in the above hypothetical case you wouldn't be better off. you'd be out of a job. so would lots and lots of programmers. where do you suggest we make our living? your problem is one of perspective. i don't know how you make your living, but its plain to see that plenty of others' career choices are dumb in your mind. i believe your argument was "4 peeps can fit in a tercel". notwithstanding the "particularly if they are children caveat", that simply is never true. yes we can fit in a tercel, but are we comfortable? can we sit upright or are we forced to slouch and injure our necks? i was really talking about the utility, communications, and internet service provider market.
"people will lose their jobs" is not a justification that their job should exist. maybe they should, maybe they shouldnt, but that is a different question. i think we can safely assuem that the open source software means a smaller market for non-free software, which means a few less jobs for people writing software to sell. but that is not a problem. it sometimes can be hard to make money doing something that other people are doing for free, thats just the way the world works. do you complain when people use free software and tell them to pay their hard-earned money so some programmer can keep their job? of course not. again, i think maybe you should testify in front of congress, "keep oil prices low, i am too big for a tercel, and therefore action must be taken". in fact i think you should bring a chart that shows a scale drawing of a small car, then point at your long legs and shake your head. if you can afford gas, buy it, if not, too bad, find a solution. live closer to work, carpool, drive less. i bet you can come up with something. personally i dont like to listen to anyone complain about gas prices if they do not own a motorcycle. there is no problem with oil prices. and almost any solution the government would come up with to fix this non-problem would make things worse. what sort of policies do you favor? hey that is super.
this above salient argument is way different from the insane "i advocate stealing of software". if oss wins on features, stability, and security, which forces microsoft out of business, great. i don't think it should be because every single installed copy of vista was obtained illegaly. what i repeatedly stated was that a) alternative fuel and vehicles are nigh impossible to come by at this time, b) hybrids are priced out of the affordable range, and c) i believe the oil companies and their moolah are responsible for this happening. something needs to be done about it. this is another one of those perspective problems. refusing to accept their lobby money would be a start. setting mandatory deadlines for alternative fuel vehicles and gas stations would be another. thanks for asking!!!!
i guess you abandoned your "what about their jobs" argument. i dont advocate going to people and taking things from them. i advocate the rights of people to share information in their brains and on their hard drives. i dont see any real serious negative consequences from this the way there is from traditional stealing. hybrids are not the only option. i mentioned a few others, like driving less, carpooling, a smaller car. but you dont want small car, you want to be comfortable for the price you choose. something needs to be done about your comfort! i dont think it is my right to use the government to force my will on others because i refuse to buy smaller car or motorcycle. i dont feel like that is the proper use for government. if i want an alternative vehicle or gas station, i should do it myself. who are these mandatory deadlines imposed upon? oil companies? you dont think they have a right to sell oil without you forcing them to also sell what you want them to sell the way you want them to? you should use the government to go and force your will on people because you like big cars? the government isnt there to protect you from the inconvenience of cramping your legs in a honda. one of the main problems with this country is people attempting the use the collective force of the government to get their whims instead of solving their problems themselves.
Then you must be thrilled with Blanco and the Louisiana legislature on passing an ethanol bill. Just don't complain when it'll cost you more than regular gasoline.
Yep, and don't whine when your car runs like crap either. Ethanol is not the solution.....not even a short-term solution. It takes gasoline to make ethanol, virtually wiping out any gains from the 15% gas drop in the fuel.
"what about their jobs" is valid when you talk about how non-free software should be stolen freely because information wants to be free. ms and their employees have an obligation to ensure their product remains desired in the market by bringing features and support that free software doesn't have. when that stops happening they are in trouble. no point in hashing this around any more. the only thing i said i wanted the government to do 1) was stop the oil companies from preventing those private individuals from pursuing alternatives and 2) establish guidelines and deadlines and subsidies to help startups produce and develop alternative fuels to, yunno, remove our dependence on those arab *******s. this doesn't mean exxon should be forced to develop or sell them . it's not about me and what I want, it's about what is best for the country. also, i only mentioned ethanol when i pointed out that even for those american vehicles that do support it, it isn't being marketed very well if at all right now.
but are we in trouble? what do i care about the natural evolution of the economy? some businesses are viable and sell scarce things, others are not. i have to repeat it because because it is important to understand that information is not scarce in the same sense that tangible goods are, and therefore "stealing" is a poor word to describe free information exchange. you said they were paying people off to not develop alternatives. if that is true, it will be hard to stop them. plus i dont like violating people's rights to pay each other for things. if i am gonna develop a nice alternative energy, but exxon offers me 10 million to stop, i should be able to accept it. and if this happens, that will only speed the flow of people trying to develop alternative that either actually work or get a payment to stop. and exxon would get tired of paying soon enough. who exactly are we imposing these guidelines and "deadlines" on? who are we forcing to do our bidding? how do "deadlines" help startups? also i dont want to give my money to alternative energy guys. why not let me invest directly instead of forcibly taking my money from me to invest in what the government thinks is a good idea? yunno this stuff isnt free just because the government pays for it. why not skip the government and pay for it yourself? that way you can share in the profits. you do not want these new energy companies being so tightly tied to the government, thats part of the problem we have now. stop involving the government in everything and we won't need more government solutions. it seems like we are whining that the government is in bed with the oil industry, and proposing the government gets in bed with the alternatives. why not keep em separate? everyone says that when they are trying to manipulate everyone else. they know what is best for the rest of us. i say leave everyone else alone and mind your business.
