It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads.
I doubt there will be more people killing ads via Jetpack than there are people killing ads via tools and addons like Adblock Plus. Unless doing it with Jetpack is easier, which I doubt is even possible.
Also if the founders of Google, Apple or Amazon would have decided to turn their companies into cooperatives instead of regular corporations, it would in a sense be a socialist effort.
Who is being compelled against their will to contribute?
That isn't related to communism at all.
Karl Marx would have called for government to come in and heavily regulate software. Designate a central authority to manage the development of software, public schools train a specific number of necessary software developers, outlaw the possession, development, or use of "rogue" compilers to help protect people from poor quality software that wasn't approved by the state, and possibly imprison people for unauthorized forking of projects arguing that such action "steals" the necessary resources of the state and impedes progress.
Not really. He called for a state-run economy as a replacement for a capitalist-owned one, as to make the working class the owners of the means of production. Increasing productivity was at best a secondary aim.
Anyway, I don't think we can now what Marx would think about today's internet capitalism-communism-anarchism-whatever. It's just too different from 19th century industrial capitalism.
What is interesting is that we have a machine generating what is essentially one time use content, and the machine then gains a copyright to the content that others, even humans, have to respect. It is no more crazy than assigning a copyright to a corporation, so we should not be surprised.
I disagree, it is more crazy. A company at least consists of and is owned by humans, so assigning copyright to one could be interpreted as collectively assigning copyright to the owners or the people of whom it consists.
There are couple of really scary things in the terms of use. For instance, minors are not allowed to use the service without the permission of adults, and adults become fully responsible for the actions of the child. I am unsure of why they felt they had to put that in there.
No one gives a shit on clauses like that. Anyway, what danger can you do with a query? (Has anyone asked it about Little Bobby Tables yet?:) )
I think your system would work if companies informed their customers as prominently of their handling of their handling of personal information (and their consequences) as they do of their prices.
That's right. However in some cases (Paypal may not be one of them)you just have to use a service: Living without electricity, for instance, is hardly an option for most people. Even if you can chose to which one, you effectively do have to give the information to one of the available providers.
That's absolutely irrelevant. Beating people, including children is agains human rights - regardless whether you call it "spanking" or "torture". Therefore it's inacceptable regardless of any potential positive effects.
Slashdot Mirror
It uses native widgets. You hear me, Chrome and Firefox?!
No, it uses Qt.
Someone capable of coordinating their life that well is probably employable.
Of course, that wouldn't help him if there is no job for him.
It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads.
I doubt there will be more people killing ads via Jetpack than there are people killing ads via tools and addons like Adblock Plus. Unless doing it with Jetpack is easier, which I doubt is even possible.
Also if the founders of Google, Apple or Amazon would have decided to turn their companies into cooperatives instead of regular corporations, it would in a sense be a socialist effort.
Who is being compelled against their will to contribute?
That isn't related to communism at all.
Karl Marx would have called for government to come in and heavily regulate software. Designate a central authority to manage the development of software, public schools train a specific number of necessary software developers, outlaw the possession, development, or use of "rogue" compilers to help protect people from poor quality software that wasn't approved by the state, and possibly imprison people for unauthorized forking of projects arguing that such action "steals" the necessary resources of the state and impedes progress.
Not really. He called for a state-run economy as a replacement for a capitalist-owned one, as to make the working class the owners of the means of production. Increasing productivity was at best a secondary aim. Anyway, I don't think we can now what Marx would think about today's internet capitalism-communism-anarchism-whatever. It's just too different from 19th century industrial capitalism.
What is interesting is that we have a machine generating what is essentially one time use content, and the machine then gains a copyright to the content that others, even humans, have to respect. It is no more crazy than assigning a copyright to a corporation, so we should not be surprised.
I disagree, it is more crazy. A company at least consists of and is owned by humans, so assigning copyright to one could be interpreted as collectively assigning copyright to the owners or the people of whom it consists.
There are couple of really scary things in the terms of use. For instance, minors are not allowed to use the service without the permission of adults, and adults become fully responsible for the actions of the child. I am unsure of why they felt they had to put that in there.
No one gives a shit on clauses like that. Anyway, what danger can you do with a query? (Has anyone asked it about Little Bobby Tables yet? :) )
Is there actually anywhere (US or EU) a legal basis for them to bar people from linking to their site?
I think your system would work if companies informed their customers as prominently of their handling of their handling of personal information (and their consequences) as they do of their prices.
I imagine once a working immunization exists, it can be adapted to new strains when needed.
That's right. However in some cases (Paypal may not be one of them)you just have to use a service: Living without electricity, for instance, is hardly an option for most people. Even if you can chose to which one, you effectively do have to give the information to one of the available providers.
There are other ways of punishment than beating.
But you cannot trust the corporation to actually delete personal information you remove. I'd personally be amazed if they did.
What about rented webspace? Webspace providers don't have the right to censor either.
or even better, not to be harassed by it unless you opt *in*
-Full control over the own hard- and software, i.e. no TCM and DRM
That's absolutely irrelevant. Beating people, including children is agains human rights - regardless whether you call it "spanking" or "torture". Therefore it's inacceptable regardless of any potential positive effects.