What you're rebelling against here, Doctrow and Stallman, isn't evil fat cat corporationy people. You're arguing against central government control and planning dictating winners and losers with an insane need for data collection to make sure everyone is behaving.
That's a distinction without a difference. The major corporations pretty much are the government in the US, and that trend has been accelerating.
Unfortunately, so much we do on mobile these days is absolutely dependent on proprietary applications and protocols, which means that you can't really have a full experience without depending on those outside the F/OSS community.
It seems like every time alternatives to abusive products are brought up, someone say "but.. but.. games!"
Of all the corrosive effects games companies are having in the tech world, this attitude has to be one of the most obnoxious and insidious. Most of the other issues can be avoided by not playing games from abusive companies.
This one, however, is actually decreasing the chances of shaking off this horrible trend for everybody, not just gamers.
The solution is rapidly going the way of the dodo and you stand there fiddling.
The reason this is happening is because people are buying them anyway. Encouraging people to buy reasonable products instead is one way of remaining free.
Also, reasonable alternatives will always exist -- that market will always have companies servicing it. The only question is how expensive they are.
You can certainly wipe the phone and install a fresh version of Android, you're likely to have removed some critical proprietary software pieces that make the hardware work though.
I've been doing this for years and have never run into this problem. But then, when I'm shopping for a new phone, the first thing I do is check to make sure that others have been able to replace the OS without trouble. If not, then I don't buy that phone.
Then let me point out that lots of people ascribe other people's lack of success to personal failures of character when, perhaps, it was merely an unfortunate roll of the dice.
they are taught that they won the war on their own and drove the USA to the bargaining table by defeating them. The role that Russia and China played is not discussed
Exclude China and change the defeated nation to Germany, and this narrative is not so different than the one Americans are taught about WWII.
That's all well and good, but as it happens to more and more of the internet, you (and i...) will be able to use less and less of the internet.
Personally, I've found that the number of sites that have become invisible to me because of this has pretty much stabilized. This likely varies a lot depending on your needs, though. I've noticed that the sorts of sites likely to be sucked into the black hole that is Facebook are not likely to be sites that are of great value to me, so I haven't really experienced too much loss.
How is that relevant? The vast majority of businesses are not corporations (I'm not counting subchapter S or LLCs in this group), so what happens with them is not reflective on the skill of CEOs.
The corporations in the world are an incredible tiny minority
Exactly, but we're talking about full-fledged corporations. What percentage of businesses are foll corps is not important to the point.
Also, what about the fact that the CEO is not the top dog in a real corporation? The board is. If a corporation succeeds or fails, in the end the responsibility falls on the board, not the CEO.
If a corp is in a position where the CEO is actually indispensable, then I would argue that the corp is in a very dangerous position.
Slashdot Mirror
you agree the provider/manufacturer of the device, can change the software at any time.
I most certainly do not, and I take active measures to make sure this doesn't happen.
True. Open source is not, and never has been, a panacea. It's just better than the alternatives.
What you're rebelling against here, Doctrow and Stallman, isn't evil fat cat corporationy people. You're arguing against central government control and planning dictating winners and losers with an insane need for data collection to make sure everyone is behaving.
That's a distinction without a difference. The major corporations pretty much are the government in the US, and that trend has been accelerating.
it's a systemic issue worldwide.
I agree.
Unfortunately, so much we do on mobile these days is absolutely dependent on proprietary applications and protocols, which means that you can't really have a full experience without depending on those outside the F/OSS community.
Like what, outside of some games?
certain games assume you cheat.
It seems like every time alternatives to abusive products are brought up, someone say "but.. but.. games!"
Of all the corrosive effects games companies are having in the tech world, this attitude has to be one of the most obnoxious and insidious. Most of the other issues can be avoided by not playing games from abusive companies.
This one, however, is actually decreasing the chances of shaking off this horrible trend for everybody, not just gamers.
Fuck games.
The solution is rapidly going the way of the dodo and you stand there fiddling.
The reason this is happening is because people are buying them anyway. Encouraging people to buy reasonable products instead is one way of remaining free.
Also, reasonable alternatives will always exist -- that market will always have companies servicing it. The only question is how expensive they are.
So in a way you're benefiting from it via a lower phone price.
This is utter BS.
Many security cameras require a cloud account for a valid reason...
That's not a valid reason. It would be a valid reason to provide the option, but not to make it mandatory.
Personally, I simply refuse to buy anything that requires an account anywhere in order to function.
You can certainly wipe the phone and install a fresh version of Android, you're likely to have removed some critical proprietary software pieces that make the hardware work though.
I've been doing this for years and have never run into this problem. But then, when I'm shopping for a new phone, the first thing I do is check to make sure that others have been able to replace the OS without trouble. If not, then I don't buy that phone.
100% of successful companies agree it's possible to be successful? Extrapolation failure!
Nothing I've said even hints towards this.
I'm saying something simple: we're talking about CEOs, therefore the only companies that we're talking about are ones that have CEOs.
A company is not successful just because its a full-fledged corporation. Corporations fail every day.
If you don't see the failures as relevant then there's no point continuing discussing failures in management.
Of course I see the failures as relevant -- that's what we're discussing. But we seem to be completely misunderstanding each other.
Then let me point out that lots of people ascribe other people's lack of success to personal failures of character when, perhaps, it was merely an unfortunate roll of the dice.
Yes, this annoys me to no end as well.
If "win" means "survive as an intact nation", then I'm not confident that the US would win. I am very confident that North Korea would lose, though.
they are taught that they won the war on their own and drove the USA to the bargaining table by defeating them. The role that Russia and China played is not discussed
Exclude China and change the defeated nation to Germany, and this narrative is not so different than the one Americans are taught about WWII.
Define "win"
It's only Edge, so hardly anyone will be affected.
That's all well and good, but as it happens to more and more of the internet, you (and i...) will be able to use less and less of the internet.
Personally, I've found that the number of sites that have become invisible to me because of this has pretty much stabilized. This likely varies a lot depending on your needs, though. I've noticed that the sorts of sites likely to be sucked into the black hole that is Facebook are not likely to be sites that are of great value to me, so I haven't really experienced too much loss.
(Engaging pedant mode)
Calling something a "CIA front" implies that that you aren't supposed to know that the CIA is involved in it.
InQTel was, from day one, openly a CIA partnership program and advertised as such, so not really a "front".
90% of businesses fail in the first year.
How is that relevant? The vast majority of businesses are not corporations (I'm not counting subchapter S or LLCs in this group), so what happens with them is not reflective on the skill of CEOs.
The corporations in the world are an incredible tiny minority
Exactly, but we're talking about full-fledged corporations. What percentage of businesses are foll corps is not important to the point.
Also, what about the fact that the CEO is not the top dog in a real corporation? The board is. If a corporation succeeds or fails, in the end the responsibility falls on the board, not the CEO.
If a corp is in a position where the CEO is actually indispensable, then I would argue that the corp is in a very dangerous position.
Ethical ones.
Yes, I know the rationale. It still results in some crazy decision-making, though.
Everybody who has a Facebook account is trusting them.
The fact that web forums, and many other things are moved to FB groups.
I call that "shutting down the forum", since it renders it nonexistent to me.
The fact that some sites require FB for authentication.
In the same vein, sites that do this are sites that effectively do not exist.
Good CEOs truly are indispensable.
If this were actually true, there would be a lot fewer successful corporations in the world.
why do you think they paid 2.3 *billion* dollars for oculus?
I thought it was just because Zuckerberg got a boner for VR.
But the main one is easy: Zuckerberg is involved.