B.I.O.S. to lock out non-Windows code ?

[JoeHill]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:48:31 -0400
"Hugh Reilly" <hughreilly1-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> uttered:

> I draw a distinction between capitalism and free enterprise. These
> things are not necessarily connected. 

Exactly, Capitalism tends toward monopoly, Free Enterprise doesn't
(necessarily). Even Adam Smith, the guy most Capitalists point to as
their philosophical God, warned:

 "neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest rank, nor the
greatest public services, protect [the legislator] from the most
infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from
real danger arising from the insolent outrage of furious and
disappointed monopolists."

He even *agreed* with Marx that:

"...a free competitive economy was in the public interest so long as the
competing sellers and buyers were individual persons. . ."

(Understanding the Antitrust Laws, by Jerrold Van Cise)

What we have now is not Capitalism as Smith envisioned it at all, it is
Corporate Capitalism, something that would have him spinning in his
grave, I believe.

> Capitalism often requires the  innovator to seek approval of the
> capitalist before innovation can happen. The Peter Principle being
> what it is, this aspect of capitalism puts a huge roadblock in the way
> of economic growth.

There are many examples of this, too. One is the Internal Combustion
Engine, which was obsolete many decades ago, yet persists to this day
because no one can possibly compete with the massive locus of power
surrounding its producers. I'm not talking about a big conspiracy here,
though there may in fact be one, it's simple economics. The mfgrs of the
ICE have a vested interest in *preventing* innovation, and the Corporate
Power to do so. Again, don't blame the Corp, defined as the people who
run it, but the tendencies of the system for which they work. Ford isn't
evil, the owners of Ford aren't evil, the system that *pushes Ford to
keep producing crap* is evil.

One exception to this: Steve Ballmer *is* evil. ;-)

> >BTW, can you point me to some evidence for this "flaw" in human
> >nature? I hear a lot about it from religious folk and from reading
> >too many elitist philosophers like Hobbes and Rousseau, but I've
> >never actually seen any concrete evidence.
> >
> >Seems to me that it ain't humans that are flawed, it's the system
> >they live under, but maybe I've got it backwards...
> 
> Well, humans are definitely flawed (at least, speaking for myself :),
> but having said that, lets acknowledge human nature and design our
> systems and institutions to make the most of it. Lots of our systems
> (including the money system) are functioning like improperly trimmed
> sails, and causing unnecessary suffering.
> 
> So the system is flawed. Let's fix it.

This is exactly my point. Humans are humans. To say they are flawed
implies there is some objective quality to compare that nature to which
is *not* flawed. As one of my Uni Profs once described it, Human Nature
is a "black box", it cannot be known and therefore cannot be modified,
however it can be, as you say, accounted for.

Or, as Tim Leary said:

"The only thing we know about insanity is that some people claim other
people have it."

-- 
JoeHill
Registered Linux user #282046
Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Life exists for no known purpose.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml