11–20 of 34 posts
That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).
>For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent. The open distribution of sustainable technology, knowledge and data provides the basis for an ecological and economical global economy. This secures the access to vital resources such as stable climate, soil or water for everyone in the long term. [[citation needed]]
Yeah, look I'm all for FLOSS, but I don't like this stating conjecture as fact nonsense that is the bread and butter of western elites and technocrats one bit. It poisons the well.
We think that the discussion should include everyone interested in this development, we need an improved way to create "open facts". To keep the scientific discussion and discoveries as open and transparent as possible, we propose to built an "open fact pipeline". As seen in the slides related to this list (slide 10, https://protontypes.eu/protontypes_open_sustainable_technolo...).
Proposed pipeline model: Open Models and Data -> Open Tools -> Open Execution and Server -> Open Results -> Open Discussion -> Open Science and Facts
What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money? That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).
What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money? That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).
Believe it or not, some communities do help others without exchanging money, even though it's not very common. To be of the view that free knowledge is worthless because things cost money is a dangerous view that basically says you need to have money in order to take advantage of free knowledge.
What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money? That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).
What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money? That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).
Knowledge is built by iterating on previous knowledge - having freely available knowledge around on how to build turbines or reactors makes it far more feasible to develop better versions of those existing designs. It's not just about the money involved in construction, albeit that could be a factor too.
What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money? That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).
Because not everything in all contexts costs "money". Plenty of people have built turbines (or even reactors!) by collecting parts they either come by, get gifted from others or build themselves. Believe it or not, some communities do help others without exchanging money, even though it's not very common. To be of the view that free knowledge is worthless because things cost money is a dangerous view that basically s…
- Those were not produced for free
> get gifted from others
- Others paid for those
> build themselves
- Out of free materials or without any need to buy food and pay bills?
> things cost money is a dangerous view
It's dangerous only to idealistic outlook where money is evil and not a mere heat carrier.
Now, banksters' interest-driven monetary system based on debt is evil, but that's another topic.
My advice would be to return to open standards not open implementations, to keep options going forward for future generations.
What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money? That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).
Wasn't this orange website supposed to be "Hackers" News?
>For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent. The open distribution of sustainable technology, knowledge and data provides the basis for an ecological and economical global economy. This secures the access to vital resources such as stable climate, soil or water for everyone in the long term. [[citation needed]]