do-acracy

Hi Denny,

Oh my gosh, I was doing such a quick back and forth with Mike Denny, that I missed that this Denny was our "first name" Denny. So sorry. However, happy you passed the test. BTW, I liked the different color hat analogy. Indeed, it is what one does with any talent that counts, not the talent itself.

Marcy

Congratulations, Denny!

I aspire to the hacker ethic, but don't have the skyllz to really call myself a gray or white hat hacker. I've rooted my Android phone, built some bitcoin mining rigs, and managed to get Netflix running under Ubuntu, but I don't write code, so haven't fallen down that rabbit hole yet.

I also have a technician's license, and my standard New Years Resolution is to get my general license within the next 12 months (a resolution I've made regularly for the last 2 years and have yet to fulfill).

Terry Floyd
KJ6RHJ

Thank you. I am not much of a coder either and have not used Linux for over ten years. I am certainly no Android expert either. I think in general it is not being afraid of breaking it. I am certainly not timid and if people can build it, people can take it apart and modify it. For people like us, something just is not yours until you have added a personal touch, mostly it is just an unending curiosity for how it all works. As far as the "hacker" ethic it is like the old Linux saying "free software, not free beer." It is funny that the GNU page talks about liberty. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html I think the problem is that as Libertarians we need information, we know that free markets will not work without transparency. The problem is this conflicts with intellectual property. It is hard for us to advocate force, even the freeing of information. But should it be unlawful for you to dismantle your own belonging and share the information gleaned with your peers? Even if it cost someone their competitive advantage? What about the reverse, say someone copy-writes your DNA? Or withholds information vital to your investment strategy? Ben Franklin did not believe in patents, he thought you should be paid for production. But does this stifle innovation? Or does free information make everyone better by allowing widespread collaboration?

Government monopolies for new innovation propels the profit motive to innovate. But it distorts the competitive landscape with racketeering. That's why patents expire. It would be interesting to do some computer modeling with different parameters to see how outcomes varied.

________________________________
From: denny <denny@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:57 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: do-acracy

Thank you. I am not much of a coder either and have not used Linux for over ten years. I am certainly no Android expert either. I think in general it is not being afraid of breaking it. I am certainly not timid and if people can build it, people can take it apart and modify it. For people like us, something just is not yours until you have added a personal touch, mostly it is just an unending curiosity for how it all works. As far as the "hacker" ethic it is like the old Linux saying "free software, not free beer." It is funny that the GNU page talks about liberty. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html I think the problem is that as Libertarians we need information, we know that free markets will not work without transparency. The problem is this conflicts with intellectual property. It is hard for us to advocate force, even the freeing of information. But should it be unlawful for you to dismantle your own belonging and share the information

gleaned with your peers? Even if it cost someone their competitive advantage? What about the reverse, say someone copy-writes your DNA? Or withholds information vital to your investment strategy? Ben Franklin did not believe in patents, he thought you should be paid for production. But does this stifle innovation? Or does free information make everyone better by allowing widespread collaboration?