Ahh, a breath of fresh air!

I just read this comment by gmhowell, and I am, for the first time in a long time, filled with hope for the current progress of ideas.

Marx may have been many or all of those things, but at least a concession is made for, what I believe, to be the main problem with capitalism:

All value of a good stemming from the input of labor

is, at the very least, an arguable idea.

The only account of this idea I have ever read was by David Schweikart, who is a prof. somewhere(not a lot of info on google). His argument starts out with a classical example:

O(x,y) = P(x) + Q(y)
where x and y are factors of production and O(x,y) is the ammount of whatever produced using x ammount of factor x and y ammount of factor y. Let x be labor and y be land, and pretend that you're farming corn.

Assuming economies of scale, the ammount of corn produced by 1 unit of labor is P'(x) and the ammount of corn produced by 1 unit of land is Q'(y). Thus the equation can be rewritten as:

O(x,y) = xP'(x) + yQ'(y)
So there is a clear distinction between the contribution of labor and the contribution of land.

The next question is: What is the contribution of the owners of land? And then you make a few logical connections about the ethics of compensation related to contributions made to production, and it is quite clear, at least to me and David Schweikart, that the owners of any means of production contribute nothing to production soley through the act of ownership.

Basically how is the equation:
O(x,y) = xP'(x) + yQ'(y)
affected by increasing or decreasing the number of owners of y?

It seems to me that it isn't, therefore ownership is not a productive activity, thus not entitled to compensation from production.

David Schweikart goes on to make more arguments for cases that more closely resemble the real world, but this example for the classical case is the starting point.

Are there any other thoughts out there on the contribution of labor vs the contribution of owning a means of production? Or do you think that I'm just out there?

Note: I'm condensing 10 pages into a few paragraphs from memory. The main thing to consider is Euler's theorem as the most politically charged mathematical theorem in history.

I want to talk about this thread. You will need to set your thresholds to 0 to read it all. As of the time of this writing, there is nothing that would normally be considered offensive in that thread, and there are only 9 comments to read.

Now that you've read the thread, on to my discussion:

Figure of Speech

If you don't already know what a figure of speech is, here is a good start.

If I were to say, "I'm sooo hungry, I could eat a horse," do I mean, in a literal sense, that I could consume an entire Equus caballus, bones and all, weighing in excess of 1 ton at the next meal? NO. Will I think less of your intelligence and world experience if you DO believe that I mean to consume an entire horse at my next meal? YES.

If someone says, "Information wants to be free," do they mean, as the first reply to the parent of the above thread suggests, that information is an animate object with complex desires and a social life? LOL NO. Are the owner of the first reply and the moderators who gave him +2 insightful, pedantic shit heads? YES.

Don't like that analogy? Well tough. You and that dude are still wrong. Why? Because you are misplacing the denotation for the connotation. You probably don't understand the difference between the two if you still think it is some sort of logical fallacy to say, "Informaiton wants to be free."

This argument extends to other absurd applications of pedantic, semantic, bull-oney arguments.

---------------------------------

Tounge in Cheek

Now, what I need help with is the following: Who in that thread is being serious, and who is trying to be funny by appearing to be serious, and thus laughing at those who believe him to be serious?

Here's how I see it:
Thread starter--being funny, not trying to be serious
First reply--seriously pedantic with serious problems
First reply to the First reply--me, so I know I wasn't being serious, yet trying to appear serious while being absurd
All replies to me or my children--seriously pedantic with serious problems
Second reply to the first reply--serious, but stoneder than me?
Third reply to the first reply--seriously funny about being pedantic
Second reply--seriously funny, and rightly moderated so.

Am I on track here? Are there a lot of people here on /. who take themselves too seriously? Or was the first reply merely a joke on me, since I recognized it as a serious reply?

Can someone fill me in please?

So now there's a self-referential " FortKnox Inner Circle"??

That IS funny.

teheheheheheheheh

Suddenly, I feel no guilt or shame for being a chronic masturbater.

At least masturbation is OK and normal.

Which do you think is easier?

Convincing the population at large that the Enlightenment is dead, and Foucault was right

Or. . .

Getting someone(a daywalker, 9-5'er) who doesn't work 3rd shift to cover for you when you are really sick

Based on my experience, it would be easier to convince the general population that postmodernism has all the right answers.

--------------------------------------------
BTW, have you checked out Surak's latest journal? It would appear that he has lost, big time.

Don't you hate it when you dream "in computer"?

The other day, my girlfriend asked me about SVG, as in scalar vector graphics, and wanted to know what it was all about. Specifically, she wanted to know if SVG was some sort of "other" Flash type thing for the Web.

So I read all about it, well no ALL about it, but you know what I mean. So I told her that Flash basically was SVG for the web, and that SVG, in general, was a specification that one could build a program around to render other graphics, like chemical structures, etc.

Well, I was pissed off about scheduling issues at work. When I went to sleep after all that reading, I dreamed in XML. No plot, no events, just one XML file, that basically held all the data about what I was pissed off about.

I don't have vivid, memorable dreams very often, so I was quite disappointed with this one. Of all the possible things to dream about, I get an XML file. WTF??

Well, I'm banned again. Or my address/subnet is. Oh well. It only took me 2 days of crap flooding.

Why so down, you ask?

I've been in a band for the past 3 years and the drummer decided this weekend that he was done with the band. So done in fact, that he didn't feel it was necessary to inform the rest of us of that fact.

We've been brothers on the stage, putting things on the line in front of lots of people, and I'm not worth at least one form of mass communication, informing me of this. So fuck that, I say. I'm gonna crapflood /. while wasting time at work and try to get banned.

I learned some interesting things while trying to get banned.

This is funny

This is a troll

What do you think? I think it was the cheap shot at Mr. President, but I dunno or really care.

This thread in response to the funny comment mentioned above, is ACTUALLY funny. I'm the AC arguing about stolen concept. I actually got a few bites on that one. Heirarchal knowledge indeed.

Another thing I learned is that mods/editors don't like it when you give posts the subject:

Linux???

I have about 220 Simpsons episode in Real Media on my harddrive. They take up about 7.25 gigs. Some are unedited, some are syndicated. Only one has any commercials. I made a playlist for Real Player and put it on continuous, random play.

All I have to say is FUCK WATCHING TV!!!


-----------------------------------------------

My Other Tee-Shirt is Clean


-----------------------------------------------

Actually, I have several computers(maybe you assumed that?). I just love being able to play all those wonderful Simpsons episodes while fully hauling ass, working on another computer. So I'm not just sitting on my ass watching the Simpsons all day, if you got that impression.

If you feel like /.'ing my 433Mhz Celeron on ADSL from SBC, Click here.

This whole debate was quite disappointing. I was on vacation at the time, and I have a policy of not reading /. at home, only at work.(I have an addictive personality) Of course I knew the debate was going on while I was at home(I couldn't help but peek), but I was excited at the prospect of something interesting to read when I returned to work. So I waited until I returned to work to read the whole thing. That was a waste of time :(

The whole thing can be summarized as:

Non Twirlip Dittohead: But I wanna watch DVD's on Linux

Twirlip: But that's illegal so let's just drop it m'kay?

Twirlip Dittohead: Yeah, you tell 'em.

Then Twirlip decided to reduce the debate to an objectivist vs. reletavist debate, which just lead to more of the same.

I really thought all the viewpoints expressed were quite myopic. There was only one comment that scraped, though not very convincingly, what I think the issue is. I really don't think the issue is intellectual propery at all.

What is happening is a clash between 2 orthogonal components in the nature of computers, which jcast was I think trying to get at, though the point was cast aside by Twirlip.

The first component, the one most talked about, is the fact that computers* ARE consumer electronics. As such, content providers, whether they write software or publish DVD's, need a recourse to stop, deter, limit, whatever, piracy. They, computers and content, are all part of the same capitalist machinery and would not exist or continue to exist without incentive for self-interested individuals to innovate and create. Even if you hate M$ and don't use any of their products, their innovations and marketing are responsible for the widespread availability of hardware to run your alternative software on. Based on those observations, it is reasonable to conclude that content publishers deserve to continue publishing in an environment where the incentive to innovate and create exists.(Wheter or not the DMCA accomplishes that goal is irrelevant, it is definitely an attempt at that goal)

The second component, and what jcast was alluding to, is the fact that computers* ARE much more than their consumer electronics functionality. They are Turing machines. They are algorithms. They are programs. They are a class of problems. They are designed to do what ever I am clever enough to get them to do. Regardless of platform, I can compile C/C++, Java, Perl, Python, etc, and BAM!! the computer does my bidding. That is what it is supposed to do. That is the way computers ought to be. So why, oh why, would anyone, in their right mind, want to neuter a product designed to be the most configurable, flexible tool ever designed? IOW, I am more than willing to legitimately acquire(ie pay for) content, why can't I watch DVD's using DeCSS in the privacy of my own home, and why can't someone help me do it(through publishing the procedure on the web, etc)?

So, instead of a "property rights" problem, the problem is a new kind of device, never before seen in history, whose practical potential will always be greater than the limited consumer functionality they are marketed for.(That seems to imply that knowledge is the problem. Hmmm. . .)

I wish there had been more debate on the role computers should play in a consumer driven capitalism. I guess that I believe more good would come from the way computers ought to be rather than preserving they way content creaters currently create content. But what do I know. I'm just a dope smoking 3rd shift computer operator with a BS in CS and Math. Maybe I need to get into politics ;)


-------------------------------------
* By computers, I mean PC's. I know that there are other types of computers, but they aren't as widespread, as ubiquitous, as PC's. And they definitely aren't the source of all the piracy problems.

What the hell is the matter with these people? I wish I had some money so I could make stupid ass commercials. I would make a commercial where some dumbass "soccer" or whatever athletic type chick tells us about her anti-drug, and then bust in with Ron Jeremy, and have him give her a nice mushroom bruise. That would be some quality television. Manufacturing consent indeed. I would show my commercial right before Touched by an Angel. Is that show still on?

Smoking pot hasn't made me pregnant, nor anyone else I know. Having SEX got them pregnant. Duh!! And overly sheltered lives in the burbs where it's too taboo to discuss such a topic in the first place, not to mention CRIMINAL, is more of a hinderance than a helper in that kind of situation.

Now normally, I don't even notice the commercials during the Simpsons, but the latest one is so goddamn dramatic, it leaps out at me, and I almost drop my bong.

What a fucking downer man!! The youngest grandparents on the block??? Just kill it, if you have a problem with that shit. Isn't that the answer to Saddam?? If you can't kill it, cause of whatever wacked out delusions you call "principles" you may "believe" in(tehehe), then why are you so down about another human life coming in to this world? It should be a beautiful think. It's God's fucking will for christsake. Doesn't that mean anything to you?

I believe that "Mids," or "mid-grade" weed, does not exist. I think that "Mids" are the result of a greedy, lazy person involved somewhere up the supply stream. They do not purchase, or have, enough dope to make the return they were expecting, but the weed looks ok, so they just charge the hell out of it and say "fuckit."

I'm gonna buy that light soon. I made that promise to myself. I just wish that in the meantime, those fuckers would either sell the shit for what it is, schwag, or get some real sensi shit that is (well not really) "worth" the extra cash.

It's like, if you smoke kind all the time, most of the people you know only smoke kind. Here in Wisconsin, that effect is magnified. People here like being a kind of "every man" snob. Hence the beer inteligensia here. Don't get me wrong, people here also drink a lot of "The Beast," but a lot of people will only drink these obscure micro-micro-micro brews. Or Guiness. People here like to be snobish about shit like that. Shit like weed.

So what I'm saying is: If you're not so snobby about weed, and usually smoke kind buds out of circumstance, but would prefer to buy a $90 ounce and roll joints that $95 quarter that you can only smoke tiny little hitters of, and your supplier/buddy, who only smokes kind buds, is out of kind buds, he, sure as shit, is not going to buy "schwag" at a fair price. He's gonna stay as far away from anything even remotely "schwag" as he can. He's gonna buy "Mids" and make you pay $120 for a half that's obviously bricked and has, dun dun dun, seeds!!!

----------

I installed Mandrake 9 this weekend. I did it so I could try this shit out. But I haven't got around to it yet :\

The install was a breeze. Too bad they can't make more moola with their excellent free software.

--------------

Destroy the Violent People

Here

I'm not worthy.

I just saw The Two Towers with my girl friend, and she made a good point.

Couldn't they give Gollum more clothes?

Or, why did they give him such a huge package??

Kinda distracting. Especially since Frodo and Sam like to stare longingly into eachother's eyes during conversation. It just makes the scenes feel sorta, icky.

Otherwise I thought the movie was pretty dope. I'll see it again, and again. Hopefully Gollum's package will appear smaller on my TV.

-------------------------------------

BTW, what is up with Phish on /.???? The title is News for Nerds people. I mean, they're alright. I'm an ex-Phan. Anything before Hoist is cool. But why is this Nerdy news???

I love you guys.

Let's never fight again. OK?

People are hilarious.

I've been banned. Not that I take that very personally, /. is all about the entertainment value. Nor is it my first banning. It's just that WTF?

Yesterday, I had (s)excellent karma, a +1 bonus and life was good. I could anonymously harass whomever I wanted. Now, several of my comments have been modded down, from days ago, karma is just good, and I am banned from posting.

Oh well. I'll sit and wait. Trolling, like revenge, is a dish best served cold. I built my karma from bad to (s)excellent, and I'll do it again.

Not that I am an active troll. I like to engage in *real* political/philosophical/technical discussions. I also like to pretend that I think that "The Two Towers" should be renamed; because it's funny to watch people get mad about that.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA jokes are funny, and will be from here to eternity.

Well, I got my fix for this evening. I'm going to go read everything.

Alright kiddos-- I'm at a crossroads and I don't know what to do:

I'm at 69 posts dudes; dare I post any more? What to do, what to do?

-----------------------------------------