Nobody is standing in our way right now -- but of course, "intellectual disobedience" (that is, refusing to accept bad patents or trampling of our rights by "rights holders") is one way to keep a future away where someone is in our way. If that future came, I don't want to say "I just stood around while it happened".
They don't need to give up everything. They can exist. They may turn a profit (whether the can is another story...). They can make all the software they want. But here's the real issue:
I would be very willing to pay $50 for a good operating system, with source code, that did not have activation, didn't phone home behind my back, didn't require 80% of my system resources to run, and wasn't made by a company that tries to strong-arm me at every turn.
I am not willing to pay $200+ for a shoddy operating system, without source code, that requires activation (and worse: may be deactivated), phones home behind my back, eats system resources like popcorn, and is made by a company that tries to strongarm me at every turn.
I'm not opposed to microsoft because they cost money. No. I'm opposed to microsoft because they're against me. And I will gladly trample on their "intellectual property" if it shows them that their customers matter.
A) Since when?
B) The information has to be stored somewhere. In 1984, the problem with this statement is that once the powers that be completely irradicate evidence that the current "facts" were ever different, you can simply say you're remembering things wrong. When the majority (for whatever reason) agree with this statement, then you're just a crazy.
C) Sure. Harder, but not impossible. Well, maybe it's impossible right now -- but what if net neutrality is broken? I mean, clearly, right now we would have too much outcry. But if we had a sufficient reason that a majority of people were willing to go along with, I could see network neutrality being thought of as an okay sacrifice. Remember: 1984 is dystopian. It describes what could be, not what is. And, also, the GP said we're on "the verge" of big brother -- not that he's here now!
D) Huh? In 1984, the telescreens could see you and hear you, as well as preach at you day in and day out (that's "pointing both ways", isn't it?). Either you said something you didn't mean, or I misunderstood you, but this statement makes no sense.
E) The technology was available to everybody before the party took over in 1984, too. Clearly, I mean, because the party wasn't always in control -- what about before the revolution? And since scientific inquiry has all but stopped in 1984, I doubt the party could have invented the telescreens!
F).... yet.
Also, as far as a conscience goes, individually, we do. Some people (I would like to count myself, here, for the record) have consumer consciences as well (open source folks seem to be more likely than most people in this regard, in my experience). But collectively -- as a society, as a nation -- we don't seem to have much conscience. I believe this is what the GP was trying to get at.
Ok, really now. I am a fan of proper English as much as the next guy, but what does that have to do with his opinion? I have a friend, for example, who has a reading disorder; as a result, his spelling is terrible. One's ability to type in English is not a meter of their opinion's value.
Personally, I entirely agree with the GP, and while I haven't tried marijuana myself, I don't see why anyone should be begrudged based upon something stupid they did in school, especially if they're clearly (as in this case) willing to disclaim it. It's not as if I'm completely free of stupidity (that was, however, very difficult to type!).
Oh, so Wikipedia is the predecessor to the Hitchhiker's Guide! I wondered why, when found to be in error, the great publishing houses of Ursa Minor usually blame it on the universe being in error.
OK, so basically what you're saying is that new technology doesn't create new rights? Since when?
I agree that it's not a traditional right, but that is only because technology is not traditional:). However, by the logic that new technology -- which creates new possibilities -- does not create new rights in the process -- it seems to follow that the internet doesn't qualify as free speech, since traditionally you couldn't post on slashdot:). I could also point out atrocities of the past (women's rights to vote) that, when the atrocity ended, the people had new rights that they didn't have before (the women could vote!) -- these were not "traditional" rights when they were first granted, any more than libre e-books are a traditional right today. Being traditional isn't what makes something a right or not a right.
Also, DRM doesn't ever benefit me. I don't care if it costs less -- that just means I can get more stuff of inferior quality. Do I think DRM should be illegal? No, but I do think businesses are stupid for doing it, I won't buy it, and I *do* think that enforcing it by law is comparable to the soviet union's guarded copy machines.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is standing in our way right now -- but of course, "intellectual disobedience" (that is, refusing to accept bad patents or trampling of our rights by "rights holders") is one way to keep a future away where someone is in our way. If that future came, I don't want to say "I just stood around while it happened".
They don't need to give up everything. They can exist. They may turn a profit (whether the can is another story...). They can make all the software they want. But here's the real issue:
I would be very willing to pay $50 for a good operating system, with source code, that did not have activation, didn't phone home behind my back, didn't require 80% of my system resources to run, and wasn't made by a company that tries to strong-arm me at every turn.
I am not willing to pay $200+ for a shoddy operating system, without source code, that requires activation (and worse: may be deactivated), phones home behind my back, eats system resources like popcorn, and is made by a company that tries to strongarm me at every turn.
I'm not opposed to microsoft because they cost money. No. I'm opposed to microsoft because they're against me. And I will gladly trample on their "intellectual property" if it shows them that their customers matter.
A) Since when? B) The information has to be stored somewhere. In 1984, the problem with this statement is that once the powers that be completely irradicate evidence that the current "facts" were ever different, you can simply say you're remembering things wrong. When the majority (for whatever reason) agree with this statement, then you're just a crazy. C) Sure. Harder, but not impossible. Well, maybe it's impossible right now -- but what if net neutrality is broken? I mean, clearly, right now we would have too much outcry. But if we had a sufficient reason that a majority of people were willing to go along with, I could see network neutrality being thought of as an okay sacrifice. Remember: 1984 is dystopian. It describes what could be, not what is. And, also, the GP said we're on "the verge" of big brother -- not that he's here now! D) Huh? In 1984, the telescreens could see you and hear you, as well as preach at you day in and day out (that's "pointing both ways", isn't it?). Either you said something you didn't mean, or I misunderstood you, but this statement makes no sense. E) The technology was available to everybody before the party took over in 1984, too. Clearly, I mean, because the party wasn't always in control -- what about before the revolution? And since scientific inquiry has all but stopped in 1984, I doubt the party could have invented the telescreens! F) .... yet.
Also, as far as a conscience goes, individually, we do. Some people (I would like to count myself, here, for the record) have consumer consciences as well (open source folks seem to be more likely than most people in this regard, in my experience). But collectively -- as a society, as a nation -- we don't seem to have much conscience. I believe this is what the GP was trying to get at.
Ok, really now. I am a fan of proper English as much as the next guy, but what does that have to do with his opinion? I have a friend, for example, who has a reading disorder; as a result, his spelling is terrible. One's ability to type in English is not a meter of their opinion's value. Personally, I entirely agree with the GP, and while I haven't tried marijuana myself, I don't see why anyone should be begrudged based upon something stupid they did in school, especially if they're clearly (as in this case) willing to disclaim it. It's not as if I'm completely free of stupidity (that was, however, very difficult to type!).
Oh, so Wikipedia is the predecessor to the Hitchhiker's Guide! I wondered why, when found to be in error, the great publishing houses of Ursa Minor usually blame it on the universe being in error.
OK, so basically what you're saying is that new technology doesn't create new rights? Since when?
I agree that it's not a traditional right, but that is only because technology is not traditional :). However, by the logic that new technology -- which creates new possibilities -- does not create new rights in the process -- it seems to follow that the internet doesn't qualify as free speech, since traditionally you couldn't post on slashdot :). I could also point out atrocities of the past (women's rights to vote) that, when the atrocity ended, the people had new rights that they didn't have before (the women could vote!) -- these were not "traditional" rights when they were first granted, any more than libre e-books are a traditional right today. Being traditional isn't what makes something a right or not a right.
Also, DRM doesn't ever benefit me. I don't care if it costs less -- that just means I can get more stuff of inferior quality. Do I think DRM should be illegal? No, but I do think businesses are stupid for doing it, I won't buy it, and I *do* think that enforcing it by law is comparable to the soviet union's guarded copy machines.