But his birth certificate was released back in 2008 and all the birthers claimed it was fake. Then he released the "long-form" that they've been barking about and it's STILL claimed to be fake. Even if you want to claim "there was never any doubt" of previous presidents' citizenship, why was Obama singled out to the point of claiming that all evidence to the contrary must be a forgery?
Of course the answer is because they have to come up with some way to discredit him by any means necessary.
However I ask of you, what changes by the death of this one man? Has our level of safety changed at all? Most likely not, there are just as many terrorists as there were before, who may or may not end up killing people. Perhaps they are more motivated now due to our killing of someone of importance to them, but irrelevant.
The important part here is what to do next. We should not celebrate his death but we should move on from it. If he was the "face of terrorism" perhaps we can stop this foolish "war on terror" that we have. Maybe people will realize that our own fear and ignorance along with starting multiple wars and hundreds of thousands dead is the definition of allowing terrorists to win. Their purpose is to instill terror which they did. Perhaps we can look at what is going on and step back from our own implosion. Can we stop this "war on terror"? Can we eliminate the breaches of liberty and freedom? Remove the Patriot Act, stop the breaches of privacy by the TSA, etc. I doubt it'll happen, but I can hope.
AT&T will become the only nationwide GSM provider in the United States. Are you recommending a switch to Verizon or to Sprint, even if others in one's household are already on an AT&T family plan?
The advice I've given is that if you desire to get an Android phone either do not go with a phone from AT&T (perhaps buy one retail and put a sim card in it) or pick a phone that is know to be easily rootable and has custom roms. Generally if they are part of a family plan I recommend the latter since it makes sense to save money by joining the family plan.
unfortunately, not enough of that thought carries over to media. Too many people in the US have the hypocritical belief that government should both stay out of people's lives AND "protect the children" by banning things like violent media and nudity and sex etc.
OK, so what makes you think that you have purchased your console? You paid money for it, but as we both agree, you can pay for things that you don't subsequently own.
It seems that the way you justify that conclusion is that you paid money in a store like you would if you were to buy anything else, without agreements. I suppose that is a good enough reason, if you don't agree with the EULA. If you do, then you are under an agreement, and the case could easily be made that you cannot do what you like to the console.
In any circumstance upon which you are paying for something which you don't subsequently own, you have made an agreement as such. Whether it's the lease on a car or a verbal agreement with the clerk at your local video rental store, there's an agreement made. It's generally understood that if I purchase something, by giving money to a store for a product, in absence of other agreements, I own that which I purchased. It's one of the bases of a market economy.
As far as the EULA is concerned, the EULA applies only to the software that comes with the console. Assuming that you agree with the existance of a EULA. Even in that situation, if you only use the console to tweak and hack and not in the circumstances under which the EULA is applicable, have you really agreed to it? The EULA essentially holds you hostage, can I return the console for a full refund if I disagree with the EULA? In most cases I cannot (I can only trade it in for less, it's considered used because it is open). Thus it's completely rational to reject the validity of a EULA and it's also rational to assume that if you do believe the EULA is valid, jumping straight to hacking/tweaking your console without using the console in such a way that you'd have to agree to the EULA, then you are not bound by the EULA.
I should also point out that the inference that "you own it, therefore you may do what you like with it" is possibly fallacious. It depends on what definition of ownership you use. For example, if I buy a house, most people would say that I own it. Yet, I need to get council approvement if want to, say, build an extra five stories on top of it. If the inference were valid, then logically, I would not own the house, because I could not do what I liked to it. I'm happy to say that I do not own the house I paid for (i.e. define ownership around this inference), just so long as we are clear.
You do have a point that without clarification, the statement "you own it, therefore you may do what you like with it" is not entirely true. Such as just because I own a knife, does not mean I can stab someone with it. Therefore let's consider what specifically can be stated to clarify the statement correctly. Clearly we can say that if i own it, i may do what I like with it providing that my actions to not break the law. That covers the knife example. Your house example is slightly more complex. It can be considered that needing the council to approve the building is "the law" ad thus the statement works, though I'm open to other interpretations. Theoretically, the only thing that "prevents" one from hacking or tweaking the hardware they buy would be a EULA because they don't sign any kind of agreement at purchase. Thus this description of ownership is workable.:) It's obviously not perfect though.
I enjoy rational and logical discussion so this is fun.:) I see the questioning of the rationale as a challenge for me to meet. Though, it is rational to assume someone who is being pedantic about being rational and having rational arguments is, themself, rational lol. If you aren't rational, this won't be as much fun to continue, so I hope you are. As this is quite amusing to me.:)
Exchanging something to purchase something is completely a sufficient condition for ownership. The reason you do not own DVDs you borrow from the video store is because your transaction is not a transaction of purchase but of renting. Similar to leasing a vehicle vs purchasing it. If you lease the vehicle, you can't do whatever you want to it, if you purchase it then you can.
Therefore, if I purchase the console then that means I own it. Think about it rationally, I have paid the store money in return for an exchange of ownership of the console. Just like I would any other product. There is no agreement made with the manufacturer in this transaction. The transaction is simply between me and the store trading money for a transfer of ownership of the product from the store to me. After this transaction no one may forcibly remove the console from my possession because I own it.
Now that we've established I own the console, what rational argument do you have for believing that I cannot do what I like with my property?
Why would keeping a local copy be forbidden? That makes no sense. If you publish research, you don't destroy all the notes and drafts once it is accepted. That's absurd.
No one has said it was black and white. However, it's not a fallacy that Google is much more open than Apple. Just look at their business models, Google doesn't open it's technologies only "when it doesn't impact [its] revenue". Google has many times opened it's technology as a point of maximizing its revenue. On that note, Apple doesn't open a technology when it doesn't impact revenue, Apple does it, like Google and any other company, because it helps the revenue by getting more developers involved. If the point of the technology is that the more people who use it, the better, then it's an effective strategy to energize developers and save money by having a community developed piece of software.
The point where people say "Apple is closed, Google is open" is the way they go about business. Apple locks down their hardware and charges a premium for it, you're not allowed by license to run OS X on non-Apple hardware. Comparing AdWords and iOS as "products" is just laughable. One is a consumer product that users interact with directly and own the hardware that it runs on. The other is a service that is provided for users that runs on hardware owned by the company providing the service. AdWords is a service for advertising with a documented API and yes, it could be more open. However, the major problem with iOS isn't that it's not open-source (though yes, that would be awesome) it's the lockdown that it does. Compare Android to iOS. Using Android a user can completely replace built-in functions with user-apps, get a new dialer a new program to manage texting, replace the default browser, the default sound manager, etc. iOS just doesn't provide the functionality for that, you use these apps alongside the existing ones. In Android a user can install any application they want, from anywhere, iOS locks you to Apple's store, of course.
How long until the Mac OS App Store does something similar where everything has to be signed by Apple in order to be installed, thus meaning that anyone who wants to release an Application for Mac has to pay for Apple to sign it? Or some other bullshit. Because of the track record of Apple = closed, Google = open (yes, it's simplistic and not a true representation of reality. This is just the perception) people wouldn't be too surprised if Apple did that because it makes sense given their current direction. If Google suddenly locked Android down to only the Android Market and stopped allowing external installations of applications, it would be a complete surprise.
So yes, looking at it in black and white terms is simplistic and not entirely accurate. However, you already admitted that Google has been much more committed to open source than Apple. Looking at the products, the direction of the company and their position on the community, saying that that "Apple is closed and Google is open" is much more accurate than you think.
Darwin, the core of Mac OS X, is open source, for example, as well as Webkit, Apple's browser layout engine used in most browsers today, including Google Chrome and Android. And Grand Central Dispatch. And FaceTime. I could go on.
Just a little niggle. Webkit, "Apple's browser layout engine" started as a fork of an existing open-source project. And they finally open-sourced it after the KHTML group continued to blast them over non-disclosure agreements and lack of access to their bug database which prevented the ability to adequately integrate the changes back into the KHTML code. Essentially, they open-sourced it out of necessity for the life of the project not out of a sense of community or anything. So sorry, I don't give Apple points for Webkit being open source.
In addition, FaceTime is by no means open-source. They have promised to release the protocol specification and standard for how to communicate using FaceTime, however you still need an Apple client-side certificate to use it, which means even if the protocol is open access to using it is still locked to Apple.
I'll give them points for open sourcing Darwin and Grand Central Dispatch, but to claim Apple is a larger proponent of Open Source and Open Standards than Google is just wrong. I absolutely am not claiming Google can do no wrong, such as the whole kerfluffle with HoneyComb. (Which I'm very pissed about). But come on.
Yes, you're wrong. The point of this group is rather than every individual company stating separately "yes, the patents are licensed free to anyone" they join the group which is considered to own the patents which singularly states "Yes, the patents are licensed for free to anyone." That's why it says the terms and conditions have not changed. The Open-Source license it is speaking about is a royalty free, non-revokable license to use all patents required for the use of WebM.
Actually the more intelligent ones will question you first, and if you don't give them a reason not to, they will arrest you on the spot. But if they question you and you mention your car was stolen or otherwise believable story. They will not arrest you if they are intelligent.
Oracle is suing Google and if they win, want all revenue from Android to be given to them along with an injunction forbidding sales of all Android phones etc.
I couldn't find anything about Sony suing over Android, but they are suing LG over "Sony Technology" but the details aren't out so maybe that's over Android.
There are MANY more examples than this (such as Microsoft's suit against HTC a while ago) but to say that "None of these companies are harassing people for using Android" is just fallacious. They are. You may return now to your regularly scheduled rant.
Plot summary on the back seemed like no big deal.... it wasn't until someone else mentioned they were shocked I'd let her read it that I actually picked it up and realized I'd made a big mistake. In the end I spent a lot of time talking to her about the issues within since you can't put the shit back in the horse.
I see no mistake here. Girl reads book with important issues and the parent discusses those issues with her. That's the way it's supposed to work, it's called good parenting and you have it here.
Actually, it does matter. For something like a voting system, an open source system right down to the OS is the best way to go about it. That way there is a complete paper trail showing precisely how they work. It severely reduces the chances for fraud.
If you think that making $250k/yr is not wealthy then I want some of whatever you're smoking. It's not in the realm of super-rich etc. but I'll be damned if you can call that not being wealthy when the average person is lucky to break even $120k/yr
Technically, by the letter of Use Tax, if you purchase something out-of-state and bring it back to your own state, you have to pay a use tax on it. People just generally do not have this enforced because there's no way for your state to know.
Both sides have a valid argument (and don't try and give me the whole BS that the PS3 would not have been hacked if they had left in Other OS, because that's complete crap) but whining about it is just freaking annoying.
Except the PS3 was not broken so thoroughly and completely until they removed OtherOS. Both fail0verflow and Hotz stated outright that they started working on breaking the PS3 due to the removal of OtherOS. For 3 years, the PS3 went un-broken. Pristine. While other consoles fell, it stood high. 9 months after removing the OtherOS functionality, it got cracked. Everyone who cracked it stated removing OtherOS is the reason why, so please explain to me how that's complete crap.
Revealing the root key to the public was justified by Sony's actions by removing the OtherOS functionality. Helping the public have a way to reinstate a feature that Sony removed is completely reasonable and within the scope of "control over one's own devices". fail0verflow even stated they did it to reenable the OtherOS functionality, Hotz said the same thing. The if other people took Hotz's work and enabled piracy as a result, that's not his fault. No one blames the manufacturer of a knife when someone is stabbed.
The root key is only needed for cracking the device, something you never had access to in the first place
But something you needed access to, to re-enable the OtherOS functionality. I fail to see the problem here.
Stop pretending it was justified by Sony's actions and simply admit you only care about jailbreaking. If you argued for control over one's own devices then you would have a much more persuasive argument.
Jailbreaking IS arguing for control over one's own devices. Jailbreaking so I can install OtherOS or homebrew software should be perfectly legal, afterall it's legal to do it to my phone, why not my game console? I own the hardware.
Except that the people who decided to keep the Other OS wouldn't have been able to continue to play their existing games they bought online, which is why this is different from "discontinuing the current console and releasing a new one". If they did release a "new" console and called it the PS4 and didn't have the OtherOS feature and offered that free upgrade as you, yea people might think differently, except if the people who didn't take the "free upgrade" kept the OtherOS but lost their ability to use the PSN there would be enormous uproar and this entire problem would have happened anyways. They made it so you either chose to keep a feature you paid for, or continued to play new games and use the PSN. It's just ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
But his birth certificate was released back in 2008 and all the birthers claimed it was fake. Then he released the "long-form" that they've been barking about and it's STILL claimed to be fake. Even if you want to claim "there was never any doubt" of previous presidents' citizenship, why was Obama singled out to the point of claiming that all evidence to the contrary must be a forgery?
Of course the answer is because they have to come up with some way to discredit him by any means necessary.
However I ask of you, what changes by the death of this one man? Has our level of safety changed at all? Most likely not, there are just as many terrorists as there were before, who may or may not end up killing people. Perhaps they are more motivated now due to our killing of someone of importance to them, but irrelevant.
The important part here is what to do next. We should not celebrate his death but we should move on from it. If he was the "face of terrorism" perhaps we can stop this foolish "war on terror" that we have. Maybe people will realize that our own fear and ignorance along with starting multiple wars and hundreds of thousands dead is the definition of allowing terrorists to win. Their purpose is to instill terror which they did. Perhaps we can look at what is going on and step back from our own implosion. Can we stop this "war on terror"? Can we eliminate the breaches of liberty and freedom? Remove the Patriot Act, stop the breaches of privacy by the TSA, etc. I doubt it'll happen, but I can hope.
Pending regulatory approval...
Which I hope they do not get
AT&T will become the only nationwide GSM provider in the United States. Are you recommending a switch to Verizon or to Sprint, even if others in one's household are already on an AT&T family plan?
The advice I've given is that if you desire to get an Android phone either do not go with a phone from AT&T (perhaps buy one retail and put a sim card in it) or pick a phone that is know to be easily rootable and has custom roms. Generally if they are part of a family plan I recommend the latter since it makes sense to save money by joining the family plan.
unfortunately, not enough of that thought carries over to media. Too many people in the US have the hypocritical belief that government should both stay out of people's lives AND "protect the children" by banning things like violent media and nudity and sex etc.
OK, so what makes you think that you have purchased your console? You paid money for it, but as we both agree, you can pay for things that you don't subsequently own.
It seems that the way you justify that conclusion is that you paid money in a store like you would if you were to buy anything else, without agreements. I suppose that is a good enough reason, if you don't agree with the EULA. If you do, then you are under an agreement, and the case could easily be made that you cannot do what you like to the console.
In any circumstance upon which you are paying for something which you don't subsequently own, you have made an agreement as such. Whether it's the lease on a car or a verbal agreement with the clerk at your local video rental store, there's an agreement made. It's generally understood that if I purchase something, by giving money to a store for a product, in absence of other agreements, I own that which I purchased. It's one of the bases of a market economy.
As far as the EULA is concerned, the EULA applies only to the software that comes with the console. Assuming that you agree with the existance of a EULA. Even in that situation, if you only use the console to tweak and hack and not in the circumstances under which the EULA is applicable, have you really agreed to it? The EULA essentially holds you hostage, can I return the console for a full refund if I disagree with the EULA? In most cases I cannot (I can only trade it in for less, it's considered used because it is open). Thus it's completely rational to reject the validity of a EULA and it's also rational to assume that if you do believe the EULA is valid, jumping straight to hacking/tweaking your console without using the console in such a way that you'd have to agree to the EULA, then you are not bound by the EULA.
I should also point out that the inference that "you own it, therefore you may do what you like with it" is possibly fallacious. It depends on what definition of ownership you use. For example, if I buy a house, most people would say that I own it. Yet, I need to get council approvement if want to, say, build an extra five stories on top of it. If the inference were valid, then logically, I would not own the house, because I could not do what I liked to it. I'm happy to say that I do not own the house I paid for (i.e. define ownership around this inference), just so long as we are clear.
You do have a point that without clarification, the statement "you own it, therefore you may do what you like with it" is not entirely true. Such as just because I own a knife, does not mean I can stab someone with it. Therefore let's consider what specifically can be stated to clarify the statement correctly. Clearly we can say that if i own it, i may do what I like with it providing that my actions to not break the law. That covers the knife example. Your house example is slightly more complex. It can be considered that needing the council to approve the building is "the law" ad thus the statement works, though I'm open to other interpretations. Theoretically, the only thing that "prevents" one from hacking or tweaking the hardware they buy would be a EULA because they don't sign any kind of agreement at purchase. Thus this description of ownership is workable. :) It's obviously not perfect though.
I enjoy rational and logical discussion so this is fun. :) I see the questioning of the rationale as a challenge for me to meet. Though, it is rational to assume someone who is being pedantic about being rational and having rational arguments is, themself, rational lol. If you aren't rational, this won't be as much fun to continue, so I hope you are. As this is quite amusing to me. :)
woosh =P
Exchanging something to purchase something is completely a sufficient condition for ownership. The reason you do not own DVDs you borrow from the video store is because your transaction is not a transaction of purchase but of renting. Similar to leasing a vehicle vs purchasing it. If you lease the vehicle, you can't do whatever you want to it, if you purchase it then you can.
Therefore, if I purchase the console then that means I own it. Think about it rationally, I have paid the store money in return for an exchange of ownership of the console. Just like I would any other product. There is no agreement made with the manufacturer in this transaction. The transaction is simply between me and the store trading money for a transfer of ownership of the product from the store to me. After this transaction no one may forcibly remove the console from my possession because I own it.
Now that we've established I own the console, what rational argument do you have for believing that I cannot do what I like with my property?
Windows is an Operating System. X is a gui windowing system. I don't see the confusion. They do different things.
Yup, which is why all my friends and family have been told not to get an Android phone from AT&T.
Why would keeping a local copy be forbidden? That makes no sense. If you publish research, you don't destroy all the notes and drafts once it is accepted. That's absurd.
No one has said it was black and white. However, it's not a fallacy that Google is much more open than Apple. Just look at their business models, Google doesn't open it's technologies only "when it doesn't impact [its] revenue". Google has many times opened it's technology as a point of maximizing its revenue. On that note, Apple doesn't open a technology when it doesn't impact revenue, Apple does it, like Google and any other company, because it helps the revenue by getting more developers involved. If the point of the technology is that the more people who use it, the better, then it's an effective strategy to energize developers and save money by having a community developed piece of software.
The point where people say "Apple is closed, Google is open" is the way they go about business. Apple locks down their hardware and charges a premium for it, you're not allowed by license to run OS X on non-Apple hardware. Comparing AdWords and iOS as "products" is just laughable. One is a consumer product that users interact with directly and own the hardware that it runs on. The other is a service that is provided for users that runs on hardware owned by the company providing the service. AdWords is a service for advertising with a documented API and yes, it could be more open. However, the major problem with iOS isn't that it's not open-source (though yes, that would be awesome) it's the lockdown that it does. Compare Android to iOS. Using Android a user can completely replace built-in functions with user-apps, get a new dialer a new program to manage texting, replace the default browser, the default sound manager, etc. iOS just doesn't provide the functionality for that, you use these apps alongside the existing ones. In Android a user can install any application they want, from anywhere, iOS locks you to Apple's store, of course.
How long until the Mac OS App Store does something similar where everything has to be signed by Apple in order to be installed, thus meaning that anyone who wants to release an Application for Mac has to pay for Apple to sign it? Or some other bullshit. Because of the track record of Apple = closed, Google = open (yes, it's simplistic and not a true representation of reality. This is just the perception) people wouldn't be too surprised if Apple did that because it makes sense given their current direction. If Google suddenly locked Android down to only the Android Market and stopped allowing external installations of applications, it would be a complete surprise.
So yes, looking at it in black and white terms is simplistic and not entirely accurate. However, you already admitted that Google has been much more committed to open source than Apple. Looking at the products, the direction of the company and their position on the community, saying that that "Apple is closed and Google is open" is much more accurate than you think.
Darwin, the core of Mac OS X, is open source, for example, as well as Webkit, Apple's browser layout engine used in most browsers today, including Google Chrome and Android. And Grand Central Dispatch. And FaceTime. I could go on.
Just a little niggle. Webkit, "Apple's browser layout engine" started as a fork of an existing open-source project. And they finally open-sourced it after the KHTML group continued to blast them over non-disclosure agreements and lack of access to their bug database which prevented the ability to adequately integrate the changes back into the KHTML code. Essentially, they open-sourced it out of necessity for the life of the project not out of a sense of community or anything. So sorry, I don't give Apple points for Webkit being open source.
In addition, FaceTime is by no means open-source. They have promised to release the protocol specification and standard for how to communicate using FaceTime, however you still need an Apple client-side certificate to use it, which means even if the protocol is open access to using it is still locked to Apple.
I'll give them points for open sourcing Darwin and Grand Central Dispatch, but to claim Apple is a larger proponent of Open Source and Open Standards than Google is just wrong. I absolutely am not claiming Google can do no wrong, such as the whole kerfluffle with HoneyComb. (Which I'm very pissed about). But come on.
Yes, you're wrong. The point of this group is rather than every individual company stating separately "yes, the patents are licensed free to anyone" they join the group which is considered to own the patents which singularly states "Yes, the patents are licensed for free to anyone." That's why it says the terms and conditions have not changed. The Open-Source license it is speaking about is a royalty free, non-revokable license to use all patents required for the use of WebM.
Actually the more intelligent ones will question you first, and if you don't give them a reason not to, they will arrest you on the spot. But if they question you and you mention your car was stolen or otherwise believable story. They will not arrest you if they are intelligent.
Apple sues Motorola claiming their Android phones violate patents
Microsoft sues Barnes and Nobles over Android Patent violations in the Nook
Microsoft Sues Motorola for Android patent issues
Oracle is suing Google and if they win, want all revenue from Android to be given to them along with an injunction forbidding sales of all Android phones etc.
I couldn't find anything about Sony suing over Android, but they are suing LG over "Sony Technology" but the details aren't out so maybe that's over Android.
There are MANY more examples than this (such as Microsoft's suit against HTC a while ago) but to say that "None of these companies are harassing people for using Android" is just fallacious. They are. You may return now to your regularly scheduled rant.
Other than the fact that the 16 year old would be probably highly grossed out, I fail to see a problem with that...
Just sayin'
Studies show correlation, perhaps the explanation is that people with aggressive behavior just prefer violent media, not the other way around.
Plot summary on the back seemed like no big deal.... it wasn't until someone else mentioned they were shocked I'd let her read it that I actually picked it up and realized I'd made a big mistake. In the end I spent a lot of time talking to her about the issues within since you can't put the shit back in the horse.
I see no mistake here. Girl reads book with important issues and the parent discusses those issues with her. That's the way it's supposed to work, it's called good parenting and you have it here.
Actually, it does matter. For something like a voting system, an open source system right down to the OS is the best way to go about it. That way there is a complete paper trail showing precisely how they work. It severely reduces the chances for fraud.
If you think that making $250k/yr is not wealthy then I want some of whatever you're smoking. It's not in the realm of super-rich etc. but I'll be damned if you can call that not being wealthy when the average person is lucky to break even $120k/yr
Technically, by the letter of Use Tax, if you purchase something out-of-state and bring it back to your own state, you have to pay a use tax on it. People just generally do not have this enforced because there's no way for your state to know.
Both sides have a valid argument (and don't try and give me the whole BS that the PS3 would not have been hacked if they had left in Other OS, because that's complete crap) but whining about it is just freaking annoying.
Except the PS3 was not broken so thoroughly and completely until they removed OtherOS. Both fail0verflow and Hotz stated outright that they started working on breaking the PS3 due to the removal of OtherOS. For 3 years, the PS3 went un-broken. Pristine. While other consoles fell, it stood high. 9 months after removing the OtherOS functionality, it got cracked. Everyone who cracked it stated removing OtherOS is the reason why, so please explain to me how that's complete crap.
Revealing the root key to the public was justified by Sony's actions by removing the OtherOS functionality. Helping the public have a way to reinstate a feature that Sony removed is completely reasonable and within the scope of "control over one's own devices". fail0verflow even stated they did it to reenable the OtherOS functionality, Hotz said the same thing. The if other people took Hotz's work and enabled piracy as a result, that's not his fault. No one blames the manufacturer of a knife when someone is stabbed.
The root key is only needed for cracking the device, something you never had access to in the first place
But something you needed access to, to re-enable the OtherOS functionality. I fail to see the problem here.
Stop pretending it was justified by Sony's actions and simply admit you only care about jailbreaking. If you argued for control over one's own devices then you would have a much more persuasive argument.
Jailbreaking IS arguing for control over one's own devices. Jailbreaking so I can install OtherOS or homebrew software should be perfectly legal, afterall it's legal to do it to my phone, why not my game console? I own the hardware.
Except that the people who decided to keep the Other OS wouldn't have been able to continue to play their existing games they bought online, which is why this is different from "discontinuing the current console and releasing a new one". If they did release a "new" console and called it the PS4 and didn't have the OtherOS feature and offered that free upgrade as you, yea people might think differently, except if the people who didn't take the "free upgrade" kept the OtherOS but lost their ability to use the PSN there would be enormous uproar and this entire problem would have happened anyways. They made it so you either chose to keep a feature you paid for, or continued to play new games and use the PSN. It's just ridiculous.
Data too was not a commander
I'm fairly certain that "Commander Data" (which is his title) was a commander....as his title implies.