"The Pirate's Dilemma" - free e-book

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

And if you read Stephenson's In The Beginning Was The Command Line, he makes a convincing argument that MS does not produce anything tangible either. (XBox excluded)

Can't convince me. I work as a developer writting apps that run on Windows. Our payroll product probably pays over 100,000 people every week. Tell those people getting those pay checks that the software which creates them isn't tangible.

If by tangible, you mean physical... well sure.

BOb

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Can't convince me. I work as a developer writting apps that run on Windows. Our payroll product probably pays over 100,000 people every week. Tell those people getting those pay checks that the software which creates them isn't tangible.

If by tangible, you mean physical... well sure.

BOb

Wouldn't even think of telling those 100.000 people what they create is not tangible! The logistics would be a nightmare!

But Neal Stephenson's article is available as a text file at the link I posted . And agree or not, it is an interesting discussion of computer OS's.

[Fitzwaryn]

Originally Posted by Adam B.

Because developing something for the betterment of humanity is the right thing to do?

That theory has been tried. It was called the Soviet Union. It was one of the most abysmal and tragic failures in the history of the world.

What has been shown to work is Capitalism where people work to better their own lives and those of their family by creating and producing what other people want.

The kind of Altruism you put forward when carried to its logical extreme is self-annihilation. Who is going to work to feed you, clothe you, build a house for you to live in?

In fact how dare you expect food when someone else needs it more than you do?

Clothes? Someone else needs them more.

A house to keep the rain off? Someone else needs it more than you do.

In fact when it comes down to it, everything you consume is something that someone, somewhere else in the world needs more than you do. Your very life is taking away from someone else what THEY need.

If you want to devote your life to the "betterment of humanity" then how dare you consume that which others need? By what right do you claim food and clothes and housing when others in the world are in need?


As I said, that philosophy... living for the "betterment of others" is specious at best and blatantly criminal at worst.


I personally AM a member of Humanity and feel that my needs and wants are as valid and meaningful as anyone else's and no one has the right to tell me that my desires, wants and needs are any less important than anyone else's.

But I also don't feel I have a "right" to anyone else's work, effort of property simply because I "need" them. If I want something, if I want to survive, live and prosper, it is up to me to produce goods or services of enough value to someone else to swap for the things I want and need.

The moment I decide that I have a "right" to what someone else creates because I "need" it, I become nothing more than any other brute with a stick throughout history who believe Might Make Right.

The moment YOU decide that person A has a "right" to the goods or services of person B because of "need" and you're willing to seize them for the "betterment of humanity" then you too become nothing more than another brute using force to get his/her own way.

Civilization was intended to end brute force animalism. I'd hate to see it brought back.

[sebastien]

Originally Posted by Adam B.

Because developing something for the betterment of humanity is the right thing to do?

Ok, so let's say I'm an organic chemist and I want to develop a drug to cure one of the many type of cancer (hundreds).

I investigate for a few months and theorize that this molecule is the one I need for that particular cancer.

First thing I need is a lab. So I transform my basement into a viable laboratory. How much do you think that cost? Go to your local University chemistry department and ask around... And even they don't have all it take to create cancer drugs.

Once that hurdle is passed. I start working on the molecule.

Eureka, after months of hard labor and countless dead end, I have microgramme of what I wanted .

Now I have to do some test on rats. Reality is that it won't work and I will have to create hundreds of different molecules to get one that will be active on the cancer.

Then again, let's say that I was lucky and found a molecule that works. I'm now at least 10 years older and I can cure a rat...

Now I need to move up to pigs and monkeys. Then... testing on human. How much money do you think it cost to do clinical testing?

Assuming that I have unlimited money and that I'm willing to invest it all into the endeavor. My chances are still really slim that the molecule will work on human.

Once again, I'm at least 5 years older. My molecule works and I have built a list of side effects.

Now I have to fill in the proper paper work to patent my molecule and get government approval to distribute it, even at 1$ a pill. Then I need to go to India or China and get a factory to mass produce the pills.

Reality is even worst than what I depicted. My wife is an organic chemist. She actualy worked at Bio-Chem Pharma, the company who made the 3TC (the HIV drugs). They were lucky, the drugs worked.

She now work in another bio-tech. 10 years into R&D, 30 chemists on pay roll, 20 bologists, etc and they only have 1 molecule in clinical testing. Private investor poured in hundreds of millions into the company and have yet nothing to show for.

I'm a programmer / sys-admin. My job is easy, I work with computer and my results are immediate. The worst that can happen is that I cause some downtime or that I brick a device. I believe in open-source and give as much as I can. But I respect the pharmaceutical industry and know that what they do is out of reach of the regular hobbyist.

[sebastien]

Originally Posted by pieter

Tell the millions of people in Africa that have Aids that a looooong time will be max 20 years. For them it might as well be 200 years, because they will be just as dead then.

Drug or no drug, many will be just as dead from war & gerillas. Then those who survives will have to contend with famines and religions. In the mean while, their goverment extract millions in black gold and diamant from their soil.

Keep in mind, the drugs don't cure the disease, it simply slows down the symptoms. You are still contagious and need to take the necessary precaution.

Education is key to solving the AIDS issue, not drugs. They need to be aware of the disease and change their sexual habits.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Well, I think we've gone far enough ...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Well, as I said, I've finished the book, and just thought I'd make a few comments about it (consider this my personal review):

To get right to the meat of it, the title throws you off... because this book is not really about the Pirate's dilemma, it's about Rebellion Against Authority. The book examines various recent movements, primarily driven by young people, that observed the status quo, decided unilaterally that they did not like it, and set out to enact change. The movements Mason discusses largely did not enact change from the inside--that is, through gradual change as a part of the system--rather, these groups espoused violent change, preferring to blow the barriers up rather than circumvent them.

What Mason's book does not provide is how these recent examples of rebellion are really any different than those rebellions of decades or even centuries back, or why they are particularly significant now. In every case, Mason illustrates how that movement, however radical or ground-breaking it was at its start, inevitably became folded back into Capitalism As We Know It, lost its status as Revolutionary, and ended up being merely Evolutionary... at best, a medium-sized asteroid that diverted evolution into a new direction, but one that was still within its original design and processes.

Reading between the lines, we find the implied question to the title, the real Pirate's Dilemma: What does the Pirate do when they are no longer Pirates? The implied answer: They become Capitalists, just like the rest of us... or they fade into oblivion. Pirates don't remain pirates... sooner or later, they conform, give up, or get discarded.

For me, I was disappointed that the book concentrated on elements like punk and hip-hop, but on the subject of literature, said virtually nothing. In fact, as the book centers on Capitalism, it all but ignores the independent artists of the very movements it lionizes... it reduces them to producers, addresses their art as little more than widgets (while celebrating the fact that their actual quality was of no importance), and dismisses petty concerns like artists getting fairly compensated for their Pirated works in a single sentence:

"Artists not getting paid for their work is a problem."

Overall, I got little out of this book, other than: That the Youth Movement At-Large does what it does largely because it is too automatically dismissive of its elders to try to learn and work within existing systems; the suggestion that an artist's work, at root, has no real value; and that Capitalism Endures, no matter what nonsense you throw at it.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Don't forget, many of the open-source developers make their living from companies that do pay them, and make a profit from their work. Many of those people, if not so employed, would not be developing open-source products... or their products would not benefit from the resources at their disposal, and therefore might be inferior to what they develop now.

By the way: Finished the book.

Open Source and "free" software is not about NOT making profit. You can, for example, sell any of the GNU software products, or even BSD, for any amount you want. People probably won't pay for it though<G>. Open source software is all about the consultants and programmers making money; this can happen without an "industrialist" like Bill Gates making life difficult for everyone by keeping source of the software hidden.

Open communications makes things better for everyone, and results in a better product....