3 ms·

1) Why would the world be a better place? What a nonsense question that has nothing to do with anything. I said: the consumers have more options. Personally, I

1) Why would the world be a better place? What a nonsense question that has nothing to do with anything. I said: the consumers have more options. Personally, I prefer the Kinect. So yes, I'm for diversity. 2) In a forum of "open source" people. What does this has to do with it? I find it baffling you don't see the difference. How do you earn your money? Work at a traditional company or did you create you own open-source product with donations? I'd be damned if you are one of the 0,01% here that earns all his income through open-source. I find it baffling you don't see the simple difference between software parents and IP ( without software). Fyi. You are not earning your money through open-source. Otherwise you would know that if not the golden life either. 3) Research should be public? Wtf? So every company should share everything? Wtf? How realistic is that??? Answer: it's not. It's never going to happen. Stop dreaming and come back to reality please. ---- In a lot of the responses here, I honestly think that I have to explain it to a 12-year old. Because they don't seem to grasp reality. Or trolls, or Chinese state sponsored propaganda. I really don't understand the low quality of responses, constant Whataboutism ! Unrelated responses). That baffles me at this moment.

0815test 8y ago
> Research should be public? > Wtf? So every company should share everything? > Wtf? How realistic is that??? That's not what "research should be public" means. It just means that the existing institutions which the public funds for research (universities and research labs) should have their remit expanded to include "private" R&D for public benefit; and that, additionally, the public sector should routinely buy out valuable private R&D, perhaps via formally-established "prizes" - instead of merely allowing it to be monopolized via IP protection. We spend a lot of tax money already to fund private R&D by firms, that could instead be directed to fund these mechanisms.
- NicoJuicy 8y ago
  We are talking about Samsung's research in the thread. Please don't change to subject to your liking. Private firms are mostly subsided by government for employment, not for their research
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
I believe strongly that privatization of so much we depend on is harmful. I think people are suffering because of this, making the situation urgent. I see that we can develop the technology we need all as open source. Funding is an important challenge but one I believe is possible to overcome. Look at Prusa Research and their all open source 3D printer with rave reviews. They’ve funded research, development, customer service, manufacturing, and worldwide promotional tours all with a machine that is open source. Why can’t we do that with medical equipment and computers and automobile and factory automation? In fact we could. And thus I strongly advocate that we invest great effort in this. I wish to withdraw as much as possible my support of a closed proprietary privatized system and put my daily efforts in to something open for everyone.
- NicoJuicy 8y ago
  Privatisation and open source are 2 different things. If you are against privatisation, great. Go to a communist country and prove it. Don't forget the 996 debacle or Jack Macs response to it. You only want open-source? Great. Quit your job and prove me wrong that your can get an income there. You know you won't do any of those both things. But probably you have an excuse. Great, then adjust to reality and stop believing in fairy tales. Adjust your opinion to something realistic. Open-source takes a long road to profitability, it's not that easy. And probably, because your designs are online, some lower-cost Chinese company will take it and produce it cheaper. Except, if you have build a big community around it, it will work out for them. But the chances are really small. Open-source always had an Enterprise/cloud option also to earn money. Currently, it's the only stable way ( donations are not a stable source of income) Now, we are going back in circles about what was the issue...
  - geofft 8y ago
    > You only want open-source? Great. Quit your job and prove me wrong that your can get an income there. Um, can't you also work at Red Hat or Mozilla or somewhere? Or even USDS or NASA? (Remember, OpenStack came out of a joint project between NASA and a for-profit company, and plenty of people in both organizations were paid to work on open-source full-time to make it happen....)
geofft 8y ago
1) If you do not think the legitimate purpose of laws is to make the world a better place and nothing else, we do not agree on fundamentals, and I see you as a dangerous enemy, someone who would be a dictator or oppressor if they could. Using the government's monopoly on violence to make you happier with no concern for the rest of society is an evil thing. Why is the legitimate purpose of laws to make you happier as a consumer?? What does that have to do with anything? (And, to the point I was originally making, why do you believe you wouldn't be even happier in the world I describe? You'd get a Kinect researched with awareness of what the Wii and Move tried and didn't, so it'd either be better or cheaper or perhaps both.) 2) Again, the legitimate purpose of government is not to preserve the way I make money, either. You're making the "Yet you participate in society!" argument. Yes, I do. The fact that I think a certain course of action is individually rational for me to preserve life and health does not mean I think the availability of that course, to the exclusion of other possible courses, is inherently good or worth preserving. But just so you know: I maintain systems infrastructure for a hedge fund, all based on open-source software (Debian, OpenStack, Ceph, etc.). The hedge fund operates on secrecy of market data and insights but not on secrecy of fundamental research (and also making e.g. Linux available to everyone makes everyone more productive, but making our ideas about alpha available to everyone makes the alpha go away). To be clear, working at a hedge fund does not mean that I think the existence of hedge funds is inherently good or that I am opposed to societies where hedge funds don't exist, any more than working at Blockbuster means you're opposed to Netflix existing. My work is all on things that would benefit the world more if they were public and would benefit my employer no less; it's just difficult to maintain a separation between publishable work and sensitive algorithms, so I don't do as much as I'd like. But I'd like to do more, and I've quite loudly disagreed with our internal policies on this, because I think I can do better for the world and for our company if allowed to be public about everything. And my work, in any case, is keeping them running, not creating new private ideas. The public knows how to create sandwiches, and yet Subway is profitable. And it is beyond clear that my company would be less profitable if open source software did not exist, or if we used a proprietary stack/vendor for everything. 3) Yes, it's realistic. You haven't presented an argument beyond "Nyeh, it's not," so I say, "Nyeh, is too."

0815test 8y ago

> Research should be public? > Wtf? So every company should share everything? > Wtf? How realistic is that??? That's not what "research should be public" means. It just means that the existing institutions which the public funds for research (universities and research labs) should have their remit expanded to include "private" R&D for public benefit; and that, additionally, the public sector should routinely buy out valuable private R&D, perhaps via formally-established "prizes" - instead of merely allowing it to be monopolized via IP protection. We spend a lot of tax money already to fund private R&D by firms, that could instead be directed to fund these mechanisms.

NicoJuicy 8y ago
We are talking about Samsung's research in the thread. Please don't change to subject to your liking. Private firms are mostly subsided by government for employment, not for their research

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

I believe strongly that privatization of so much we depend on is harmful. I think people are suffering because of this, making the situation urgent. I see that we can develop the technology we need all as open source. Funding is an important challenge but one I believe is possible to overcome. Look at Prusa Research and their all open source 3D printer with rave reviews. They’ve funded research, development, customer service, manufacturing, and worldwide promotional tours all with a machine that is open source. Why can’t we do that with medical equipment and computers and automobile and factory automation? In fact we could. And thus I strongly advocate that we invest great effort in this. I wish to withdraw as much as possible my support of a closed proprietary privatized system and put my daily efforts in to something open for everyone.

NicoJuicy 8y ago
Privatisation and open source are 2 different things. If you are against privatisation, great. Go to a communist country and prove it. Don't forget the 996 debacle or Jack Macs response to it. You only want open-source? Great. Quit your job and prove me wrong that your can get an income there. You know you won't do any of those both things. But probably you have an excuse. Great, then adjust to reality and stop believing in fairy tales. Adjust your opinion to something realistic. Open-source takes a long road to profitability, it's not that easy. And probably, because your designs are online, some lower-cost Chinese company will take it and produce it cheaper. Except, if you have build a big community around it, it will work out for them. But the chances are really small. Open-source always had an Enterprise/cloud option also to earn money. Currently, it's the only stable way ( donations are not a stable source of income) Now, we are going back in circles about what was the issue...
- geofft 8y ago
  > You only want open-source? Great. Quit your job and prove me wrong that your can get an income there. Um, can't you also work at Red Hat or Mozilla or somewhere? Or even USDS or NASA? (Remember, OpenStack came out of a joint project between NASA and a for-profit company, and plenty of people in both organizations were paid to work on open-source full-time to make it happen....)

geofft 8y ago

1) If you do not think the legitimate purpose of laws is to make the world a better place and nothing else, we do not agree on fundamentals, and I see you as a dangerous enemy, someone who would be a dictator or oppressor if they could. Using the government's monopoly on violence to make you happier with no concern for the rest of society is an evil thing. Why is the legitimate purpose of laws to make you happier as a consumer?? What does that have to do with anything? (And, to the point I was originally making, why do you believe you wouldn't be even happier in the world I describe? You'd get a Kinect researched with awareness of what the Wii and Move tried and didn't, so it'd either be better or cheaper or perhaps both.) 2) Again, the legitimate purpose of government is not to preserve the way I make money, either. You're making the "Yet you participate in society!" argument. Yes, I do. The fact that I think a certain course of action is individually rational for me to preserve life and health does not mean I think the availability of that course, to the exclusion of other possible courses, is inherently good or worth preserving. But just so you know: I maintain systems infrastructure for a hedge fund, all based on open-source software (Debian, OpenStack, Ceph, etc.). The hedge fund operates on secrecy of market data and insights but not on secrecy of fundamental research (and also making e.g. Linux available to everyone makes everyone more productive, but making our ideas about alpha available to everyone makes the alpha go away). To be clear, working at a hedge fund does not mean that I think the existence of hedge funds is inherently good or that I am opposed to societies where hedge funds don't exist, any more than working at Blockbuster means you're opposed to Netflix existing. My work is all on things that would benefit the world more if they were public and would benefit my employer no less; it's just difficult to maintain a separation between publishable work and sensitive algorithms, so I don't do as much as I'd like. But I'd like to do more, and I've quite loudly disagreed with our internal policies on this, because I think I can do better for the world and for our company if allowed to be public about everything. And my work, in any case, is keeping them running, not creating new private ideas. The public knows how to create sandwiches, and yet Subway is profitable. And it is beyond clear that my company would be less profitable if open source software did not exist, or if we used a proprietary stack/vendor for everything. 3) Yes, it's realistic. You haven't presented an argument beyond "Nyeh, it's not," so I say, "Nyeh, is too."