists (generally speaking), fewer IT staff required for upkeep, uptime stability, file format flexibility (more partitioning schemes supported), faster code execution, easier lockdown of work stations, Prolonged useful life of hardware, interface choice, software package choice (generally 4-5 software packages to choose from that do the same thing), frequent updates, scalability, multiple networking options, tighter control over processes, painless upgrades (through partitioning options and careful package selection).
I've left tons of things out...
By the way,... Caitlyn is in an isolated minority of Americans if she wants MORE regulations in her life. Most Americans have an attitude that the Gov't should stay out of our business (personal and commercial business-wise). There is generally only a call for regulations when somebody perceives that a harm has been committed against them. The cry, "there should be a law," is uttered only when people are feeling victimized on this side of the pond. Usually, they get over it before something is done in the legislature.
Benefits? Configuration flexibility, low cost, better trained IT specialists (generally speaking), fewer IT staff required for upkeep, uptime stability, file format flexibility (more partitioning schemes supported), faster code execution, easier lockdown of work stations, Prolonged useful life of hardware, interface choice, software package choice (generally 4-5 software packages to choose from that do the same thing), frequent updates, scalability, multiple networking options, tighter control over processes, painless upgrades (through partitioning options and careful package selection).
I've left tons of things out...
By the way,... Caitlyn is in an isolated minority of Americans if she wants MORE regulations in her life. Most Americans have an attitude that the Gov't should stay out of our business (personal and commercial business-wise). There is generally only a call for regulations when somebody perceives that a harm has been committed against them. The cry, "there should be a law," is uttered only when people are feeling victimized on this side of the pond. Usually, they get over it before something is done in the legislature.
I honestly believe that some people genuinely feel that the free market is something that should be consistent and predictable and therefore when unexpected things happen, then it is those "wicked" corporate masters pulling strings and making the whole thing fall around our ears.
Markets are highly chaotic complex systems. They are neither predictable nor stable as a natural property and expecting it to be so is like looking up into the sky and expecting the weather to be moderately "nice" all the time.
Trying to impose order on a market is like expecting to be able to control the weather: futile and you're likely to expend an enormous amount of time and energy before you realise that it's impossible, or at least extremely impractical. You might even find that an awful lot of plant life, that relies on that natural variation, suffers as a result of that regulation.
The best we can do (like the weather) is try and predict trends and we've demonstrated over and over that we are pretty bad at doing even that.
[Sorry, end of cheesy weather metaphors]
Markets are highly chaotic complex systems. They are neither predictable nor stable as a natural property and expecting it to be so is like looking up into the sky and expecting the weather to be moderately "nice" all the time.
Trying to impose order on a market is like expecting to be able to control the weather: futile and you're likely to expend an enormous amount of time and energy before you realise that it's impossible, or at least extremely impractical. You might even find that an awful lot of plant life, that relies on that natural variation, suffers as a result of that regulation.
The best we can do (like the weather) is try and predict trends and we've demonstrated over and over that we are pretty bad at doing even that.
[Sorry, end of cheesy weather metaphors]
I am going to try to make this as "non-denominational" as I can.
The core problem with govt regulation is what is called "regulatory capture", where the regulating agency, trying to get "experts", ends up being populated by the vested interests in the field that they're supposed to be regulating.
Timothy Geitner and his predecessor both being Goldman Sacs executives, for example.
The core problem with govt regulation is what is called "regulatory capture", where the regulating agency, trying to get "experts", ends up being populated by the vested interests in the field that they're supposed to be regulating.
Timothy Geitner and his predecessor both being Goldman Sacs executives, for example.
There's a more general problem,... Gov't legislatures (regardless of political leanings) are tasked with making laws,... So, they essentially are "in the business" of adding to existing legislation. Unless a particular representative or group of representatives decides to review old laws, with the aim to repeal them, what you get is an increase in the shear number of laws on the books.
I personally wouldn't mind having a representative who saw it as their sole mission to block all new legislation. The fact of the matter is that existing legislation is rarely applied where it was intended to work. That is most true of hot bed issues, like child pornography, environmental regulations, Internet freedom (SOPA & PIPA's failures to pass didn't stop the Kim Dotcom prosecution). How about enforcing the laws we have before making new ones?!?!
I personally wouldn't mind having a representative who saw it as their sole mission to block all new legislation. The fact of the matter is that existing legislation is rarely applied where it was intended to work. That is most true of hot bed issues, like child pornography, environmental regulations, Internet freedom (SOPA & PIPA's failures to pass didn't stop the Kim Dotcom prosecution). How about enforcing the laws we have before making new ones?!?!
Quoting:Caitlyn is in an isolated minority of Americans if she wants MORE regulations in her life.I think you'll find that the regulations I support have majority support according to polls. You couldn't be more wrong.
Quoting:The core problem with govt regulation is what is called "regulatory capture", where the regulating agency, trying to get "experts", ends up being populated by the vested interests in the field that they're supposed to be regulating.Here we agree completely. Polls show that most Americans want the financial sector to be reregulated to prevent a repeat of 2008. However, nobody want that regulation to be designed by people from that sector for the sole benefit of that sector.
Timothy Geitner and his predecessor both being Goldman Sacs executives, for example.
TOS violation Bob.
I have issues with polls. Most are created with an agenda, and make for self fulfilling prophecy.
I could talk about politics all day, but I gave it up for Lent and never went back.
I did that once -- and once was enough. Now I've given up Lent, instead.
I gave up both...
Well I talk about politics all day. Just not on LXer.
Sorry, Monte, but I think by definition any discussion where Caitlin and I can shake hands and agree cannot have been a "political" discussion. :^)
I Lent a lot to LXer. Now I want it back, with interest.
Quoting: Sorry, Monte, but I think by definition any discussion where Caitlin and I can shake hands and agree cannot have been a "political" discussion. :^)
That's pretty funny]!
But I can't decide whether you deserve a cheer, or a raspberry...
Comments on this story are closed.