SOPA
-
loctrice wrote:
I should not have to provide you with links. It is a fact that starvation is not recorded most of the time, only malnutrition.
You said exactly "...could starve to death," I responded to THAT. Not what you thought you said but exactly that. Inflated claims of malnutrition do NOT prove deaths from starvation. None of your links show any such thing in the US. Two of links don't even have anything to do with the US. As an example you provided one link, which had nothing to do with the US that stated "Every year 15 million children die of hunger". It is EXACTLY that sort of statistic that I am asking you to provide for the US. How MANY children die of hunger in the US every year? How MANY adults die of hunger in the US every year? Let me assure you that there are such deaths. But as I stated they are very rare and are caused by things other then availability of food.
loctrice wrote:
It would be interesting to see how it would have grown and what uses we would have found for it had it been free, as intended.
Excluding fantasy land the answer to that is obvious - it would have grown very little. It would have had almost zero impact on the standard consumer because the standard consumer would not have access to it. It would still be very limited. Matter of fact the new
loctrice wrote:
Then you should be able to provide links.
IBM screwed up. They should not have allowed an open ended contract with Microsoft. It was Microsofts ability to run on computers besides IBM that drove PC computer prices down and created a huge competitive market that needed innovation to market against other competitors. http://inventors.about.com/od/computersoftware/a/Putting-Microsoft-On-The-Map.htm[^]
loctrice wrote:
but I thought this was a sporting/fun debate?
To the best of my ability I do not do things that are not fun. Posting to forums is entirely optional on my part so my emotional state always ranges from the intrigued/amused to outright laughter.
jschell wrote:
To the best of my ability I do not do things that are not fun.
Posting to forums is entirely optional on my part so my emotional state always ranges from the intrigued/amused to outright laughter.I thought that was the case. I just wanted to make sure we were still just debating. Sometimes it's hard to tell, especially in a text based environment. Couple that with the fact that this thread is in the back room, and you never now what you could get. Now lets go over some of our conversation thus far:
loctrice wrote:
I think information should be free
This was obviously an opinion, which is what started the conversation off in the first place.
loctrice wrote:
Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies.
spurred this comment:
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money.
Which is not relevant to me, because Edision did not create electricity. Tesla specifically intended electricity to be free. In the same post we had this:
jschell wrote:
The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it.
Which does not change the fact that I think it should be free (opinion) or that it was intended to be free Also in the same post:
jschell wrote:
Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
Which I don't see as relevant. It's in argument against my opinion, and the origional intent. It also asks for something tangible, which I also don't think "holds weight" because at this point we are still talking about things that are not tangible. I made this statement:
loctrice wrote:
The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your k
-
jschell wrote:
To the best of my ability I do not do things that are not fun.
Posting to forums is entirely optional on my part so my emotional state always ranges from the intrigued/amused to outright laughter.I thought that was the case. I just wanted to make sure we were still just debating. Sometimes it's hard to tell, especially in a text based environment. Couple that with the fact that this thread is in the back room, and you never now what you could get. Now lets go over some of our conversation thus far:
loctrice wrote:
I think information should be free
This was obviously an opinion, which is what started the conversation off in the first place.
loctrice wrote:
Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies.
spurred this comment:
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money.
Which is not relevant to me, because Edision did not create electricity. Tesla specifically intended electricity to be free. In the same post we had this:
jschell wrote:
The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it.
Which does not change the fact that I think it should be free (opinion) or that it was intended to be free Also in the same post:
jschell wrote:
Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
Which I don't see as relevant. It's in argument against my opinion, and the origional intent. It also asks for something tangible, which I also don't think "holds weight" because at this point we are still talking about things that are not tangible. I made this statement:
loctrice wrote:
The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your k
loctrice wrote:
Which is all well and good, but we are not talking about the system that is in place now. I specifically referenced the origional intent
of electricity. This is regardless of how it is now.Simple then...neither electricity nor the internet would have the same impact now if either of them had been 'free' (or whatever utopian ideals you are claiming existing during their inception) as based on what they were like then.
loctrice wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what I said. And it's only part of what I said, and the keyword in that is "could".
And they "could" be beamed up by aliens as well. But in the US people don't starve to death.
loctrice wrote:
negates your own statement.
Nope. You provided a context of some other country where people are free to graze on farmers fields and then used that to drive an analogy about what you think happens in the US. We were not discussing slavery, child rearing practices, war, health issues or any of number of possibilities that "could" lead to actual starvation deaths somewhere in the world. We were discussing the availability of food and nothing else. And unlike the US there are places in the world where many people die of starvation because of that. Doesn't happen in the US.
loctrice wrote:
None of this has changed my opinion, nor has it changed the origional intent of the creators of these technologies.
Information should be free. Electricity was intended to be free, and so was the internet.First Information != electricity/internet. Second, my original point which your long analysis ignored was exactly that. The internet is a medium, it isn't itself information. Third it it the commericialization of electricity and the internet that has pushed them to their present form. Without that they would not exist as the do now. And the is especially true of the internet.
-
loctrice wrote:
Which is all well and good, but we are not talking about the system that is in place now. I specifically referenced the origional intent
of electricity. This is regardless of how it is now.Simple then...neither electricity nor the internet would have the same impact now if either of them had been 'free' (or whatever utopian ideals you are claiming existing during their inception) as based on what they were like then.
loctrice wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what I said. And it's only part of what I said, and the keyword in that is "could".
And they "could" be beamed up by aliens as well. But in the US people don't starve to death.
loctrice wrote:
negates your own statement.
Nope. You provided a context of some other country where people are free to graze on farmers fields and then used that to drive an analogy about what you think happens in the US. We were not discussing slavery, child rearing practices, war, health issues or any of number of possibilities that "could" lead to actual starvation deaths somewhere in the world. We were discussing the availability of food and nothing else. And unlike the US there are places in the world where many people die of starvation because of that. Doesn't happen in the US.
loctrice wrote:
None of this has changed my opinion, nor has it changed the origional intent of the creators of these technologies.
Information should be free. Electricity was intended to be free, and so was the internet.First Information != electricity/internet. Second, my original point which your long analysis ignored was exactly that. The internet is a medium, it isn't itself information. Third it it the commericialization of electricity and the internet that has pushed them to their present form. Without that they would not exist as the do now. And the is especially true of the internet.
I don't believe that is the case. If electricity were to be available to everyone , and wireless at that, I believe it would be much more advanced than it is today. It's likely that our technology would also be more advanced. The same is true with the internet. I doubt you have experienced having difficulty coming by something to eat. Because I have, I can see how possible it would be. Perhaps changing this to 'go hungry' would be a better way to state it. I don't personally care if there are recorded statistics about people actually starving to death in the US, I happen to know first hand how it is possible and common for people to go hungry for long periods of time. (this can cause permanent organ damage, btw). Statistics or not, I have experienced it and seen it first hand so I know that it is true. If you provided sound links proving the opposite, because I have had the experience myself, I would still have the same opinion on the matter. A link[^] A link[^] "Infrequency" and "not recorded" does fall under 'could'. It's even more possible then getting hit in the head by an alien, or whatever the phrase was.
-
I don't believe that is the case. If electricity were to be available to everyone , and wireless at that, I believe it would be much more advanced than it is today. It's likely that our technology would also be more advanced. The same is true with the internet. I doubt you have experienced having difficulty coming by something to eat. Because I have, I can see how possible it would be. Perhaps changing this to 'go hungry' would be a better way to state it. I don't personally care if there are recorded statistics about people actually starving to death in the US, I happen to know first hand how it is possible and common for people to go hungry for long periods of time. (this can cause permanent organ damage, btw). Statistics or not, I have experienced it and seen it first hand so I know that it is true. If you provided sound links proving the opposite, because I have had the experience myself, I would still have the same opinion on the matter. A link[^] A link[^] "Infrequency" and "not recorded" does fall under 'could'. It's even more possible then getting hit in the head by an alien, or whatever the phrase was.
loctrice wrote:
I doubt you have experienced having difficulty coming by something to eat. Because I have, I can see how possible it would be.
Then your experience with commercial markets is far different than mine. After reading many historical accounts and having worked for some companies that have had a significant impact on certian sectors the driving factor was market values and not good intentions.
loctrice wrote:
Because I have, I can see how possible it would be.
Which doesn't alter the fact that if it was measurable then you could find a link that reported it.
loctrice wrote:
I don't personally care if there are recorded statistics.
My point stands - people do not starve to death in the US specifically and solely due to a lack of food.
loctrice wrote:
If you provided sound links proving the opposite,
Proving a negative if not outright impossible is excessively difficult. It would require that I investigate every death in the US. It isn't going to happen. And I can note that I DID look for evidence to support your claim when you first made it. I didn't find any and you didn't find any either.
loctrice wrote:
"Infrequency" and "not recorded" does fall under 'could'.
I am quite aware that some people choose to stop eating. And that parents abuse children. There are also medical reasons (not mental) that likely lead to it as well. However that has nothing to do with the availability of food. And you claimed that that was the cause. It isn't. It is caused by other things. And one of the links that you provided says exactly that. Second it needs to be statistically significant. But at this point I would even except any non-significant envidence.
-
loctrice wrote:
I doubt you have experienced having difficulty coming by something to eat. Because I have, I can see how possible it would be.
Then your experience with commercial markets is far different than mine. After reading many historical accounts and having worked for some companies that have had a significant impact on certian sectors the driving factor was market values and not good intentions.
loctrice wrote:
Because I have, I can see how possible it would be.
Which doesn't alter the fact that if it was measurable then you could find a link that reported it.
loctrice wrote:
I don't personally care if there are recorded statistics.
My point stands - people do not starve to death in the US specifically and solely due to a lack of food.
loctrice wrote:
If you provided sound links proving the opposite,
Proving a negative if not outright impossible is excessively difficult. It would require that I investigate every death in the US. It isn't going to happen. And I can note that I DID look for evidence to support your claim when you first made it. I didn't find any and you didn't find any either.
loctrice wrote:
"Infrequency" and "not recorded" does fall under 'could'.
I am quite aware that some people choose to stop eating. And that parents abuse children. There are also medical reasons (not mental) that likely lead to it as well. However that has nothing to do with the availability of food. And you claimed that that was the cause. It isn't. It is caused by other things. And one of the links that you provided says exactly that. Second it needs to be statistically significant. But at this point I would even except any non-significant envidence.
There isn't anything you can say to change my mind about it. Hunger IS a problem in the US. The fact that you don't want to believe it, doesn't change that. You are lucky enough to not have experienced being homeless and hungry, and I hope that you don't have to. Yes, there are programs. Single people, for many of them, don't get past the application, Shelters fill up, kitches run out (and fill up), and people call the cops (and worse) on the homeless. If you have never been homeless, lived in your car because you had to, ate food out of the trash, or gone more than three days at a time regularly without eating, then I really have nothing else to say on the matter except: Ignorance is bliss. -- edit -- I should have split these up more. After reading I noticed that it looks like a single reply. The section under this edit is separate. It shouldn't be considered as part of the section above -- end edit-- Saying that technologies would have gone nowhere if they were not commercialized is just an opinion. We have no idea what would have happened had electricity been made freely available as planned. Same goes for the internet... It was already growing before it was commercialized. No way to know what would have happened had it not been. Of coarse, on the other side, because people expect great products without paying for anything things have changed a good deal as well. We rely on commercial companies to fund these things, though most of us don't know it. Things like the popular facebook are not free to run. I'm not saying we don't need commercial companies. I understand the need for them. I'm not trying to put off a utopia or anything either. I'm saying, facebook does run without charging users. Things like clean drinking water, electricity, etc have become a necessity. These things should not be run by commercial companies. I don't think the internet should cost as much as it does for the general public, if anything at all. I myself have a business line through my ISP. I don't mind that it costs as much as it does, as I've opted for a business line. What I mind is that a friend of mine is paying nearly the same amount to get his internet, and it's not even very good. Also, knowledge is power. Culture, art, math, books, computer programming, engineering, basic improvements in any field, etc.. We all put it out there for whoever can benefit from it. No one should have less of a chance at getting to it than anyone else. The internet is a powerful thing, and
-
There isn't anything you can say to change my mind about it. Hunger IS a problem in the US. The fact that you don't want to believe it, doesn't change that. You are lucky enough to not have experienced being homeless and hungry, and I hope that you don't have to. Yes, there are programs. Single people, for many of them, don't get past the application, Shelters fill up, kitches run out (and fill up), and people call the cops (and worse) on the homeless. If you have never been homeless, lived in your car because you had to, ate food out of the trash, or gone more than three days at a time regularly without eating, then I really have nothing else to say on the matter except: Ignorance is bliss. -- edit -- I should have split these up more. After reading I noticed that it looks like a single reply. The section under this edit is separate. It shouldn't be considered as part of the section above -- end edit-- Saying that technologies would have gone nowhere if they were not commercialized is just an opinion. We have no idea what would have happened had electricity been made freely available as planned. Same goes for the internet... It was already growing before it was commercialized. No way to know what would have happened had it not been. Of coarse, on the other side, because people expect great products without paying for anything things have changed a good deal as well. We rely on commercial companies to fund these things, though most of us don't know it. Things like the popular facebook are not free to run. I'm not saying we don't need commercial companies. I understand the need for them. I'm not trying to put off a utopia or anything either. I'm saying, facebook does run without charging users. Things like clean drinking water, electricity, etc have become a necessity. These things should not be run by commercial companies. I don't think the internet should cost as much as it does for the general public, if anything at all. I myself have a business line through my ISP. I don't mind that it costs as much as it does, as I've opted for a business line. What I mind is that a friend of mine is paying nearly the same amount to get his internet, and it's not even very good. Also, knowledge is power. Culture, art, math, books, computer programming, engineering, basic improvements in any field, etc.. We all put it out there for whoever can benefit from it. No one should have less of a chance at getting to it than anyone else. The internet is a powerful thing, and
loctrice wrote:
Hunger IS a problem in the US
I agree that that is not only possible but likely. Perhaps not significant but it can occur. But there is a big difference between that and claiming that people starve to death because food is not available.
loctrice wrote:
Ignorance is bliss.
...because you didn't read what I said and put your own spin on it? ...because I realize that being hungry does not automatically lead to death?
loctrice wrote:
Saying that technologies would have gone nowhere if they were not commercialized is just an opinion.
Yet there is a vast number of examples that demonstrate that commercialization leads to improvement. I asked for you to provide even one counter example and you didn't.
loctrice wrote:
Things like clean drinking water, electricity, etc have become a necessity. These things should not be run by commercial companies. I don't think the internet should cost as much as it does for the general public, if anything at all.
That opinion has nothing to do with anything that I said. My point is that the improvements that exist now, and which seem so ideal, came about because the original idea was commercialized. Socializing any resource will drastically slow down improvements because there is no incentive for improvements. You need only to sit in any US government office that caters to the public to see how incredibly behind it is. And many foreign countries are vastly worse.
loctrice wrote:
Also, knowledge is power. Culture, art, math, books, computer programming, engineering, basic improvements in any field, etc.. We all put it out there for whoever can benefit from it.
Already said that is false. Everything you explicitly stated, even art, is almost always produced with commercial restraints on it.
loctrice wrote:
The internet is a powerful thing, and I think everyone should have it and have access to that knowledge, even if they are poor. Yes people charge for books. No big deal, others give information away for free. I just downloaded a pdf that was intended to be free, and encouraged to share by the author. I found that book on the internet, because I have the internet
-
loctrice wrote:
Hunger IS a problem in the US
I agree that that is not only possible but likely. Perhaps not significant but it can occur. But there is a big difference between that and claiming that people starve to death because food is not available.
loctrice wrote:
Ignorance is bliss.
...because you didn't read what I said and put your own spin on it? ...because I realize that being hungry does not automatically lead to death?
loctrice wrote:
Saying that technologies would have gone nowhere if they were not commercialized is just an opinion.
Yet there is a vast number of examples that demonstrate that commercialization leads to improvement. I asked for you to provide even one counter example and you didn't.
loctrice wrote:
Things like clean drinking water, electricity, etc have become a necessity. These things should not be run by commercial companies. I don't think the internet should cost as much as it does for the general public, if anything at all.
That opinion has nothing to do with anything that I said. My point is that the improvements that exist now, and which seem so ideal, came about because the original idea was commercialized. Socializing any resource will drastically slow down improvements because there is no incentive for improvements. You need only to sit in any US government office that caters to the public to see how incredibly behind it is. And many foreign countries are vastly worse.
loctrice wrote:
Also, knowledge is power. Culture, art, math, books, computer programming, engineering, basic improvements in any field, etc.. We all put it out there for whoever can benefit from it.
Already said that is false. Everything you explicitly stated, even art, is almost always produced with commercial restraints on it.
loctrice wrote:
The internet is a powerful thing, and I think everyone should have it and have access to that knowledge, even if they are poor. Yes people charge for books. No big deal, others give information away for free. I just downloaded a pdf that was intended to be free, and encouraged to share by the author. I found that book on the internet, because I have the internet
jschell wrote:
I asked for you to provide even one counter example and you didn't.
Firefox,Any of the free indie games,Desura,Facebook,wikipedia, Linux, Libre Office, Gimp, Haxe (and many other programming languages,platforms,libraries,etc) , gnome, kde, lxde, xfce, pidgin, thunderbird, and pretty much any open source product under any of the popular open source licensing.
jschell wrote:
Everything you explicitly stated, even art, is almost always produced with commercial restraints on it.
I have gotten sprites and media files from people who produced them with the intent of giving them away freely. I have several books that were written with the same intent. Making money is not the only reason to create art. Much of the art you don't see is because of commercialism (which the internet is progressively changing).
-
loctrice wrote:
Hunger IS a problem in the US
I agree that that is not only possible but likely. Perhaps not significant but it can occur. But there is a big difference between that and claiming that people starve to death because food is not available.
loctrice wrote:
Ignorance is bliss.
...because you didn't read what I said and put your own spin on it? ...because I realize that being hungry does not automatically lead to death?
loctrice wrote:
Saying that technologies would have gone nowhere if they were not commercialized is just an opinion.
Yet there is a vast number of examples that demonstrate that commercialization leads to improvement. I asked for you to provide even one counter example and you didn't.
loctrice wrote:
Things like clean drinking water, electricity, etc have become a necessity. These things should not be run by commercial companies. I don't think the internet should cost as much as it does for the general public, if anything at all.
That opinion has nothing to do with anything that I said. My point is that the improvements that exist now, and which seem so ideal, came about because the original idea was commercialized. Socializing any resource will drastically slow down improvements because there is no incentive for improvements. You need only to sit in any US government office that caters to the public to see how incredibly behind it is. And many foreign countries are vastly worse.
loctrice wrote:
Also, knowledge is power. Culture, art, math, books, computer programming, engineering, basic improvements in any field, etc.. We all put it out there for whoever can benefit from it.
Already said that is false. Everything you explicitly stated, even art, is almost always produced with commercial restraints on it.
loctrice wrote:
The internet is a powerful thing, and I think everyone should have it and have access to that knowledge, even if they are poor. Yes people charge for books. No big deal, others give information away for free. I just downloaded a pdf that was intended to be free, and encouraged to share by the author. I found that book on the internet, because I have the internet
jschell wrote:
However then there would be no incentive for companies to encourage invention because an individual company could not reap any benefit from it.
False. I could tell you why, but that wouldn't help, you'll just continue your capitalist trolling.
-
jschell wrote:
I asked for you to provide even one counter example and you didn't.
Firefox,Any of the free indie games,Desura,Facebook,wikipedia, Linux, Libre Office, Gimp, Haxe (and many other programming languages,platforms,libraries,etc) , gnome, kde, lxde, xfce, pidgin, thunderbird, and pretty much any open source product under any of the popular open source licensing.
jschell wrote:
Everything you explicitly stated, even art, is almost always produced with commercial restraints on it.
I have gotten sprites and media files from people who produced them with the intent of giving them away freely. I have several books that were written with the same intent. Making money is not the only reason to create art. Much of the art you don't see is because of commercialism (which the internet is progressively changing).
loctrice wrote:
Firefox
Sigh...wrong. The Mozilla Firefox project was created by Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross as an experimental branch of the Mozilla project. The Mozilla project was created in 1998 with the release of the Netscape browser suite source code. I suggest you do your own research on what Netscape is. You should also investigate the context in which contributors to firefox are doing it 1. On their own time 2. Without making money from it. Certainly Firefox addins have many commercial contributors.
loctrice wrote:
Any of the free indie games [etc]
I would guess that you did zero research for your claims so I am certainly not going to do it. I can certainly see others in your list which either started commercially or had a very strong commercial backing.
loctrice wrote:
I have gotten sprites and media files from people who produced them with the intent of giving them away freely.
I suggest you use a dictionary to look up the word "almost" which is in my statement. You might also want to investigate the history of your claims as well since often 'free' versions of anything originated from the desire to create a free version of a commercial product.
-
jschell wrote:
However then there would be no incentive for companies to encourage invention because an individual company could not reap any benefit from it.
False. I could tell you why, but that wouldn't help, you'll just continue your capitalist trolling.
harold aptroot wrote:
False. I could tell you why, but that wouldn't help, you'll just continue your capitalist trolling.
True. I need not explain why but merely point to the very vast number of examples of companies doing just that. And projects that are cancelled because they are not making money as well.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
False. I could tell you why, but that wouldn't help, you'll just continue your capitalist trolling.
True. I need not explain why but merely point to the very vast number of examples of companies doing just that. And projects that are cancelled because they are not making money as well.
-
loctrice wrote:
Firefox
Sigh...wrong. The Mozilla Firefox project was created by Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross as an experimental branch of the Mozilla project. The Mozilla project was created in 1998 with the release of the Netscape browser suite source code. I suggest you do your own research on what Netscape is. You should also investigate the context in which contributors to firefox are doing it 1. On their own time 2. Without making money from it. Certainly Firefox addins have many commercial contributors.
loctrice wrote:
Any of the free indie games [etc]
I would guess that you did zero research for your claims so I am certainly not going to do it. I can certainly see others in your list which either started commercially or had a very strong commercial backing.
loctrice wrote:
I have gotten sprites and media files from people who produced them with the intent of giving them away freely.
I suggest you use a dictionary to look up the word "almost" which is in my statement. You might also want to investigate the history of your claims as well since often 'free' versions of anything originated from the desire to create a free version of a commercial product.
jschell wrote:
Sigh...wrong.
The Mozilla Firefox project was created by Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross as an experimental branch of the Mozilla project.
The Mozilla project was created in 1998 with the release of the Netscape browser suite source code.
I suggest you do your own research on what Netscape is.Really?Netscape came from NCSA Mosaic, and the guys who wrote it. You could say Firefox puts it back where it started. I use chrome and firefox both. I can get the source code for either, and if I want I can use it to make something else. I can view it all and see how they did it, so that I can use those ideas to try to make my own (even if it's a commercial one). I certainly think both are better than IE, and so do many others. ( IE is a commercial product, btw).
jschell wrote:
Certainly Firefox addins have many commercial contributors.
That does not matter, they can contribute the same way others do. Either with money to help an idea they support, or code. It still remains open though.
jschell wrote:
I would guess that you did zero research for your claims so I am certainly not going to do it. I can certainly see others in your list which either started commercially or had a very strong commercial backing.
I use everything I listed. How many of those products do you have experience with? I even use some of the open source stuff to make money on myself :P "Very strong commercial backing" does not change that it is not a commercial product.
jschell wrote:
suggest you use a dictionary to look up the word "almost"
You mean like "could" or "I think" or "origional intent" ?
jschell wrote:
You might also want to investigate the history of your claims as well since often 'free' versions of anything originated from the desire to create a free version of a commercial product.
You mean like the Netscape thing? I think you'll find that most of those commercial products came from a desire to make money of something that was free/open. Again, duplicating the functionality of something has many sources. It could be just to see if it could be done, it could be because you aren't happy with the commercial version, it could be because othe
-
jschell wrote:
Sigh...wrong.
The Mozilla Firefox project was created by Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross as an experimental branch of the Mozilla project.
The Mozilla project was created in 1998 with the release of the Netscape browser suite source code.
I suggest you do your own research on what Netscape is.Really?Netscape came from NCSA Mosaic, and the guys who wrote it. You could say Firefox puts it back where it started. I use chrome and firefox both. I can get the source code for either, and if I want I can use it to make something else. I can view it all and see how they did it, so that I can use those ideas to try to make my own (even if it's a commercial one). I certainly think both are better than IE, and so do many others. ( IE is a commercial product, btw).
jschell wrote:
Certainly Firefox addins have many commercial contributors.
That does not matter, they can contribute the same way others do. Either with money to help an idea they support, or code. It still remains open though.
jschell wrote:
I would guess that you did zero research for your claims so I am certainly not going to do it. I can certainly see others in your list which either started commercially or had a very strong commercial backing.
I use everything I listed. How many of those products do you have experience with? I even use some of the open source stuff to make money on myself :P "Very strong commercial backing" does not change that it is not a commercial product.
jschell wrote:
suggest you use a dictionary to look up the word "almost"
You mean like "could" or "I think" or "origional intent" ?
jschell wrote:
You might also want to investigate the history of your claims as well since often 'free' versions of anything originated from the desire to create a free version of a commercial product.
You mean like the Netscape thing? I think you'll find that most of those commercial products came from a desire to make money of something that was free/open. Again, duplicating the functionality of something has many sources. It could be just to see if it could be done, it could be because you aren't happy with the commercial version, it could be because othe
loctrice wrote:
Really?Netscape came from NCSA Mosaic, and the guys who wrote it. You could say Firefox puts it back where it started.
And I could say that fire was invented without any attempt to commercialize it and from that it follows that computers, programming and netscape follows as well.
loctrice wrote:
I use chrome and firefox both. I can get the source code for either, and if I want I can use it to make something else....I certainly think both are better than IE
Excellent. Now if only that had anything at all to do with this discussion.
loctrice wrote:
That does not matter, they can contribute the same way others do. Either with money to help an idea they support, or code. It still remains open though.
Based on this comment and your previous one I can only suppose that you didn't bother reading any of the posts in this sub-chain or that you badly misunderstood what I have been saying in many posts. To be clear that statement has NOTHING to do with this discussion.
loctrice wrote:
...does not change that it is not a commercial product.
Yep, obviously you don't understand the discussion.
loctrice wrote:
You mean like the Netscape thing? I think you'll find that most of those commercial products came from a desire to make money of something that was free/open
Wrong.
loctrice wrote:
I use the open source stuff, am thankful for it, believe in it, and I am part of the open source community. The fact that we think differently does not surprise me.
And do you understand how much companies subsidized that? Given your claims of vast experience tell me exactly where do you think that the ANSI C and C++ standards come from? Where do the leading names in Perl work? Where to the leading names in UML work? What sort of contributions are made to ITEF, Apache, linux by companies? Exactly who manages Java JEE JBoss? Who owns MySQL? Where does Chrome come from? How does ICANN work?
-
jschell wrote:
doing just that.
(emphasis mine) "that" does not refer to anything here, unless they are also "capitalist trolling"
-
loctrice wrote:
Really?Netscape came from NCSA Mosaic, and the guys who wrote it. You could say Firefox puts it back where it started.
And I could say that fire was invented without any attempt to commercialize it and from that it follows that computers, programming and netscape follows as well.
loctrice wrote:
I use chrome and firefox both. I can get the source code for either, and if I want I can use it to make something else....I certainly think both are better than IE
Excellent. Now if only that had anything at all to do with this discussion.
loctrice wrote:
That does not matter, they can contribute the same way others do. Either with money to help an idea they support, or code. It still remains open though.
Based on this comment and your previous one I can only suppose that you didn't bother reading any of the posts in this sub-chain or that you badly misunderstood what I have been saying in many posts. To be clear that statement has NOTHING to do with this discussion.
loctrice wrote:
...does not change that it is not a commercial product.
Yep, obviously you don't understand the discussion.
loctrice wrote:
You mean like the Netscape thing? I think you'll find that most of those commercial products came from a desire to make money of something that was free/open
Wrong.
loctrice wrote:
I use the open source stuff, am thankful for it, believe in it, and I am part of the open source community. The fact that we think differently does not surprise me.
And do you understand how much companies subsidized that? Given your claims of vast experience tell me exactly where do you think that the ANSI C and C++ standards come from? Where do the leading names in Perl work? Where to the leading names in UML work? What sort of contributions are made to ITEF, Apache, linux by companies? Exactly who manages Java JEE JBoss? Who owns MySQL? Where does Chrome come from? How does ICANN work?
I can see you have no interest in actually debating.. or at least not in a way that progresses the conversation. You just want to prove someone wrong... more like a political debate. It's not about getting your idea heard, and explaining it a way that someone who doesn't agree with you would understand. It's about trying to make them agree with you. While you have been careful to pick apart anything I have said to try and expand on my thoughts or convey reasons I might think the way I do. You say things like "that has nothing to do with the conversation", "nope", "wrong" , and snide comments about another dimension. Those sort of remarks do nothing in constructive conversation except convey that you are not willing to listen, only to talk. Meanwhile very little you have said goes toward expanding on your own thoughts, or the reasons for those thoughts. It's been an interesting conversation. But here you win. I forfeit.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
(emphasis mine)
"that" does not refer to anything here, unless they are also "capitalist trolling"The vast number of examples of companies that have commercialized ideas and vastly improved them all in the name of making a buck.
Of course they have. And they will continue to do so under "no IP law". If they don't, they will be selling the same crap as some other guy, but slightly worse and slightly more expensive, because the other guy did innovate a bit. And history shows that too, or do you think there was no commercial innovation before IP law?
-
I can see you have no interest in actually debating.. or at least not in a way that progresses the conversation. You just want to prove someone wrong... more like a political debate. It's not about getting your idea heard, and explaining it a way that someone who doesn't agree with you would understand. It's about trying to make them agree with you. While you have been careful to pick apart anything I have said to try and expand on my thoughts or convey reasons I might think the way I do. You say things like "that has nothing to do with the conversation", "nope", "wrong" , and snide comments about another dimension. Those sort of remarks do nothing in constructive conversation except convey that you are not willing to listen, only to talk. Meanwhile very little you have said goes toward expanding on your own thoughts, or the reasons for those thoughts. It's been an interesting conversation. But here you win. I forfeit.
loctrice wrote:
It's not about getting your idea heard, and explaining it a way that someone who doesn't agree with you would understand.
As I said your points seemed to have nothing to do with the thread that you were posting to. No more so than if you had started a conversation about bull riding.
-
Of course they have. And they will continue to do so under "no IP law". If they don't, they will be selling the same crap as some other guy, but slightly worse and slightly more expensive, because the other guy did innovate a bit. And history shows that too, or do you think there was no commercial innovation before IP law?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Of course they have. And they will continue to do so under "no IP law".
I can only suppose that you didn't read the sub thread before responding. The comment you first quoted had nothing to to with PIPA/SOPA.
And SOPA has nothing to do with IP law. Ok maybe a little, as that's what SOPA hides behind. edit: ok seriously though, why is SOPA suddenly involved? I thought the thread had degraded to the usual "we need patents otherwise no one will innovate"-debate, which as noted is based on pure speculation and the ignoring of historic facts.