I suspect a break away was inevitable, since at a certain point the size of the entire industry is restricted. The utility of an AOL is only useful if it can communicate with a Compuserve, just like the utility of a pair of rails in Los Angeles is only useful if it connects to New York. Or if you have T-mobile you can call Verizon. If each network only talked to itself then the vast majority of people wouldn't have cell phones, or wouldn't ride the train or won't bother with "those data services". These things have a market imperative to connect. Now once you're talking about a situation where AOL buys Compuserve, and Prodigy folds, then yes that's a potential AT&T situation (without an open internet to compete).

But none of that really addresses your fallacy, which is your assertion that you need a large modern day government to create something that is interconnected.

In order to be talking about a limited government you have to talk about Pre-Civil War economies, since after the civil war the government had lot more federal power. The first railway networks circa 1860, that connected the east to the midwest, were funded by private stock market initiatives.

Before I can take your question seriously you have to define "Libertarian political structure".

How about, how could a limited government with the help of academia and/or independant business interests create a network? For example, take 18th century new england turnpike construction or 19th century railroad networks and accompanying telegraph networks. I choose such an early example because you have to go that far back to find a small government.

Regarding the walled-garden, it's inevitable since the worth of the network is proportional to the number of people on it. Unless there's a monopoly force at work, at some stage all networks must to interconnect.

Speaking as a registered libertarian, not everything in a capitalist system is done for profit (just ask the NRA or the EFF). And sometimes even innovation is done for innovation's sake.

Of course, that software is inherently "information" is what makes this work (avoiding the economic problem of scarcity). "Knowledge" doesn't cost anything to pass on. I think where those right(er) wing libertarians get their signals crossed. They assume that because we currently have an idea of "Intellectual Property" that it is in some way a fundamental freedom. Or that because we currently have corporations that can exist as entities they fundamentally are. These are just assumptions built into our system, not facts. I don't remember reading anything in Locke about intelectual property rights. And I don't see how giving software away for free is anti-capitalist.

No, if you are an anarcho-capitalist there is no such thing as a market failure. Libertarians that believe in *some* government can recognize that lack of competition is a market failure. Certain industries that have a large barrier to entry or are inelastic are prime targets for monopolistic abuse. Industries such as water, power, roads networks etc. You know, the commons.

Adam Smith said that for an economy of "perfect liberty" you must have competition and the laws of supply and demand. Thomas Jefferson tried to get a "restriction against monopolies" into the bill of rights (but failed). You'll find no two individuals more concerned with the idea of liberty.

Looks like I knew exactly how it works in seattle. After reading your legal brief (finally that business law class paid off), the Judge's conclusion shows clearly that she had the domestic partnership right to be in the room, the nurse just dismissed her anyway opening the center up to a lawsuit.

I don't know how it works in Seattle, but here in Los Angeles that whole sob story about not being able to visit your partner in the hospital is a load of bollocks and sensationalism. In California domestic partners have all the rights commonly whined about, excepting taking their partnership to another state. Sorry that can only be fixed on a federal level, so all these state initiatives don't get you any closer. This entire issue is one of mostly semantics.

Spoken like someone who has never had to deal with this issue. The problem is not that the records are public, it's that these websites are endorsing a targeted intimidation campaign against those who signed (or donated) to what they deem is an "evil" cause.

I personally know someone who was harassed and blackballed in a media company until they resigned. I've also know people who have had their personal beliefs posted on reviews of their businesses to target their livelyhood. I've even seen people taking pictures of those who enter and leave places of worship.

Sorry, but voting for what you believe in doesn't sound like oppression to me. The above fits the bill though.
-

Wow, you managed to hate on Alsa, Linux, Gnome, C++ and the End User all in one post. Condolulations, this may be the most faddish post I've ever seen.

On the "spirit of GPL" issue, the developer is wrong. As long as I can remember RMS has encouraged companies to sell GPL'd software.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9911/08/freedom.GNU.idg/index.html

I've done business in the world of free software for 14 years now, ever since I began selling tapes of GNU Emacs in 1985, and I agree with Jamie Zawinski (as quoted in Stig's article) that free software and greed are not incompatible -- at least, most of the time they can coexist. But greed alone will not protect our freedom. There are occasions where defending freedom requires a special effort, an effort that requires a motivation beyond material gain.

I you were a starting entrepreneur who wanted to become one of those large internet radio stations some day your view might be different. Artificially high barriers of entry into an industry are rarely beneficial to society. From a purely economic standpoint, competition is generally a good thing.

I think it's because if you type the wrong wireless key it will often accept it but your connection just won't work. In that case, it's might be more "user friendly" to try to catch the mistake before letting it be submitted.

It's called multiseat. It's a feature that's targetted for the next version of Fedora Linux . I'm not sure if there's any way to do it under windows but vmware or virtualbox might help when Fedora 12 comes out.

Since Sun has had mysql they've had a disasterous release, a mass exodus of their mysql developers, and at least three forks. If that is great management and strong leadership then I stand corrected.

I didn't think I needed to expand on Oracle since everyone is speculating about whether mysql even has a future.

I would question this guy's motives trying to take back MySQL after selling it to Sun, if it wasn't for the fact that Sun and now Oracle have done such a poor job with it. Whether or not you hate MySQL, if it's going to improve it needs someone to move the project forward.

Does anyone really see Oracle doing that?