Its funny that companies get the DMCA to protect their 'DNA' with all kind of protections on digital locks. But for humans its 'fuck you, you scatter it everywhere, no protections for it." So Sony can toss a ton of bullshit onto the market, do whatever they want with hardware they dont own and then when someone breaks it they cry foul. Couldnt the same argument be made that Sony scattered its keys everywhere for people to find? Not trying to turn this into a rant against Sony, i just find it ironic that we offer more protections to company's digital locks then we do for our private DNA code.
There is almost absolutely no circumstance where Sony could be legally ordered to give up its keys.
This is quite possibly one of the dumbest statements ever. "Hey Columbus, no more boats for you until every king's subject is a free man...."
Exploring space is worth FAR more then wasting money on people who should either do for themsleves or die out. Exploring space > wasting money on a worthless human that cant even take care of itself. We have BILLIONS of humans and we recklessesly encourage EVERY human to make more.
Consider space exploration the mother of all insurance policies. It is absolutely imperative that we learn how to live off this rock for the survival of the species. There is no debate on this. At SOME point we HAVE to get off this rock. Armageddon literally could be tomorrow or several billion years from now.
I used to find Toms a valuable resource but their site is so advertising laden now i wont go back. Was looking up a video card yesterday and EVERY TIME i changed pages i got a full-page interstitial ad. Not to mention all the keyword hover over BS and side bars full of ads too. I get it that websites cost money to run but that site is literally drowning in ads.
Imagine that, using a company's own search function returns results favorable to that company. Im shocked, SHOCKED i tell you. They may have 90% of the market but its still not a monopoly because there is PLENTY of choice to go around. Bing and Yahoo are completely viable competitors, enough so that calling google an illegal monopoly on search is laughable.
Google is in no way bound to rank sites in any certain way. They are completely free to rank sites in any way they wish.
I will never understand people that think that the only possible way to construct laws to protect corporations is to give them inalienable rights as a person. Its a complete logic fail. Coporate personhood is a blaspheme against natural humans. No human construct should ever be put on the same level as a human, for it risks diminishing us all.
How does something that is defined as a person but is free form the consequences of personhood (jail time, death penalty etc) 'work'? Its inequitable and effectively gives a corporation MORE rights then a citizen. Corporations should be trated as what they are 'limited licenses by the public to do business'. No company should be considered an entity with inalienable rights, in fact quite the opposite. It is a construct that is allowed by THE GRACES OF THE PUBLIC that should be able to be dismantled if the public finds it necessary.
IM glad you know me and can speak for me. I have a shelf full of PS3 games bought day one at retail. I used and enjoyed OtherOS and considered it a vaulable part of my purchase. I never had ANY desire to crack my machine until Sony went too far. Removing OtherOS was too far. I paid for it, i expect to use it. I consider it theft of property.
NO. Money should not be a determining factor in the length of how long you can keep it locked up. Never forget that Copyright is a compromise between society and authors. Disney doesnt have enough money for me to allow them to keep Mickey Mouse, but apparently senators are cheaper......
While there might be fewer authors, on the whole, humanity would gain from the destruction of copyright as it exists now. IM all for authors being paid for reasonable amounts of time. I am not ok with an authors childrens childrens children still profiting from sales. Copyright should exist for no more then the length of a patent.
The LAW restricting my rights to what i do with my personal property should NOT HINGE ON THE MANUFACTURERS BUSINESS MODEL. It none of my fucking concern how Sony projects to make profits on things they sell me. I own it, im free to do with it and modify it as I please. At the end of the day the PS3 IS a computer. There is no other way to describe it. Because Sony sells it at a loss (which they dont anymore) does not change the fact that it is by any definition a personal computer.
NO. Sony did NOT act in an understandable and entirely predictable way. It is VERY rare that manufacturers remove advertised features from an already deployed device in the way Sony did. I dont think anyone saw that coming and was definitely above the norm.
My tinkering with my car timings does not give Ford the right to automatically disable all air conditioning units because they think it might lead to me discovering their secrets.
The same way buying a camcorder with MPEG4 encoding binds you to MPEGLA's licensing scheme and prohibition on use as a professional device even if you buy it second hand. Its wrong, and should be illegal, but there it is.
Actually you are a bit off. Sony is deathly afraid that their box is TOO good and some simple software modifications can open up the hardware to do things far out of Sony's control. They are very afraid of a free killer app on the hardware.
oldfag? really? try to keep your 4chan lingo on 4chan. Its impossible to use that term without sounding like a douche. Get off your dad's slashdot UID.
The ONLY thing Apples dominates in the mobile computing market is MINDSHARE. Its not illegal to leverage your assets in one market to affect another, as long as you arent a monopoly. This is what competition is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll never get metal legs, Samantha is fucking Alex......
Its funny that companies get the DMCA to protect their 'DNA' with all kind of protections on digital locks. But for humans its 'fuck you, you scatter it everywhere, no protections for it." So Sony can toss a ton of bullshit onto the market, do whatever they want with hardware they dont own and then when someone breaks it they cry foul. Couldnt the same argument be made that Sony scattered its keys everywhere for people to find? Not trying to turn this into a rant against Sony, i just find it ironic that we offer more protections to company's digital locks then we do for our private DNA code. There is almost absolutely no circumstance where Sony could be legally ordered to give up its keys.
Irregardless, my point stands that I aint going back.
Have fun with that one, sport.
This is quite possibly one of the dumbest statements ever. "Hey Columbus, no more boats for you until every king's subject is a free man...."
Exploring space is worth FAR more then wasting money on people who should either do for themsleves or die out. Exploring space > wasting money on a worthless human that cant even take care of itself. We have BILLIONS of humans and we recklessesly encourage EVERY human to make more.
Consider space exploration the mother of all insurance policies. It is absolutely imperative that we learn how to live off this rock for the survival of the species. There is no debate on this. At SOME point we HAVE to get off this rock. Armageddon literally could be tomorrow or several billion years from now.
I used to find Toms a valuable resource but their site is so advertising laden now i wont go back. Was looking up a video card yesterday and EVERY TIME i changed pages i got a full-page interstitial ad. Not to mention all the keyword hover over BS and side bars full of ads too. I get it that websites cost money to run but that site is literally drowning in ads.
IT may be the 'norm', but it is far from normal.
Anecdote is anecdote. Take it for what it is.
Imagine that, using a company's own search function returns results favorable to that company. Im shocked, SHOCKED i tell you. They may have 90% of the market but its still not a monopoly because there is PLENTY of choice to go around. Bing and Yahoo are completely viable competitors, enough so that calling google an illegal monopoly on search is laughable. Google is in no way bound to rank sites in any certain way. They are completely free to rank sites in any way they wish.
How is it logical that a group of people can form together to create a new entity with a superset of rights beyond that of a normal citizen?
I will never understand people that think that the only possible way to construct laws to protect corporations is to give them inalienable rights as a person. Its a complete logic fail. Coporate personhood is a blaspheme against natural humans. No human construct should ever be put on the same level as a human, for it risks diminishing us all.
How does something that is defined as a person but is free form the consequences of personhood (jail time, death penalty etc) 'work'? Its inequitable and effectively gives a corporation MORE rights then a citizen. Corporations should be trated as what they are 'limited licenses by the public to do business'. No company should be considered an entity with inalienable rights, in fact quite the opposite. It is a construct that is allowed by THE GRACES OF THE PUBLIC that should be able to be dismantled if the public finds it necessary.
IM glad you know me and can speak for me. I have a shelf full of PS3 games bought day one at retail. I used and enjoyed OtherOS and considered it a vaulable part of my purchase. I never had ANY desire to crack my machine until Sony went too far. Removing OtherOS was too far. I paid for it, i expect to use it. I consider it theft of property.
The MP3 player wasnt an invention, it was a natural evolution. It was obvious from the get go once MP3 took off.
WoW has the same things. Rested XP and daily JP/VP
NO. Money should not be a determining factor in the length of how long you can keep it locked up. Never forget that Copyright is a compromise between society and authors. Disney doesnt have enough money for me to allow them to keep Mickey Mouse, but apparently senators are cheaper......
While there might be fewer authors, on the whole, humanity would gain from the destruction of copyright as it exists now. IM all for authors being paid for reasonable amounts of time. I am not ok with an authors childrens childrens children still profiting from sales. Copyright should exist for no more then the length of a patent.
Got a link?
The LAW restricting my rights to what i do with my personal property should NOT HINGE ON THE MANUFACTURERS BUSINESS MODEL. It none of my fucking concern how Sony projects to make profits on things they sell me. I own it, im free to do with it and modify it as I please. At the end of the day the PS3 IS a computer. There is no other way to describe it. Because Sony sells it at a loss (which they dont anymore) does not change the fact that it is by any definition a personal computer.
Define 'massive'
GEOHOT OWNED THE PS3 HE HACKED. It was his to do with as he pleased. He broke down HIS OWN DOOR HE OWNS. Dont be stupid.
NO. Sony did NOT act in an understandable and entirely predictable way. It is VERY rare that manufacturers remove advertised features from an already deployed device in the way Sony did. I dont think anyone saw that coming and was definitely above the norm. My tinkering with my car timings does not give Ford the right to automatically disable all air conditioning units because they think it might lead to me discovering their secrets.
The same way buying a camcorder with MPEG4 encoding binds you to MPEGLA's licensing scheme and prohibition on use as a professional device even if you buy it second hand. Its wrong, and should be illegal, but there it is.
Actually you are a bit off. Sony is deathly afraid that their box is TOO good and some simple software modifications can open up the hardware to do things far out of Sony's control. They are very afraid of a free killer app on the hardware.
oldfag? really? try to keep your 4chan lingo on 4chan. Its impossible to use that term without sounding like a douche. Get off your dad's slashdot UID.
The ONLY thing Apples dominates in the mobile computing market is MINDSHARE. Its not illegal to leverage your assets in one market to affect another, as long as you arent a monopoly. This is what competition is all about.