Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chomsky on Intellectual Property

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–133 of 133 posts

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#131

Post by hasenj »

defen wrote: post #128
hasenj wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule is like: It's really really hard to make startups without the open-source Unix-based systems/tools

The point is that the phrase "exception that proves the rule" should only be used when talking about man-made rules and laws, not inductive hypotheses. You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis! Put another way, when used correctly, "the exception that proves the rule" is a valid rhetorical phrase regardless of how many exceptions there are. Whereas if there were 500 succes…

> You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis!

But you do. That's the point. It's not an absolute law. I'm sure you can find a great application written in Visual Basic. This doesn't make Visual Basic a great choice over Python.

If you could list 50+ successful startups running on Windows, then you could say there's a strong evidence.

And even then, this only proves that Windows is as good as Linux. It doesn't counter the original point about Linux being great despite not having a business model centered around IP.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#132

Post by defen »

hasenj wrote: post #131
defen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the phrase "exception that proves the rule" should only be used when talking about man-made rules and laws, not inductive hypotheses. You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis! Put another way, when used correctly, "the exception that proves the rule" is a valid rhetorical phrase regardless of how many exceptions there are. Whereas if there were 500 succes…

> You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis! But you do. That's the point. It's not an absolute law. I'm sure you can find a great application written in Visual Basic. This doesn't make Visual Basic a great choice over Python. If you could list 50+ successful startups running on Windows, then you could say there's a strong evidence. And even then, this only proves that Wind…

I completely agree with your overall point - that open source Unix-type tools are better for startups, and that Windows-based tools aren't a good fit. I was simply saying that you used a rhetorical phrase incorrectly.

Re: Chomsky on Intellectual Property

#133

Post by Tycho »

intended wrote: post #100
maxharris wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't laid out the first reason why I wouldn't be poisoned by a bottle of cough syrup from duane reade or why it should be on me vs the drug company to prove that their cough syrup is safe. No, just see the other comment right below: You should be free to do this yourself or to seek the advice of those you've chosen to trust on scientific (or any other) matters. As to your comment about the financial industry:…

Its pretty established that the financial firms doubled down on leverage and then blew up. A free market would have made things worse, faster and earlier. Nothing could save you from people who are lying to you, and have begun to believe their own horse . No amount of informational accuracy will help.

isn't this a contradiction in terms? in a bubble, 'earlier' equates to a smaller burst
Post reply on HN