Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 495

That distinction is entirely within the realm of people who have resources to allocate to start with. If you don't, you don't get a chance to be either a good investor or a bad investor; you don't get to invest at all, because anything 'allocated' to you must immediately be spent servicing unavoidable debts (like rent or mortgage interest) to others who then get to spend it again on someone who will just have to pay it right back to another capital owner.

Comment Not sticky: ethically obvious (Score 2) 195

That's a stickier problem in electronics because of drm and other various anti piracy measures. At what point does an antipiracy device become a hinderance to repair?

From the point where it is actually implemented, onwards.

Which is higher priority?

The rights of people who have done no wrong are (okay, should be) higher priority.

Ideally, create fair laws that describe the bounds of legitimate behavior. Punish people who break these laws. Don't do things to people who are not breaking the law that prevent them from doing legitimate things based on the idea that someone, somewhere, might break the law.

The problem with DRM (Digital Rights Management) as it is presently constituted, is that the only rights that are being managed are those of the publishers. The rights of the consumer are being roundly trampled. It's appalling, really.

Comment Broken business models? (Score 1) 195

A business model that needs laws to prop it up is broken.

Copyright and Rights Licensing

Upon which the GPL is based, as well as just about the entire entertainment industry. It's difficult to imagine a studio spending tens or hundreds of millions on a production based on the hope that no one would copy and distribute the resulting product without seeing to it that they were compensated.


Upon which the drug industry, chip industry, etc., is based.

While these mechanisms are clearly not optimum, they do seem to benefit society in general. Certainly they are strong supporting factors for progress in the fields that they act as rights bulwarks for.

I really don't see that business models based on associated laws are inherently broken. Would you care to elaborate on your position?

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 495

In a slave economy, the masters own their servants directly.

In a feudal economy, the lords own the land the servants live and work on, and the servants are free... to choose which lord they will serve in exchange for the land to live and work on.... or to not work, and not live, if they prefer.

In a capitalist economy, the capitalists own different kinds of capital besides land and the servants can mix and match whose capital they work on and whose capital they live on and try to pair it up so some of their masters^W lords^W capitalists pay enough for work to cancel out what the others charge to live.

What most people today call "communism" is just state capitalism, where there is only one master/lord/capitalist that owns all the various kinds capital and for whom everyone works and by whom everyone lives: the state.

It's all just degrees of abstraction away from slavery unless you own all the capital you need to live on and work with yourself; and by the time you're there, it's an easy step further to get some poor schmuck to work it for you in exchange for borrowing what he needs to live, and then you are part of the problem yourself, an effective slavemaster with your first servant.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling