[oclug] [canadian internet concerns] long post (you'vebeen warned)

[Mark Harrison (Groups)]

Peter T. wrote:

> 1. I am not critical of Geists wealth you misunderstood me because I 
> did not place my comment in context as below: Geist can not see 
> through everyone's eyes which if you know law is required. 


No, but no-one can. Good decisions can only be reached by consensus. The 
hope of democracy is that most people know enough about a subject to 
make good decisions. It has proved a relatively efficient way (at least, 
compared to the alternatives that have been tried) to have a small 
number of people state strong opinions, provide their reasoning, and let 
the rest of the people weigh up what they have heard.

> Law does not discriminate it rules everyone the rules apply to rich 
> and poor alike. I was only talking about his inability to see what 
> policy might be created to benefit the poor as well as the rich. 
> Ultimately we need equal benefits. 

Equal benefits? Or equal opportunity? You can't have equal opportunity 
AND rewards for outstanding performance AND equal benefits to everyone. 
Under the capitalist system, the "rich" hold a high proportion of the 
wealth, under the communist system the "executive" do - in both cases 
there is uneven distribution, simply because there is not enough of 
ANYTHING to ensure that everyone gets what they _want_ - hence some 
assesment has to be made of what they "need" or what they "deserve".

> My main example is the paying of poor artist's royalties which most 
> seem to ignore in this IP landgrab talk. Please don't tell me the 
> middle men take it all because this is not always the case.

Absolutely. What the Internet was "supposed" to do was ensure a level 
playing field - aka "equal opportunity" to everyone, and reduce the 
barriers to entry.

>
> 2. by participation we have rights. Please if you can't see the 
> cruelness and baselessness of not respecting the USER then how can you 
> honestly build things for them in good faith. 

I don't believe that that was being argued. There is a difference 
between a user having a "right" to choose whether or not they use a 
piece of software - and to be armed with the access to the information 
to make an informed decision... and between the user having the "right" 
to demand changes in a particular application.

> We should be building in security form the beginning. We should be 
> designing useful computers not computers that merely produce revenue 
> streams. Not that revenue streams(the rich) should be penialised but 
> they should not be supported or encouraged as a given. I think open 
> source promises useful software for other uses than just making a buck.

Indeed. Open Source has, over many decades, delivered a high-quality 
solution. However, what some (many?) closed-source providers have done 
is provided an alternative that is viable and adequate, and marketed it 
sufficiently well to make people believe that it is the best solution.

> 3. Arrogance in science and engineering does not have to remain a 
> feature of these fields.

In my experience, most scientists and engineers are normally humble, and 
keen to learn more, and enjoy the process of discovering the truth more 
than they enjoy the process of arguing a particular point of view. The 
"arrogance" is far more a feature of the marketeers than the scientists.

However, there is much to be applauded in the desire to acheive great 
things in any field. Whether that is winning a meal at the Olympic or 
Paralympic games, or writing music, or writing code, or selling product, 
or providing an excellent service....

... it's a fine line between the desire to be "outstanding" at what you 
do, and being arrogant with it.

Oh - and I'm a programmer turned Marketeer :-) Make of that what you 
will :-)

Mark