ot-no free lunch

[teddy mills]

I am not sure if Evan is correctly understanding what I am trying to
say.
I reviewed his comments, but I differ on his views of my original
message. 





On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 12:00 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> teddy mills wrote:
> 
> >That basically means as I understand it, anything that is free, or you
> >dont have to work for it, has no or very little value to you.
> >  
> >
> Basic Logic 101 states that if your premise is flawed, most conclusions 
> based on that premise will also be flawed. There are a lot of 
> assumptions here to be challenged; whether conventional wisdom or 
> spur-of-the-moment assertions, I agree with very little of what's been 
> put forward as a foundation for anything to debate.
> 
> There is a big difference between a statement being often true and being 
> a truism. It is a mistake to elevate one's own experiences into 
> universal constants.
> 
> >If you have 10 computers, getting or giving up a computer means very little to you.
> >
> If you have 10 computer users in your family, or if each serves a unique 
> purpose, losing one will certainly mean something.
> 
> >The DATA on the computer may mean a LOT to you because YOU HAD TO WORK, perhaps a lot, to get that DATA.
> >
> Then again, if a lot of it was downloaded from other sites, it's not 
> necessarily difficult to recover.
> 
> >A video store owner cares nothing about renting movies. He or she is sick of movies. He/she would rather read a good book.
> >  
> >
> Again, true in some cases, but not all. Some people *do* love what they 
> do and give value to it beyond the pay. As I went through journalism 
> school, I found that getting one's name in print or one's face on the 
> air would motivate people to work for far less than their market value. 
> Media outlets, of course, exploit this vanity.
> 
> As for the specific example, my son works part time at Blockbuster 
> _because_ he loves movies. He can rent 10 movies a week for free and 
> takes maximum advantage of the perk. His knowledge and ability to talk 
> about movies makes him more valuable to his employer, but he gets a 
> genuine thrill about recommending good stuff and keeping people away 
> from crap.
> 
> >Think of anything you have a lot of, or can get for free. Books at the library I dont care about. I can get them anytime! I care about them when they are on hold for me, because I went to the effort of searching, and then waiting, and making the trip to get the book on hold. I had to invest some work, even though the book itself was free.
> >  
> >
> I can't disagree more. I use the library because there are books I want 
> to read but don't need to own. The fact that I don't directly pay for 
> the borrowing privilege does not make the books themselves less 
> valuable. The last book I borrowed was a university textbook that was 
> only available as a $200 hardcover. The book has value to me, but so 
> does the library offer value to me by making the borrowing facility 
> available. The fact that the book was on the shelves and didn't needed 
> to be on hold does not make the book more or less valuable.
> 
> >This is what Linux is having a problem with the human reward/value system.
> >  
> >
> This only peripherally touches on Linux's problem with the human reward 
> value system. Indeed, I would suggest that this "problem" is one that 
> many other fields would covet.
> 
> >Is there a way to make people "invest" some time and effort so they can get their "book (ie. linux) for free, but now assign a great deal of value to it? *much like getting a free library book thats on hold ?)
> >  
> >
> Bad premise, bad conclusion.
> 
> Not only is there a way, but such way is in use. That way is what gave 
> you Linux and sendmail and so much else of what is in the open source world.
> 
> >We can download and install almost 300 different versions of Linux. For the cost of some time, and about $1 in CDs.
> >
> The value of such technology is not in simply amassing them, it's from 
> choosing one of those 300 versions, loading it on your computer, and 
> using it to accomplish something useful to you. There is no real value 
> realized until then (unless you have a first edition Yggdrasil CD to put 
> on eBay).
> 
> >You can give someone a deck of cards, but you cannot force them to be the Poker World Champion. They have to want to become the World poker champ.
> >
> Somewhere deeply buried here is an attempt to make some point about 
> scarcity of resources and the foundation for human incentives. Most of 
> these points have been made before, and debated at length, including the 
> very real difference between cost and value.
> 
> I'm not meaning to belittle Teddy's opinions, but I'm having a very hard 
> time finding something substantive with which to agree, disagree or debate.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> --
> 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

--
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