Apple products are far from amazing. They are just copies of other technologies and full of flaws. There is nothing new, revolutionary or even really useful in them.
On the other hand, Musk products are at the vanguard of our technology and in important areas for mankind where there is dire need of investments. He could make a lot more money staying in less risky business, but he instead decided to take huge risks to the benefit of us all.
Sorry, but Steve Jobs doesn't even classify to be in the same sentence with Musk.
Oh how rich, so computers are not toys? You can play with them? Have you heard about video games? The concept will blow your mind my ignorant friend. Apple input deficient computers are basically that, toys. That is what most people use them for and that is what they are actually designed to be, video games and web surfing devices.
Regarding Musk, you keep spilling lies and absurdities as if they were facts without absolutely no evidence and backed up only for your poisin and jealousy. Sorry to break the news for you, but the astroturfer here is you, and the troll to add insult to injury as well.
Sorry, but the only one spilling lies here is you my friend. The car range was far superior to 200 KM as long as you actually charge it. Musk was 100% right on this case and the NY reporter was a biased asshole, as you are, my friend.
That is a secondary concern, combating copyright and proprietary software is the primary concern of GPL as I told you. Even if you close your source, if there is no copyright to protect it, it can and will be reverse engineered if there is enough interest for that. In the end whatever is achievable with GPL can always be achieved if there is no copyright.
I agree that all source code should be always disclosed. The user has the right to know what a program is doing in his system, but using copyright is the wrong way to enforce it, and an inefficient way to achieve this goal. That is a goal that can only be achieved by regulating the software industry and making the source code disclosure mandatory.
His opinions regarding Linux are more important than anyone else's. I know you don't like it but that does not make it less true. And the best way to deal with UEFI is to disable it. Simple as that.
Oh, I am quite content with using something that is open and can be reviewed by anyone. I don't really need to review it myself. But good job trying to use a reductio ad absurdum fallacy to argue. Now it is time to go back to your logic 101 classes.
Free software can't pervert standards and be malicious just as a proprietary software can, because it can be easily branched if it becomes inconvenient (as it often happens). The use of proprietary programs does take a lot of things away as explained more than once, but if you refuse to understand and be part of the problem it is your choice.
You may believe in whatever absurdity you wish, it does not make it more true. It does not seem to be the case, though. You can't be so stupid. So I am forced to conclude that you indeed have an agenda. The fact you keep claiming you have no agenda just makes more apparent you do. And it is clear you will keep talking nonsense and trying to justify your incoherent beliefs in the hope of achieving it. You are nothing more than a corporate shill.
GPL is a reaction to copyright. Its sole reason to exist is to combat proprietary software, which wouldn't exist in a world without copyright. In the absence of copyright GPL has no reason to exist. I see no problem with a corporation using former GPL software in a world where proprietary software didn't exist.
Even if you didn't pay for the application. Just by using their standards you are helping them to enforce them, unless you live in a bubble, and if you did you wouldn't be here annoying us, would you?
And as you keep mentioning, I can't avoid noticing that the one who seems to have an agenda here is you, my good sir. You seem to be going out of your way to try and discredit RMS. Who do you work for? MS?
You do. You are giving money and consequently power to corporations that are struggling to take our control over the system we buy from them and impose their standards and policies upon us. You are part of the problem. A big part.
But it does. Proprietary software enforces controlled standards, locked systems, treacherous computing like UEFI. It ends taking away the user ability to make choices and to even know what his system is doing. And if you leave it unchecked you won`t have choices because control gives economical power and economical power pushes for more control. UEFI is an example. Soon it will be hard to find computers without it, and soon enough it may be impossible. Little by little we are having our choices eroded by progressively more restrictive hardware with closed specifications, because hardware producers go to bed with big software corporations.
As I said I have no information if it is indeed sending your file search keywords to the net, you will have to ask to the guy who made the claim (RMS is usually a very accessible person if you are really interested).
But the fact they can do it without my knowledge is enough for me. It is too much power to give blindly to a corporation.
Information is information. You can't control ideas no matter what form they take or purpose they were intended to fulfill. The distinction you seem to think is so clear, made based mostly on the intended use is largely irrelevant and exists only in your head. It is even an immoral distinction as it tries to impose upon others what they should do with ideas based on the will of the creator. A creator who used thousands of years of information available in the public domain to "create" his work and feels in the right to take ownership of the result and sequester it from the same public domain that made 95% of the work for him.
You can keep differing as much as you wish, but in the end it is just an stubborn and illogical paradigm you imposed upon yourself.
Additionally, trying to enforce ownership to information is not only absurd and immoral, it is actually impossible in this day and age. Even more the useless efforts to keep trying to enforce this control take huge amounts of public resources which are not used to the benefit of the people who generated them, trample people's constitutional rights and threaten net neutrality.
Copyright has to go and it will go, because most people don't want it anymore, don't think it is necessary anymore and simply won't obey without force, and forcing these many people to do something they do not want is simply impossible.
The problem is, considering Windows send information to MS encrypted every time you check for an update, and considering it is a closed source OS you won`t ever know what it is capable of sending and how. MS for example, lets say, under request of a governmental agency, could spy on you and you would never know.
You may think it is paranoid, but it is not, it is simply a matter of not trusting blindly on corporations. They may not even do it now, but the fact they have the power and can do it at will is enough on my book to avoid it like the plague.
Stallman would care very little if GNU code was "stolen" as long as there was no copyright at all and all systems were open. Copyleft is a way to use copyright to fight its own poison.
He is not being pedantic, he is being precise. Semantics does matter. And yes, he can claim he has a right to do whatever he pleases with information. Information ownership is a ridiculous concept.
Exactly. By doing this they actually become more liable not less. Not only diminishing their protection granted by the DCMA, as now they will be aware of at least some infringements as they are actively policing it, but making them vulnerable to being sued by the users for spying on their traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple products are far from amazing. They are just copies of other technologies and full of flaws. There is nothing new, revolutionary or even really useful in them.
On the other hand, Musk products are at the vanguard of our technology and in important areas for mankind where there is dire need of investments. He could make a lot more money staying in less risky business, but he instead decided to take huge risks to the benefit of us all.
Sorry, but Steve Jobs doesn't even classify to be in the same sentence with Musk.
Oh how rich, so computers are not toys? You can play with them? Have you heard about video games? The concept will blow your mind my ignorant friend. Apple input deficient computers are basically that, toys. That is what most people use them for and that is what they are actually designed to be, video games and web surfing devices.
Regarding Musk, you keep spilling lies and absurdities as if they were facts without absolutely no evidence and backed up only for your poisin and jealousy. Sorry to break the news for you, but the astroturfer here is you, and the troll to add insult to injury as well.
Sorry, but the only one spilling lies here is you my friend. The car range was far superior to 200 KM as long as you actually charge it. Musk was 100% right on this case and the NY reporter was a biased asshole, as you are, my friend.
He is not Job's figure, he is not making expensive toys, he is actually someone struggling to improve mankind. One of the few and against all odds.
Sure, sure. You are free to believe in whatever absurdity you wish, my friend.
That is a secondary concern, combating copyright and proprietary software is the primary concern of GPL as I told you. Even if you close your source, if there is no copyright to protect it, it can and will be reverse engineered if there is enough interest for that. In the end whatever is achievable with GPL can always be achieved if there is no copyright.
I agree that all source code should be always disclosed. The user has the right to know what a program is doing in his system, but using copyright is the wrong way to enforce it, and an inefficient way to achieve this goal. That is a goal that can only be achieved by regulating the software industry and making the source code disclosure mandatory.
His opinions regarding Linux are more important than anyone else's. I know you don't like it but that does not make it less true. And the best way to deal with UEFI is to disable it. Simple as that.
It is still far preferable than giving control to anyone else.
Proof the DOJ apparently doesn't want to "disclose", most likely because they do not have it.
Oh, I am quite content with using something that is open and can be reviewed by anyone. I don't really need to review it myself. But good job trying to use a reductio ad absurdum fallacy to argue. Now it is time to go back to your logic 101 classes.
Free software can't pervert standards and be malicious just as a proprietary software can, because it can be easily branched if it becomes inconvenient (as it often happens). The use of proprietary programs does take a lot of things away as explained more than once, but if you refuse to understand and be part of the problem it is your choice.
You may believe in whatever absurdity you wish, it does not make it more true. It does not seem to be the case, though. You can't be so stupid. So I am forced to conclude that you indeed have an agenda. The fact you keep claiming you have no agenda just makes more apparent you do. And it is clear you will keep talking nonsense and trying to justify your incoherent beliefs in the hope of achieving it. You are nothing more than a corporate shill.
GPL is a reaction to copyright. Its sole reason to exist is to combat proprietary software, which wouldn't exist in a world without copyright. In the absence of copyright GPL has no reason to exist. I see no problem with a corporation using former GPL software in a world where proprietary software didn't exist.
Even if you didn't pay for the application. Just by using their standards you are helping them to enforce them, unless you live in a bubble, and if you did you wouldn't be here annoying us, would you?
And as you keep mentioning, I can't avoid noticing that the one who seems to have an agenda here is you, my good sir. You seem to be going out of your way to try and discredit RMS. Who do you work for? MS?
You do. You are giving money and consequently power to corporations that are struggling to take our control over the system we buy from them and impose their standards and policies upon us. You are part of the problem. A big part.
Everything I said was true. I challenge you to find anything at all that I wrote that was not true.
People like you, on the other hand, are ignorant and like to remain like so. Suit yourself. Keep being an ignorant asshole.
But it does. Proprietary software enforces controlled standards, locked systems, treacherous computing like UEFI. It ends taking away the user ability to make choices and to even know what his system is doing. And if you leave it unchecked you won`t have choices because control gives economical power and economical power pushes for more control. UEFI is an example. Soon it will be hard to find computers without it, and soon enough it may be impossible. Little by little we are having our choices eroded by progressively more restrictive hardware with closed specifications, because hardware producers go to bed with big software corporations.
As I said I have no information if it is indeed sending your file search keywords to the net, you will have to ask to the guy who made the claim (RMS is usually a very accessible person if you are really interested).
But the fact they can do it without my knowledge is enough for me. It is too much power to give blindly to a corporation.
Information is information. You can't control ideas no matter what form they take or purpose they were intended to fulfill. The distinction you seem to think is so clear, made based mostly on the intended use is largely irrelevant and exists only in your head. It is even an immoral distinction as it tries to impose upon others what they should do with ideas based on the will of the creator. A creator who used thousands of years of information available in the public domain to "create" his work and feels in the right to take ownership of the result and sequester it from the same public domain that made 95% of the work for him.
You can keep differing as much as you wish, but in the end it is just an stubborn and illogical paradigm you imposed upon yourself.
Additionally, trying to enforce ownership to information is not only absurd and immoral, it is actually impossible in this day and age. Even more the useless efforts to keep trying to enforce this control take huge amounts of public resources which are not used to the benefit of the people who generated them, trample people's constitutional rights and threaten net neutrality.
Copyright has to go and it will go, because most people don't want it anymore, don't think it is necessary anymore and simply won't obey without force, and forcing these many people to do something they do not want is simply impossible.
The problem is, considering Windows send information to MS encrypted every time you check for an update, and considering it is a closed source OS you won`t ever know what it is capable of sending and how. MS for example, lets say, under request of a governmental agency, could spy on you and you would never know.
You may think it is paranoid, but it is not, it is simply a matter of not trusting blindly on corporations. They may not even do it now, but the fact they have the power and can do it at will is enough on my book to avoid it like the plague.
Stallman would care very little if GNU code was "stolen" as long as there was no copyright at all and all systems were open. Copyleft is a way to use copyright to fight its own poison.
He is not being pedantic, he is being precise. Semantics does matter. And yes, he can claim he has a right to do whatever he pleases with information. Information ownership is a ridiculous concept.
Which basically defines the people with at least a modicum of common sense, and obviously excludes you.
Exactly. By doing this they actually become more liable not less. Not only diminishing their protection granted by the DCMA, as now they will be aware of at least some infringements as they are actively policing it, but making them vulnerable to being sued by the users for spying on their traffic.
"The enemy" here is US general population.
I suppose that "he" is not "you". So I must ask do you work for the US government?