SOPA
-
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.