It should be simple: what the research funded fully, or even partially, by the public? Then all the results from it should be fully available to the public. If researches don't like that, they can be free to seek private funding, in which chase a reasonable restriction would be that all privately funded research becomes available to the public after ten years, since knowledge is a public good.
This whole mentality of taking the public's money but then hiding the knowledge behind paywalls, even to the researchers themselves, is counterintuitive to the progress of the human race, and is not acceptable.
As someone who provides SEO, among other things - shameless plug alert: www.uvmanagement.com - I see this as being a welcome change.
It is frustrating trying to provide what I deem "honest" SEO - focusing on marketing the content, rather than creating content which is marketable, for example - when so many other providers out there use all the tricks in the book to increase page rankings without actually having content worthy of where they end up. I very well could engage in such tactics, but I'm a nerd before I'm a businessman, and I'm not particularly happy with how "cluttered" the web has become over the past decade as more and more people have learned how to exploit holes in its system.
It can be incredibly frustrating trying to find something on Google (or any other engine), when the first several pages are filled with worthless or ultimately irrelevant links.
Games are drastically overpriced at $60. There is not a single other form of popular media, sans original art printings perhaps, that are at that level; not movie tickets, not albums, not movies, not books. And, as there is no shortage of games worth my time to choose from, I have been happy to wait for sales; I haven't paid more than $10 for a game in years.
The average casual game is priced from $1-$10 on iOS or Android, with most falling on the low end of that. One could say that those games are less evolved, or less advanced, than their console/PC equivalents, and that may be true to a point. But with the average timespan of modern games continually decreasing (seeing a AAA game with an average campaign of under 10 hours is quite common), and the only real differences becoming the higher end graphics and control scheme, that justification is rapidly losing its credibility.
If indie and casual developers can make a profit creating a game on a sub-$million budget and a retail cost of $1-10, then so can the big names. I've yet to see more than a handful of "serious" games come out over the past few years that justified its eight figure budget (or more). And when you factor in the increasing reliance on DLC to nickel-and-dime the customer for content that used to be included in the retail copy, I think more and more gamers will start to see that paying $60 for a game that offers more or less the same end experience as the $10 games simply doesn't make sense.
Publishers and developers will simply have to adapt to that; otherwise, just as the gaming market has crashed before (read: Atari), it will crash again. And no amount of hand-wringing or ranting from the big names is going to change that.
Unless the apps are specifically hardwired to scale 1:1, I don't see why, if what you're arguing is the case, they couldn't have just gone to 1280x960 or 1600x1200. If it's just the aspect ratio that is hardwired, any 4:3 resolution should work.
If Apple did, indeed, hardwire the system to require 1:1 scaling like that, well, that's just stupid on an incredible level.
What Google failed to understand is that superior technology or features does not attract people to something; the culture, meaning the people, do. Everyone who cared about social networking was already on Facebook, or at least everybody they knew was, so what incentive was there to suddenly make the switch to Google+? Switching for switching's sake? People don't operate that way.
There are really only three types of people: those who go where everyone else goes, the smaller group who specifically want to go where everybody else does not go, and those few types who consistently keep believing that superior technologies (whether in operating systems, phones, media players, or gaming devices) are what dictate the market.
Google+ attracted much of the second and third groups, but almost none of the first. And why? Because it's as though Google+ was a party at a huge, new mansion, and Facebook was a party at a slightly smaller, older mansion. Sure, Google+ had more stuff, and their house was maybe built a little better, but everybody was already at Facebook's party. And Google failed to understand that promises of toys don't win people over; everyone else having those toys does.
Doctors aren't always right (like anybody in any profession), but this isn't about the doctors themselves. It's about the science.
And the scientific evidence has shown time and time again that there is no link between vaccinations and autism, and that the benefits of eradicating these types of diseases far outweigh the potential mild side effects of taking them.
As such, I have no problem with the idea of doctors who practice said science turning away patients who want to be in denial about it.
The admins NEVER allowed illegal content on their site. Child pornography was never allowed. Not caring about what people in each subreddit did was not a glaring flaw. If you didn't like a subreddit, you didn't go there. It worked pretty well actually - reddit is very popular.
You clearly are not really familiar with the circumstances of what was going on or what led to this situation. This all came to a head because a random Redditor was presented with r/preteens content while he was just browsing r/new. He wasn't subscribed to it, never went there, yet he was exposed to it, anyway. So that dismantles your argument of, "if you don't like it, you don't have to look at it."
Secondly, the admins absolutely HAVE and DID allow child pornography on the site. r/jailbait was allowed for a long while, even after the CNN story on it. One Reddit admin went as far as to blame the victims themselves for it. And the admins also did nothing about r/preteen_girls until Something Awful began their media campaign, in which case they were terrified into defensive mode. They still have yet to ban the still-popular-on-the-site violentacrez (who is friends with the site admins, it should be pointed out) or other subreddits such as r/picsofdeadkids.
They have no moral authority in this. They simply were, and are, fine to allow such content to go on unconfronted until their reputation is at stake, then they will tenuously pretend to care and respond to it. As the OP here pointed out, Reddit just now had to come out and say that child sexualization was not allowed on the site; something that people with morals would have already assumed to be the case.
The entire situation is, and remains, despicable, and Reddit and its admins don't have a moral leg to stand on it over it.
I'm one of the many who deleted their accounts at Reddit today, not just over the admins' lax "oh-noes-censorship!" policy, but due to the sheer number of Redditors there actively defending pedophiles and their crimes under the guise of "free speech". I had over 10,000 karma there, as well, which means really nothing other than to say I wasn't just a random lurker on the site.
The front page stories at the moment don't even begin to tell the story of the stuff that goes in in the nether regions of that site, and the fact that so many members there not just defend, but seemingly embrace, those who perpetrate it - look up a guy named violentacrez if you don't believe me - is beyond disgusting. The number of members there who seem to base their morals on whether something is legal or not (unless the matter relates to pot, prostitution, or any of the other activities they like) is disturbing, as well, and I'd finally had enough.
Reddit didn't care at all about any of this stuff until suddenly they were at risk of a major media campaign against them - organized by Something Awful - then suddenly they went into full defensive mode, not out of a sudden concern for the actual children being exploited, but for their own reputations for allowing it. A good move overall, but hardly noble. It's the same tactic they eventually were forced to use when the r/jailbait scandal hit the mainstream news.
The bottom line is that Reddit has been, and can be, an interesting site full of interesting content. But the willingness of the admins there to allow such abhorrent (and clearly illegal) content until publicity won't allow them to continue to do so is a glaring flaw in the organization of the site, and I'd rather not be associated with such a wild west approach to such things, especially when their morals seem to be dictated more on whether something will affect their reputation than whether or not it's right.
When the average cost to transfer a gigabyte of data is below 5 cents - http://business.financialpost.com/2011/02/05/how-much-does-bandwidth-actually-cost/ - I don't buy all these complaints from carriers about customers using huge amounts of data, especially since the typical "unlimited" (heh) data plan costs $30/month. At that rate, a customer would have to transfer 600 gigabytes of data in a given month to equal the raw cost of that bandwidth to the carrier.
Now, admittedly, that is based on the raw cost of bandwidth, and, of course, other factors come into play in figuring the cost of delivering that data, but the point is that carriers are, without question, earning money hand over fist with the current rates they are charging. I mean, we also have carrier CEOs admitting that the cost of bandwidth has little to do with the cost of services - http://stopthecap.com/2011/07/28/time-warner-ceo-bandwidth-costs-are-not-terribly-relevant-to-broadband-pricing.
No, these common refrains from the carriers are due to nothing more than them wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. They don't want to upgrade their infrastructure to support the bandwidth capabilities today's customers are demanding, but they still want to justify charging the rates they do whilst continuing to advertise "unlimited" data plans. So how do they go about doing that? Blame any and all bandwidth problems on "data hogs".
This is nothing more than a legalized protection racket.
Microsoft has made claims for years to own the patents on various aspects of Linux (which Android is built on), making only vague references and never specifying what exactly it owns. It then uses this to strongarm companies using Linux into paying them royalties.
The best part is that, unlike illegal protection rackets, this one is entirely supported by the broken patent (and legal) system we have today.
Even the artist doesn't really know what he's created, and a work doesn't become 'something' until given value by an audience: 'the artist is merely the medium for his or her work.'
Uh, say what? A work of art is entirely the work and creation of the artist creating it. Whether or not society deems it to have "value" is entirely irrelevant to it still being a creative expression by the artist. Indeed, one could create something and hide it away, never to have it seen by anyone other than themselves, and it still would not change the fact that it is a work of art. There would be no work of art without that artist, so the idea that someone is merely the "medium" for it is beyond ridiculous.
If that were true, anybody at any time at any place could, and indeed would, create any work of art that ever has been. Clearly that is not the case.
I personally feel that Lucas has lost touch with the artistic core that made Star Wars great in the first place, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is his (and everyone else involved in its production) work of art. It may be insane for an artist to decide to burn down or defecate on any work of art they have ever created, but that does not mean the art no longer belongs to them, or that it somehow belongs to those who can "appreciate it more".
This article's entire premise falls flat on its face.
I always had a problem with Turnitin, because it seems as though they are blatantly violating intellectual property rights by keeping copies of student's work on files, against the student's will (arguable, but I certainly wouldn't allow it if I had the choice), to use as an anti-plagiarism control, all for profit without the student being reimbursed.
I am not a lawyer, so there may be legal standing to do all of this, but it's always bothered me.
Technology is a crutch which keeps students incapable of controlling its use from learning, not a tool which enhances it.
Throwing millions at fancy electronics will not fix any problems with education, if anything it will exacerbate them; instead, focus should be put on valuing learning and education itself, and forcing students into situations in which they must think for themselves.
Software patents are a pox on this nation. They undermine the system, stifle, rather than motivation, innovation, and are used as clubs by the bullies in industry.
The idea that I can "create" something intangible, easily replicated, and quite literally out of nothing simply by typing some characters on a keyboard is absolutely insane, and should never have been allowed in the first place. Had the system existed like this centuries ago, the book market would have been driven into the ground by publishers who owned the patent on "arranging characters on a page to create words and express ideas".
And the fact hat Apple is choosing to beat Android into submission with them, rather than make a superior product, is very telling indeed.
PC Gamer, much as I like them, has a massive inferiority complex in which they feel driven to give every console game also released on PC a high score. It's almost as if they are so desperate for developers not to forget the PC platform that they give out high scores just for showing up.
Dragon Age 2 scored higher than The Witcher 2, and they called it the RPG of the decade. Duke Nukem Forever received an 80/100, when almost every other reviewer and gamer is ripping it apart. They gave Crysis 2 an 89 for heaven's sake, in all its consolified glory.
The rule of thumb is that PC Gamer has fairly reliable reviews so long as the game wasn't also released on console. If it was, just expect the review to gloss over all the game's flaws while trumpeting even its most minor of positives.
Disney's entire business plan has been based on taking other people's work/ideas/creations and capitalizing on them for their own profit. They've been that way since the beginning. (Go ahead, go count all the original ideas Disney itself has ever had. I'll wait.)
So that being said, I can't say I'm surprised by this, although I do think this is a new low (based on the obvious bin Laden connection), even for them.
Maybe this time around they won't release a game so riddled with bugs as to be almost completely unplayable, especially in multiplayer.
The game had potential, and was pretty fun at parts, but it was so broken when it first came out that I didn't pick it up again for months, only to find then that many of the same bugs still remained.
That being said, I think I'll pass on any future releases from Paradox Interactive until they have been thoroughly vetted.
To go along with this, the Buffalo WHR-HP-G300N routers, and I think some of their other ones, have DD-WRT installed stock, if you also don't want to go through the process of doing it yourself.
It is worth noting here that one Republican legislator in Utah has come out so far and talked about being blackmailed by the leadership in the Legislature to vote for the bill without even considering or debating it.
The Utah Legislature is representative in name only, and have barely attempted to make any secret of their disdain and disregard for the Utahn people for years. Why do they keep getting elected then? That's the power of the (R) in this state.
As far as I'm considered, when I buy something (phone, game console, computer, whatever) it's mine to do with as I please.
Whether I want to modify it, or throw it off a cliff, is no longer any of the company's business. That's not to say it excuses piracy (which is an entirely separate matter altogether), but put simply, they have my money, and I have their product. Our relationship should there be at an end.
I really don't care what the lobbyist-bought-and-paid-for law says on the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be simple: what the research funded fully, or even partially, by the public? Then all the results from it should be fully available to the public. If researches don't like that, they can be free to seek private funding, in which chase a reasonable restriction would be that all privately funded research becomes available to the public after ten years, since knowledge is a public good.
This whole mentality of taking the public's money but then hiding the knowledge behind paywalls, even to the researchers themselves, is counterintuitive to the progress of the human race, and is not acceptable.
As someone who provides SEO, among other things - shameless plug alert: www.uvmanagement.com - I see this as being a welcome change.
It is frustrating trying to provide what I deem "honest" SEO - focusing on marketing the content, rather than creating content which is marketable, for example - when so many other providers out there use all the tricks in the book to increase page rankings without actually having content worthy of where they end up. I very well could engage in such tactics, but I'm a nerd before I'm a businessman, and I'm not particularly happy with how "cluttered" the web has become over the past decade as more and more people have learned how to exploit holes in its system.
It can be incredibly frustrating trying to find something on Google (or any other engine), when the first several pages are filled with worthless or ultimately irrelevant links.
Games are drastically overpriced at $60. There is not a single other form of popular media, sans original art printings perhaps, that are at that level; not movie tickets, not albums, not movies, not books. And, as there is no shortage of games worth my time to choose from, I have been happy to wait for sales; I haven't paid more than $10 for a game in years.
The average casual game is priced from $1-$10 on iOS or Android, with most falling on the low end of that. One could say that those games are less evolved, or less advanced, than their console/PC equivalents, and that may be true to a point. But with the average timespan of modern games continually decreasing (seeing a AAA game with an average campaign of under 10 hours is quite common), and the only real differences becoming the higher end graphics and control scheme, that justification is rapidly losing its credibility.
If indie and casual developers can make a profit creating a game on a sub-$million budget and a retail cost of $1-10, then so can the big names. I've yet to see more than a handful of "serious" games come out over the past few years that justified its eight figure budget (or more). And when you factor in the increasing reliance on DLC to nickel-and-dime the customer for content that used to be included in the retail copy, I think more and more gamers will start to see that paying $60 for a game that offers more or less the same end experience as the $10 games simply doesn't make sense.
Publishers and developers will simply have to adapt to that; otherwise, just as the gaming market has crashed before (read: Atari), it will crash again. And no amount of hand-wringing or ranting from the big names is going to change that.
Unless the apps are specifically hardwired to scale 1:1, I don't see why, if what you're arguing is the case, they couldn't have just gone to 1280x960 or 1600x1200. If it's just the aspect ratio that is hardwired, any 4:3 resolution should work.
If Apple did, indeed, hardwire the system to require 1:1 scaling like that, well, that's just stupid on an incredible level.
What Google failed to understand is that superior technology or features does not attract people to something; the culture, meaning the people, do. Everyone who cared about social networking was already on Facebook, or at least everybody they knew was, so what incentive was there to suddenly make the switch to Google+? Switching for switching's sake? People don't operate that way.
There are really only three types of people: those who go where everyone else goes, the smaller group who specifically want to go where everybody else does not go, and those few types who consistently keep believing that superior technologies (whether in operating systems, phones, media players, or gaming devices) are what dictate the market.
Google+ attracted much of the second and third groups, but almost none of the first. And why? Because it's as though Google+ was a party at a huge, new mansion, and Facebook was a party at a slightly smaller, older mansion. Sure, Google+ had more stuff, and their house was maybe built a little better, but everybody was already at Facebook's party. And Google failed to understand that promises of toys don't win people over; everyone else having those toys does.
Never let the facts get in the way of good propaganda.
The only searches which come up are almost exclusively from anti-vaccination sites and groups. Hardly a credible sampling there.
There is, however, this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-schedules-and-infant-mortality-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/
Doctors aren't always right (like anybody in any profession), but this isn't about the doctors themselves. It's about the science.
And the scientific evidence has shown time and time again that there is no link between vaccinations and autism, and that the benefits of eradicating these types of diseases far outweigh the potential mild side effects of taking them.
As such, I have no problem with the idea of doctors who practice said science turning away patients who want to be in denial about it.
The admins NEVER allowed illegal content on their site. Child pornography was never allowed. Not caring about what people in each subreddit did was not a glaring flaw. If you didn't like a subreddit, you didn't go there. It worked pretty well actually - reddit is very popular.
You clearly are not really familiar with the circumstances of what was going on or what led to this situation. This all came to a head because a random Redditor was presented with r/preteens content while he was just browsing r/new. He wasn't subscribed to it, never went there, yet he was exposed to it, anyway. So that dismantles your argument of, "if you don't like it, you don't have to look at it."
Secondly, the admins absolutely HAVE and DID allow child pornography on the site. r/jailbait was allowed for a long while, even after the CNN story on it. One Reddit admin went as far as to blame the victims themselves for it. And the admins also did nothing about r/preteen_girls until Something Awful began their media campaign, in which case they were terrified into defensive mode. They still have yet to ban the still-popular-on-the-site violentacrez (who is friends with the site admins, it should be pointed out) or other subreddits such as r/picsofdeadkids.
They have no moral authority in this. They simply were, and are, fine to allow such content to go on unconfronted until their reputation is at stake, then they will tenuously pretend to care and respond to it. As the OP here pointed out, Reddit just now had to come out and say that child sexualization was not allowed on the site; something that people with morals would have already assumed to be the case.
The entire situation is, and remains, despicable, and Reddit and its admins don't have a moral leg to stand on it over it.
"I had over 10,000 karma there, as well, which means really nothing other than to say I wasn't just a random lurker on the site."
Learn to read and/or comprehend better before desperately reaching for something with which to attack me, perhaps?
"Fucking idiot", indeed.
I'm one of the many who deleted their accounts at Reddit today, not just over the admins' lax "oh-noes-censorship!" policy, but due to the sheer number of Redditors there actively defending pedophiles and their crimes under the guise of "free speech". I had over 10,000 karma there, as well, which means really nothing other than to say I wasn't just a random lurker on the site.
The front page stories at the moment don't even begin to tell the story of the stuff that goes in in the nether regions of that site, and the fact that so many members there not just defend, but seemingly embrace, those who perpetrate it - look up a guy named violentacrez if you don't believe me - is beyond disgusting. The number of members there who seem to base their morals on whether something is legal or not (unless the matter relates to pot, prostitution, or any of the other activities they like) is disturbing, as well, and I'd finally had enough.
Reddit didn't care at all about any of this stuff until suddenly they were at risk of a major media campaign against them - organized by Something Awful - then suddenly they went into full defensive mode, not out of a sudden concern for the actual children being exploited, but for their own reputations for allowing it. A good move overall, but hardly noble. It's the same tactic they eventually were forced to use when the r/jailbait scandal hit the mainstream news.
The bottom line is that Reddit has been, and can be, an interesting site full of interesting content. But the willingness of the admins there to allow such abhorrent (and clearly illegal) content until publicity won't allow them to continue to do so is a glaring flaw in the organization of the site, and I'd rather not be associated with such a wild west approach to such things, especially when their morals seem to be dictated more on whether something will affect their reputation than whether or not it's right.
When the average cost to transfer a gigabyte of data is below 5 cents - http://business.financialpost.com/2011/02/05/how-much-does-bandwidth-actually-cost/ - I don't buy all these complaints from carriers about customers using huge amounts of data, especially since the typical "unlimited" (heh) data plan costs $30/month. At that rate, a customer would have to transfer 600 gigabytes of data in a given month to equal the raw cost of that bandwidth to the carrier.
Now, admittedly, that is based on the raw cost of bandwidth, and, of course, other factors come into play in figuring the cost of delivering that data, but the point is that carriers are, without question, earning money hand over fist with the current rates they are charging. I mean, we also have carrier CEOs admitting that the cost of bandwidth has little to do with the cost of services - http://stopthecap.com/2011/07/28/time-warner-ceo-bandwidth-costs-are-not-terribly-relevant-to-broadband-pricing.
No, these common refrains from the carriers are due to nothing more than them wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. They don't want to upgrade their infrastructure to support the bandwidth capabilities today's customers are demanding, but they still want to justify charging the rates they do whilst continuing to advertise "unlimited" data plans. So how do they go about doing that? Blame any and all bandwidth problems on "data hogs".
Again, I'm not buying it.
This is nothing more than a legalized protection racket.
Microsoft has made claims for years to own the patents on various aspects of Linux (which Android is built on), making only vague references and never specifying what exactly it owns. It then uses this to strongarm companies using Linux into paying them royalties.
The best part is that, unlike illegal protection rackets, this one is entirely supported by the broken patent (and legal) system we have today.
Even the artist doesn't really know what he's created, and a work doesn't become 'something' until given value by an audience: 'the artist is merely the medium for his or her work.'
Uh, say what? A work of art is entirely the work and creation of the artist creating it. Whether or not society deems it to have "value" is entirely irrelevant to it still being a creative expression by the artist. Indeed, one could create something and hide it away, never to have it seen by anyone other than themselves, and it still would not change the fact that it is a work of art. There would be no work of art without that artist, so the idea that someone is merely the "medium" for it is beyond ridiculous.
If that were true, anybody at any time at any place could, and indeed would, create any work of art that ever has been. Clearly that is not the case.
I personally feel that Lucas has lost touch with the artistic core that made Star Wars great in the first place, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is his (and everyone else involved in its production) work of art. It may be insane for an artist to decide to burn down or defecate on any work of art they have ever created, but that does not mean the art no longer belongs to them, or that it somehow belongs to those who can "appreciate it more".
This article's entire premise falls flat on its face.
I always had a problem with Turnitin, because it seems as though they are blatantly violating intellectual property rights by keeping copies of student's work on files, against the student's will (arguable, but I certainly wouldn't allow it if I had the choice), to use as an anti-plagiarism control, all for profit without the student being reimbursed.
I am not a lawyer, so there may be legal standing to do all of this, but it's always bothered me.
Technology is a crutch which keeps students incapable of controlling its use from learning, not a tool which enhances it.
Throwing millions at fancy electronics will not fix any problems with education, if anything it will exacerbate them; instead, focus should be put on valuing learning and education itself, and forcing students into situations in which they must think for themselves.
Software patents are a pox on this nation. They undermine the system, stifle, rather than motivation, innovation, and are used as clubs by the bullies in industry.
The idea that I can "create" something intangible, easily replicated, and quite literally out of nothing simply by typing some characters on a keyboard is absolutely insane, and should never have been allowed in the first place. Had the system existed like this centuries ago, the book market would have been driven into the ground by publishers who owned the patent on "arranging characters on a page to create words and express ideas".
And the fact hat Apple is choosing to beat Android into submission with them, rather than make a superior product, is very telling indeed.
PC Gamer, much as I like them, has a massive inferiority complex in which they feel driven to give every console game also released on PC a high score. It's almost as if they are so desperate for developers not to forget the PC platform that they give out high scores just for showing up.
Dragon Age 2 scored higher than The Witcher 2, and they called it the RPG of the decade. Duke Nukem Forever received an 80/100, when almost every other reviewer and gamer is ripping it apart. They gave Crysis 2 an 89 for heaven's sake, in all its consolified glory.
The rule of thumb is that PC Gamer has fairly reliable reviews so long as the game wasn't also released on console. If it was, just expect the review to gloss over all the game's flaws while trumpeting even its most minor of positives.
And then they all stuck their heads back safely in the sand and slept soundly that night.
Disney's entire business plan has been based on taking other people's work/ideas/creations and capitalizing on them for their own profit. They've been that way since the beginning. (Go ahead, go count all the original ideas Disney itself has ever had. I'll wait.)
So that being said, I can't say I'm surprised by this, although I do think this is a new low (based on the obvious bin Laden connection), even for them.
Maybe this time around they won't release a game so riddled with bugs as to be almost completely unplayable, especially in multiplayer.
The game had potential, and was pretty fun at parts, but it was so broken when it first came out that I didn't pick it up again for months, only to find then that many of the same bugs still remained.
That being said, I think I'll pass on any future releases from Paradox Interactive until they have been thoroughly vetted.
To go along with this, the Buffalo WHR-HP-G300N routers, and I think some of their other ones, have DD-WRT installed stock, if you also don't want to go through the process of doing it yourself.
Let's see...check, check, check, check, check!
Thanks, Boston College, for making sure I didn't miss anything!
It is worth noting here that one Republican legislator in Utah has come out so far and talked about being blackmailed by the leadership in the Legislature to vote for the bill without even considering or debating it.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=14729423&s_cid=rss-960
The Utah Legislature is representative in name only, and have barely attempted to make any secret of their disdain and disregard for the Utahn people for years. Why do they keep getting elected then? That's the power of the (R) in this state.
The more national shame they receive, the better.
As far as I'm considered, when I buy something (phone, game console, computer, whatever) it's mine to do with as I please.
Whether I want to modify it, or throw it off a cliff, is no longer any of the company's business. That's not to say it excuses piracy (which is an entirely separate matter altogether), but put simply, they have my money, and I have their product. Our relationship should there be at an end.
I really don't care what the lobbyist-bought-and-paid-for law says on the matter.