Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Communism: Why Linux Will Fail

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 7:54

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-communism-failed/

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 8:00

Big proprietary enterprises exercing monopoly are communist. The free market of free software is capitalist.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 8:06

>>2
FSF too exercises monopoly. For example, it forbids choice of language:

http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Source-Language.html#Source-Language
>in general it is much better to use C, rather than the comparable alternatives.
>C has one advantage over other compiled languages: more people know C
>the best language to use is C. Using another language is like using a non-standard feature: it will cause trouble for users.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 8:10

>>3
And commies forced ukrainians to use their jewish language, because "using another language is like using a non-standard feature"

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 8:21

The problem is that the author does not recognize why Capitalism has failed.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 8:24

>>5
Because of too much state control?

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 8:38

>>3
Cool story bro.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 8:39

>>6
No. Because encourages competition instead of cooperation. And because has established the "religion" of the "invisible market hand".

Encouraging constant competition encourages permanent growth, and permanent growth is cancer.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 8:41

>>8
Encouraging constant competition encourages permanent growth, and permanent growth is cancer
Cool, man. So why aren't you living in the wilderness, then?

Name: 6 2011-10-17 9:24

>>9

This is old and posted too much, but is the valid answer for your comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 9:35

<------ dubz, check'em

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 9:35

>>10
gb2cave

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 16:40

>>10
It is old and extremely flawed. The "Exponential Function" does not take efficiency and prices into account. Take oil as an example. We're not going to run out, because as the supply of oil decreases, its supply will increase and people will either ration it or stop buying it and look for an alternative fuel.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 16:54

>>13
because as the supply of oil decreases, its supply will increase
The insect is preserved, perfectly. But you see, and here's the clever part, wouldn't the dinosaur blood be preserved as well?

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 18:17

>>14
As the supply of oil decreases, its price will increase, you knew what I meant nigger.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 18:48

>>15
As the supply of oil decreases, the levels of bootyassiousness being exerted by your bootyass johnson ultimatum supremacies will increase dramatically.
He just left.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 18:58

>>15
As the supply of oil decreases, its price will increase,
...increasing all dependent prices. And then comes the Third World War!

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 19:15

>>13
If you think that market prices are a good equalizer for natural resources... you are naive. Companies, moved by the desire of quick profit (and that is true, any accountant of finance manager can tell you that), will not stop increasing the price of actions.

The price will go down when is HARD to obtain a resource. Most of the time, when prodution is low, the speed of extraction increases. But price has no direct relation to the abundance of a resource, only the extraction capacity.

Market != Nature, no matter what ignorant economists (who think they know about ecology) says.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 19:18

But price has no direct relation to the abundance of a resource, only the extraction capacity.
That would be supply, genius.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 19:20

>>19
The "economic" supply is not the "real" supply

Name: 20 2011-10-17 19:24

>>20
That's because humans are not the only consumers of resources.

And, most of the time, when we see on the news "This resource will last 100 years", those 100 years are at the current rate of consumption. But keeping this rate of consumption is not economically viable, because of the fierce competition.

Is, literally, a bunch of fat people competing to see who becomes fatter first.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 19:25

>>21

So, all in all, capitalism has failed too.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 23:52

Reproduction cost for information/data is only as high as the storage medium cost (quite small depending on data size).

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-18 0:47

>>22
Reproduction cost for information/data is as high as the storage medium cost (prohibitive depending on data size).

What was that?

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-18 1:43

>>24
Your average application costs very little space on modern hard drives (1-2TB/100$, and most applications tend to be in the low dozen megabytes).

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-18 5:54

>>18
So basically you've just said "high supply results in high price, low supply results in low price". I can't stress enough how retarded you are.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-18 9:29

>>23,24,25
Not. Also, energy is needed to read the data. Much less than the used to create the original data, but still it must be accounted for.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/macroscope/chap4.html
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -