Comment by rayiner
12 years ago
Linux isn't a great example of scientific advancement, being a clone of UNIX. UNIX was the product of a commercial research lab. BSD was the product of an academic research lab. I'm not sure who you're referring to with radios and Xrays, but those were discovered in a very different time. A lot of those folks were professors and today would be doing funded work at universities.
The important advancements in the recent modern world haven't really been scientific in the traditional sense of "scientific advancement." The advancements of the last decade are more like engineering than pure scientific discovery. Under that definition, Linux certainly qualifies, because it's a major feat of engineering regardless of its roots in Unix.
Would you mind giving your thoughts on http://paulgraham.com/america.html ? Specifically, point #7:
If there are any laws regulating businesses, you can assume larval startups will break most of them, because they don't know what the laws are and don't have time to find out.
For example, many startups in America begin in places where it's not really legal to run a business. Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and Google were all run out of garages. Many more startups, including ours, were initially run out of apartments. If the laws against such things were actually enforced, most startups wouldn't happen.
That could be a problem in fussier countries. If Hewlett and Packard tried running an electronics company out of their garage in Switzerland, the old lady next door would report them to the municipal authorities.
The reason I responded the way I did is because you seem to be arguing for a docile population, which to anyone who has studied history is a recipe for disaster.
> Under that definition, Linux certainly qualifies, because it's a major feat of engineering regardless of its roots in Unix.
Linux is a very advanced piece of engineering today, but much of that development was done by professionals hired by companies like IBM and Google. Also, I wouldn't conflate "hacker culture" with open source generally. I'm sure there is a lot of overlap, but I imagine that there are plenty of open source hackers who didn't grow up breaking into peoples' computers.
> Would you mind giving your thoughts on http://paulgraham.com/america.html ? Specifically, point #7:
In law there is a distinction between offenses that are "malum prohibitum" (i.e. wrong because they are prohibited) and offenses that are "malum in se." (i.e. wrong because they are inherently wrong). Running a business out of your garage in violation of zoning is malum prohibitum. Infringing property rights have historically been considered malum in se.
Laws create social norms. The social norms surrounding private property are very stringent. I leave my door unlocked, because the social norm is such that most people would never even think of entering someone's house "just because the door was unlocked." The social norms on the internet are still in flux, but as it matures and people come to rely on it, they will move in the direction of being more like those in the real world. Boundaries in digital space will come to resemble boundaries in real space.
> The reason I responded the way I did is because you seem to be arguing for a docile population, which to anyone who has studied history is a recipe for disaster.
I don't see where you get "docile." Out in Texas, trespassing on someone's physical property can get you shot in the face. Nothing docile about it. Fortunately for hackers, this is not precedent in the digital realm.
"Boundaries in digital space will come to resemble boundaries in real space."
God I hope not!
There's very little reason that one should reflect the other.
5 replies →