Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:18 am
Read the first part of Roja's sentence...
He was remarking that greater compatibility enabled greater competition - hence greater productivity.
A community of PHP developers offering assistance, advice, discussion, and friendship.
http://forums.devnetwork.net/
Thats why it has failed before being properly implemented - ever. Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair. While that may in fact be true for a majority of people (I don't know if thats true or not), there is usually a significant minority that won't be fair.pilau wrote:I believe this is a false way of addressing the productivity "issue".
Agreed. And as far as my experience with human kind goes there's a minority that will be fair, and a majority that will not.Roja wrote: (communism -) Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair. While that may in fact be true for a majority of people (I don't know if thats true or not), there is usually a significant minority that won't be fair.
I didn't say you were endorsing communism nor did & do I think this way. I was only stating my beliefs regarding communism. I even in some way emphasized what you said earlier. Sorry if I made it sound like I was arguing you.Roja wrote: I'm a huge supporter of the capatalist system, I wasn't endorsing communism. Quite the opposite, I was making clear that the OP had misunderstood communism, and as a result, was giving it far more credit than it deserved.
When people say "democracy", they usually do not refer to the political system of Athens or, say, works of Jeffeson. They mean democracy in general, mainly it's ideology. Same thing here.It depends on which author you are referring to
Yep, we need more individualism. We are in dire need of individualism mass-production and wholesale points.This is actually spreading individualism not stunting it.
I can use Google-the-service without the wise council of Mr. O'Reilly, thankyouverymuch. But he does not sell us Google-the-service, he markets Google-the-lifestyle. He pushes forward yet another paradigm shi(f)t.Web 2.0 means embracing the web as a service.
From what I've read he pushes WEB 2.0 the business model (in parts at least - the article seems a bit scattered, more a tasting of what's out there...) How is he pushing a lifestyle? There's an element there, but its not being pushed only referred to (I doubt O'Reilly pushed anyone into using GMail or Flickr).I can use Google-the-service without the wise council of Mr. O'Reilly, thankyouverymuch. But he does not sell us Google-the-service, he markets Google-the-lifestyle. He pushes forward yet another paradigm shi(f)t.
What's individualism and why according to your opinion do we need it so much?Gambler wrote:Yep, we need more individualism. We are in dire need of individualism mass-production and wholesale points.
I'm afraid, you'll have to figure that out for yourself.What's individualism
My phrase about mass-production of individuality was merely a sarcasm.and why according to your opinion do we need it so much?
I'd say business model, lifestyle and mentality.From what I've read he pushes WEB 2.0 the business model
O'Reilly wrote:the wisdom of crowds
O'Reilly wrote:the collective power
O'Reilly wrote:Collective Intelligence
O'Reilly wrote:the wisdom of crowds
O'Reilly wrote:the collective power
Ok, this O'Reilly guy is really talking smurf. "The wisdom of crowds", sheesh. The collective power is a dull power. It's a blind power, a stupid and blind power.O'Reilly wrote:Collective Intelligence
BTW, Wikipedia is based on the similar assumption.Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair.
Also incorrect.Gambler wrote:BTW, Wikipedia is based on the similar assumption.Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair.
Gambler wrote:http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly ... eb-20.html
This is scary. It reminds me of "Busimess @ the Speed of Thought", only this one is written by Tim O'Reilly, not Bill Gates.
Hey, since nobody gives a damn about things like individuality and personality, why don't we skip all those intruductory steps altogether? All we need to do is combine the minds of all humans into a single information matrix. (I hope my Vacuum Flowers reference will not be lost in vain.) Yeah, it's that simple.
Such reasoning could be applied to any kind of ideology that serves as a basis for some real-life social, political or economical system. "If they 'truly' embraced the idea of open market, there would be no laws governing trade whatsoever!" Yeah, right.If they truly embraced that assumption, they wouldn't have moderation.
Whe I've read id, I've chosen it 100% randomly. Still wonder why Michael Swanwick is so... unknown.I thought I was the only one who ever read that book.
I shouldn't have replied.Gambler wrote:This is off-topic, but what a heck...