I could care less about what "those who really know what they're talking about" think about me.
Good; we think you're a wanker.
people who can't defend their own viewpoints and consistantly resort to ad hominem attacks
You'd have had a good time with Socrates, Dr Johnson, Schopenhauer, Jeremy Bentham and Karl Marx then.
Perhaps you need to reconsider what making an assertion entails.
Perhaps you need to reconsider what "not essential to my argument" entails.
While you've got your reconsidering hat on, you also might want to have a go at "monetary value". In the real world, Windows is worth several billion, because it is scarce. In your hypothetical world, it's worth ninety-nine per cent of fuck-all. Joe "can resell it", for an epsilon more than the cost of media, because at any other price, someone undercuts him. Therefore, when considering whether to invest a hundred million in developing Windows 2010, Joe's going to remember that he's not going to be able to recoup the cost. Hence he's not going to do it, or he's going to do it in his spare time, sllooooowly.
Either government can subsidize what it chooses to or not. It might make sense to sometimes subsidize a company like Microsoft, just like in some cases it makes sense to subsidize a Free Software project as in the case of the NSA doing work on making a secure variant of Linux
And all Microsoft is doing is saying that, in the general case, it doesn't usually make sense to subsidise something that's going to be released under the GPL. That's not hypocrisy, any more than it's hypocritical to say that while you have the right to eat nothing but baked beans, having a bit of taost with them will make you fart less.
Generally speaking, I restrict my assertions to those areas of which I am knowledgable
I take it, then, that your participation in this thread is at an end; indeed I'm surprised it didn't end long ago.
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]