Web siteI think he's kind of hit the nail o nthe head here... http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=3
      – Thelevellers, 2010-12-04 at 10:04:25   (13 comments)

On 2010-12-04 at 10:07:08, Thelevellers wrote...
But not necessarily in the way he wanted to. He has actually just made me realise why filesharing is always going to be problematic in a capitalist world. Until we actually have replicators to provide food, people are going to see that others sharing their hard work without paying them is depriving them of money, which they need to survive. Unless enough people make the connection between buying what they like after using sharing as a sampling system, filesharing is always going to be problematic.
On 2010-12-06 at 10:44:24, Lee J Haywood wrote...
We already have 'replicators' - they're just called rapid prototyping machines, or 3D printers, and they're a bit limited at the moment. Once someone gets the idea of selling them to the public and making money that way, a lot of products will be made by people at home and put some factories out of business. In theory. As for IP the technology has changed things, yes, but the defence is to either severely limit access or sell a service rather than a product. For example, make money from supporting free software rather than selling the software itself. Business models always have to reflect the current world.
On 2010-12-31 at 18:36:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
Where there is no financial incentive there is only mediocrity. Why would I spend thousands of dollars, which would probably be millions in today's dollars, and months of my time, to invent a light bulb, when clearly, candles work just fine. Turn off your electricity, you will fast become a believer.
On 2011-01-09 at 00:13:14, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: The lightbulb is a good example actually - as that was a scientific development, a fine example of a group of people who do exactly that kind of thing because they are interested, not for money. And candles plainly don;t work just fine - I have lived without electricity for extended periods (my parents are off grid, and only recently got regular power sorted at all) and candles are shite.
On 2011-01-09 at 00:16:22, Thelevellers wrote...
There is a key incentive you have ignored: human curiosity. An awful lot (most?) of the major scientific discoveries in the 18th and 19th centuries were by people who never profited from their ideas, often weren't even recognised for them until years after their death. The only reason you think we NEED financial incentives is because that's how the world has been indoctrinated by the corporations to ensure their continuation. (I only really used that cause I'm bored of your 'left wing media indoctrination' line - there's always been plenty of right wing media)
On 2011-01-09 at 16:09:25, DigitalBoss wrote...
Human curiosity isn't enough to spend thousands of hours and thousands of dollars, there needs to be a profit incentive. Do you think Thomas Edison invented the incandescent bulb because he was curious? No, he was looking for the best reason for the average citizen to need his electricity. Profit motive. I am glad that you got my point about candles.
On 2011-01-09 at 22:07:55, Thelevellers wrote...
Clearly we are confused over each others candle points - my point was that they clearly don't work just fine, so it makes perfect sense to me that someone would spend a lot of time trying to invent a better form of lighting, regardless of how much they might make out of it. If I was better at such things, or at least had a workshop to tinker about in (one day!) I would totally mess about out of curiosity. Yeah, if I found something cool I would TRY and sell it, you may as well. But that wouldn't be the driving force. Like with my music making, it'd be great if other people liked it and paid me for it, but I'm happy just doing it for me. I'm going to have to re-read some of the book I'm part way through for some good examples of people doing stuff just cause they can now... I can think of at least one Victorian era classic mad scientist that invented loads of things years before anyone else, but refused to share them with other people. It wasn't until after his death that some one discovered it all.
On 2011-01-10 at 00:56:27, Baslisks wrote...
I have one of those 3d printers and they are still way from layman use. It breaks quite frequently but it is an awesome tool to have. Once you have it working it just works and makes everything in your house into an object you control and design and produce.
On 2011-01-10 at 17:12:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Could you have tried 1000 different types of filaments just tinkering on your own? Do you have a glass blowing shed?
On 2011-01-10 at 17:17:56, DigitalBoss wrote...
Edison's experiments took over 2 years; he had assistants that needed to be paid. Do you have a vacuum pump? Edison did not just "get lucky", there was a large investment of time and money involved.
On 2011-01-15 at 02:21:13, Baslisks wrote...
@DigitalBoss: give me a week and some fuck up money and I can build myself a glass blowing shed... probably. TO THE HACKERSPACE!
On 2011-01-15 at 02:28:42, Baslisks wrote...
@Baslisks: I may have a furnace myself that I could rig for glass blowing now that I think of it.
On 2011-01-15 at 11:07:04, Thelevellers wrote...
Well, glass blowing can be done, 1,000s of different filament types can be done too. Granted, without enough money it would take me more like 10 years, without the assistants, but that's not impossible. I don't believe I said he got lucky? Yeah, so my approach sounds more luck based, but that's cause I'm like that - not very single minded, so would probably end up with a couple of different projects... The first vacuum pumps weren't vast technological devices, so again, that could probably be made. It certainly could with the use of a bike pump or two! The tech isn't ridiculous, a bit of a headache to get right, but there's lots of time if you want to use it for such things...