Page 2 of 3

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:18 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Read the first part of Roja's sentence...;) He was remarking that greater compatibility enabled greater competition - hence greater productivity.

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:25 am
by Charles256
btw, whenever i call someone a communist I am not referring to this depth the OP is going..just for the record..i say it in joking :-D

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:51 am
by Roja
pilau wrote:I believe this is a false way of addressing the productivity "issue".
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.

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.

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:29 am
by pilau
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.
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: 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.
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.

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:10 am
by Gambler
It depends on which author you are referring to
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 was double (or even triple) entendre of a sort. First, there is a notion of communism-the-utopia from the USSR culture. Second, there there is a notion communism-the-nightmare from the US culture. Third, there is that e- prefix, which should signify a buzzword, highlighting the fact that the word afterwards is frequently used in porpaganda of various sorts.
This is actually spreading individualism not stunting it.
Yep, we need more individualism. We are in dire need of individualism mass-production and wholesale points.
Web 2.0 means embracing the web as a service.
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.

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:34 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Communism is a term much misunderstood by the majority of people. Could they tell the difference between Leninism and Marxism? Do they know the difference between Federalism and Republicanism? Does it really matter? ;)
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.
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).

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:42 am
by pilau
Gambler wrote:Yep, we need more individualism. We are in dire need of individualism mass-production and wholesale points.
What's individualism and why according to your opinion do we need it so much?

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:41 pm
by Gambler
What's individualism
I'm afraid, you'll have to figure that out for yourself.
and why according to your opinion do we need it so much?
My phrase about mass-production of individuality was merely a sarcasm.
From what I've read he pushes WEB 2.0 the business model
I'd say business model, lifestyle and mentality.
O'Reilly wrote:the wisdom of crowds
O'Reilly wrote:the collective power
O'Reilly wrote:Collective Intelligence

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:39 pm
by pilau
O'Reilly wrote:the wisdom of crowds
O'Reilly wrote:the collective power
O'Reilly wrote:Collective Intelligence
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.

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:14 pm
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Lol, there was an article on Digg.com recently where the author accused some other site of stealing Digg's CSS. The "wisdom of the crowds" as revealed in the comments was pretty damning. It took a few individuals to point out that the CSS had been copied through 3 different sites, enough that the accused and badly battered by the crowd website had no idea of the original CSS source.

There's a lesson in there about putting too much value on common public perception, and that extends to the blogworld too... Even in PHP circles there was the torrent of blog abuse aimed at Derrick Rethans (started by a John Lim blog, I think?).

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:37 pm
by Gambler
Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair.
BTW, Wikipedia is based on the similar assumption.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:44 pm
by Roja
Gambler wrote:
Its based on the flawed concept that men, given the chance, will be fair.
BTW, Wikipedia is based on the similar assumption.
Also incorrect.

Wikipedia has built-in multi-tiered moderation because, again, they acknowledge that there is noise, and not pure signal.

If they truly embraced that assumption, they wouldn't have moderation.

Re: Web 2.0 - eCommunism is coming

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:20 pm
by DeprecatedDiva
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.
8O I thought I was the only one who ever read that book.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:05 pm
by Gambler
This is off-topic, but what a heck...
If they truly embraced that assumption, they wouldn't have moderation.
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.

Also, I hate to be picky, but my exact words were "on the similar assumption". Use of the "similar" instead of "same" was intentional.
I thought I was the only one who ever read that book.
Whe I've read id, I've chosen it 100% randomly. Still wonder why Michael Swanwick is so... unknown.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:22 pm
by Roja
Gambler wrote:This is off-topic, but what a heck...
I shouldn't have replied.

We don't agree on even the most basic definitions, and (in my opinion) most of this thread is random attacks on a variety of concepts without any justification, reasoning or structure - just cheap one-liners. I think its unfortunate, as Web 2.0 is (to me) considerably different than you are making it out to be. As is Communism. As are a number of things you refer to.

I sincerely hope that if people care about any of the concepts in this thread (or even the original post), that they take the time to do some research online, and draw their own conclusions.

Perhaps later we can discuss Web 2.0 in a thread without the connotations the original post had.