So taking away your freedom to tinker with a gadget you own is an inconvenience issue, not a freedom issue? I think it's more than rather inconvenient that you no longer own the objects you buy. It's a property issue, not an inconvenience.
Oh, how about you find a comment where you were critical of Apple, since I can't find any. I find lots and lots of Apple apologetics and propaganda, on the other hand (Apple made the mp3 player popular, for fuck's sake? they made a popular mp3 player in a market that waited for Sony to find its ways). And then there's bonch, the submitter, who is on another level, frequently getting accused of being a paid shill. I don't think anyone would pay him for being an obnoxious tool, least of all a corporation that knows all amout marketing, but his activities as a fanboy warrior certainly demands a lot of work.
Lack of knowledge about the killer's neural activity is what he has in common with the researchers. So hush, we're doing science here. Science in the dark.
A VAT on 'creative materials' such as bits transmitted over the internet? Good luck with that. But yeah, it would make sure serious artists make even less money compared to the mass-market hacks who usually can and must sell their works cheaper these days. And fuck them, isn't that your point?
20 year copyright term limits are very reasonable. The current term limits + options to extend are absolutely unreasonable, and they drive people to rebellion.
Excuse me, but if that were true, people would mainly be pirating older things. And although lifetime + 70 years is absurd, it may take an artist/writer/musician/coder/whatever more than 20 years to build a career. Why should they all have to write off their initial investment?
Okay, so now that it's settled that your argument is bogus, you choose instead to call your opponent a hypocrite due to some fictitious and unlikely bullshit. You're not very nice.
Samsung's and LG's priority is selling phones, avoiding Microsoft patent fees comes somewhat lower on the list. If two Android phones are equal except for removable storage, then the one with removable storage is the one people will buy (it's cheap upgradability). For Samsung and LG, it makes business sense to pay. Even with Microsoft's fees, Android phones tend to have far better hardware for the money than Windows phones (which is one reason why they sell more and allegedly make more money for Microsoft).
Apple can drop certain functionality because they own the whole platform. Same with Amazon and their Kindle: other ebook readers, which tend to use an Adobe DRM format, almost all have support for Micro-SDHC. For Amazon, it's better to give away some cloud storage to tie you to the platform.
Linux is fully capable of not using removable storage and patent encumbered file systems (it's got a wide range), yet phone manufacturers choose to use them anyway. Evidently, they're even willing to pay for the privilege. You still haven't found out how BSD would help LG.
The backlash against Apple came some time before Android, and the cause of it was people like you: shills. Perhaps also the fact that Apple is an enemy of the free web. We got tired of every comment fawning over Apple getting +5, insteresting. Instead of taking the hint and cooling down a bit, you're practically frothing. And you talk about "emotional attachment".
Use the ZFS file system on SD-cards for compatibility with Windows? Great idea. Except, of course, Windows can't read ZFS, and neither can any other popular desktop OS. So basically, you suggest using an SD-card file system that's totally unsuitable for SD-cards and compatible only with FreeBSD and Solaris, to save a couple of dollars per phone on patent licensing.
No, you're by far the worst on this site. Even SuperKendall has some other interests than advertising for Apple and slandering Apple's competition. You evidently don't.
Slashdot Mirror
So taking away your freedom to tinker with a gadget you own is an inconvenience issue, not a freedom issue? I think it's more than rather inconvenient that you no longer own the objects you buy. It's a property issue, not an inconvenience.
He would probably post it tomorrow anyway.
Old news is even denied by Samsung.
Oh, how about you find a comment where you were critical of Apple, since I can't find any. I find lots and lots of Apple apologetics and propaganda, on the other hand (Apple made the mp3 player popular, for fuck's sake? they made a popular mp3 player in a market that waited for Sony to find its ways). And then there's bonch, the submitter, who is on another level, frequently getting accused of being a paid shill. I don't think anyone would pay him for being an obnoxious tool, least of all a corporation that knows all amout marketing, but his activities as a fanboy warrior certainly demands a lot of work.
Yes, most Apple propaganda is written by people like you.
You've never published anything, and know nothing about an editor's job.
Cats? Yuck! I was told they used a weasel.
Hell of a slogan to introduce the coming zombie apocalypse.
Then again, no one does that, bonch.
Lack of knowledge about the killer's neural activity is what he has in common with the researchers. So hush, we're doing science here. Science in the dark.
A VAT on 'creative materials' such as bits transmitted over the internet? Good luck with that. But yeah, it would make sure serious artists make even less money compared to the mass-market hacks who usually can and must sell their works cheaper these days. And fuck them, isn't that your point?
You know that's untrue, so why say it?
I'm just pointing out your argument is irrelevant (and the rest of your comment is a strawman).
I didn't say it would stop piracy. Without copyright, there would be no piracy, of course.
Baen books are copyrighted.
20 year copyright term limits are very reasonable. The current term limits + options to extend are absolutely unreasonable, and they drive people to rebellion.
Excuse me, but if that were true, people would mainly be pirating older things. And although lifetime + 70 years is absurd, it may take an artist/writer/musician/coder/whatever more than 20 years to build a career. Why should they all have to write off their initial investment?
Without copyright, the only way to get paid in the digital age is through draconian DRM and black box playback devices.
Okay, so now that it's settled that your argument is bogus, you choose instead to call your opponent a hypocrite due to some fictitious and unlikely bullshit. You're not very nice.
Samsung's and LG's priority is selling phones, avoiding Microsoft patent fees comes somewhat lower on the list. If two Android phones are equal except for removable storage, then the one with removable storage is the one people will buy (it's cheap upgradability). For Samsung and LG, it makes business sense to pay. Even with Microsoft's fees, Android phones tend to have far better hardware for the money than Windows phones (which is one reason why they sell more and allegedly make more money for Microsoft).
Apple can drop certain functionality because they own the whole platform. Same with Amazon and their Kindle: other ebook readers, which tend to use an Adobe DRM format, almost all have support for Micro-SDHC. For Amazon, it's better to give away some cloud storage to tie you to the platform.
Whatever. It's not like Windows and Android can't transfer data over a network. You just failed at making a point.
It's the standard response for people who blatantly advertise one corporation and slanders another. In your case, it's entirely deserved.
Linux is fully capable of not using removable storage and patent encumbered file systems (it's got a wide range), yet phone manufacturers choose to use them anyway. Evidently, they're even willing to pay for the privilege. You still haven't found out how BSD would help LG.
The backlash against Apple came some time before Android, and the cause of it was people like you: shills. Perhaps also the fact that Apple is an enemy of the free web. We got tired of every comment fawning over Apple getting +5, insteresting. Instead of taking the hint and cooling down a bit, you're practically frothing. And you talk about "emotional attachment".
Use the ZFS file system on SD-cards for compatibility with Windows? Great idea. Except, of course, Windows can't read ZFS, and neither can any other popular desktop OS. So basically, you suggest using an SD-card file system that's totally unsuitable for SD-cards and compatible only with FreeBSD and Solaris, to save a couple of dollars per phone on patent licensing.
You must be some kind of idiot genius.
No, you're by far the worst on this site. Even SuperKendall has some other interests than advertising for Apple and slandering Apple's competition. You evidently don't.