Nope, because governments and corporations are not people. They are virtual entities created and empowered by groups of people and have the responsibility to be transparent regarding what use they do of the power they receive from these people.
It is quite possible for the masses to be responsible. The number of android phones is going up and well and most people are quite happy with them. Seem to me that this malware doom is severely overblown.
Anything that is benefit by productive interfaces like real keyboards and mouses (like coding or text processing, for example), real processing power (like simulations, 3D modeling, etc) and real storage capacity (like pretty much everything that produces visual content nowadays).
Now you can plug a keyboard and an external HD to some tablets, but you will still get crappy performance, low physical memory, and lose the only advantage you have with them, portability. At this point a Laptop would be much less clumsy to carry, considerably more powerful and better for pretty much any task.
Such as any real work. Tablets are clumsy toys at best when compared to desktops. If you want to play games, surf the web or do small posts on Twitter/FB then you are well served by tablets. If you need to perform any real work you are likely to use the later.
Only if you or anyone whom you trust can read code. That is not so hard to find. Open source is open for all, and chances are that anything fishy inserted in open source software will be detected by someone and the whistle will be blown.
And no drugs that cure AIDS for example will ever be discovered in the current system, because it is much more lucrative to treat it as a chronic disease. Private research based on patents has its advantages and had a reason in the past, but it is time to move forward. We have means to do it differently now.
Actually it is not. People like the GP are the least at fault for that. They recognize that there is a problem and speak up against it. And vote against it within the possibilities. Everybody else that doesn't give a shit until they start to piss on their yard is, on the other hand.
Correction: they don't have exclusive rights over anything you thinkyou may need. You obviously have absolutely no clue about the volume of Amazon IP and even less idea about the needs of others and likely not even of yours as well.
Mathematics does deal with a lot of "disputed" definitions. Mathematics deal even with a lot of "disputed" logic and "disputed" interpretations. Read about the axiom of choice, set Theory in general, Constructivism (mathematics) and Finitism and you will understand that things get quite more complicated than you thought.
Not if they have exclusive rights over what you need. Then they can pretty much do whatever they want, because nobody else can compete with him. That is not even remotely a free market.
Then there is no harm in forcing you to allow anyone who wants to do it, regardless. Besides, with 3D printing it is reasonable to think that at least replacement parts to your products, whatever you do, will be possible to be done sooner or later much cheaper than you think, if it isn't already possible.
What cannot be tolerated is giving someone exclusive rights to produce something and this person use it to prevent this thing to be produced at all.
Because you are an asshole. You want not only to be able to refrain from providing replacement parts to your customers, but to sue anyone who does. If you can't do the job right open space for those who can.
When we, as a society, give someone or some company exclusivity in manufacturing something, we can expect him to sell it and for reasonable prices. If this entity cannot or doesn't want to sell, society will be better served by taking the monopoly from it.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion as the car parts in question become available to the repair shops just the same. The same does not happen to these camera repair parts.
The point is that we, as a society define the privileges we give to copyrights owners. I don't see why we should go out of our way to allow these kinds of licensing, especially when they go against laws made to protect consumers and guarantee their rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, because governments and corporations are not people. They are virtual entities created and empowered by groups of people and have the responsibility to be transparent regarding what use they do of the power they receive from these people.
It is quite possible for the masses to be responsible. The number of android phones is going up and well and most people are quite happy with them. Seem to me that this malware doom is severely overblown.
Just add a fifth word. Still easy to remember and brings the time to something near what he wants, even with 20K or so "common" words.
Buy a chromebook.
Anything that is benefit by productive interfaces like real keyboards and mouses (like coding or text processing, for example), real processing power (like simulations, 3D modeling, etc) and real storage capacity (like pretty much everything that produces visual content nowadays).
Now you can plug a keyboard and an external HD to some tablets, but you will still get crappy performance, low physical memory, and lose the only advantage you have with them, portability. At this point a Laptop would be much less clumsy to carry, considerably more powerful and better for pretty much any task.
Such as what?
Such as any real work. Tablets are clumsy toys at best when compared to desktops. If you want to play games, surf the web or do small posts on Twitter/FB then you are well served by tablets. If you need to perform any real work you are likely to use the later.
You may believe in the crap you wish, but reality says otherwise.
Only if you or anyone whom you trust can read code. That is not so hard to find. Open source is open for all, and chances are that anything fishy inserted in open source software will be detected by someone and the whistle will be blown.
And no drugs that cure AIDS for example will ever be discovered in the current system, because it is much more lucrative to treat it as a chronic disease. Private research based on patents has its advantages and had a reason in the past, but it is time to move forward. We have means to do it differently now.
Sure it is. More than that, it is the natural progression of any non-regulated capitalist system.
Actually it is not. People like the GP are the least at fault for that. They recognize that there is a problem and speak up against it. And vote against it within the possibilities. Everybody else that doesn't give a shit until they start to piss on their yard is, on the other hand.
Correction: they don't have exclusive rights over anything you think you may need. You obviously have absolutely no clue about the volume of Amazon IP and even less idea about the needs of others and likely not even of yours as well.
Mathematics does deal with a lot of "disputed" definitions. Mathematics deal even with a lot of "disputed" logic and "disputed" interpretations. Read about the axiom of choice, set Theory in general, Constructivism (mathematics) and Finitism and you will understand that things get quite more complicated than you thought.
I generally agree with you, but there is no dichotomy between doing that and fighting for fair laws. Both things can be done at the same time.
Not if they have exclusive rights over what you need. Then they can pretty much do whatever they want, because nobody else can compete with him. That is not even remotely a free market.
And which law exactly did this app infringe, Mr Smart?
Then there is no harm in forcing you to allow anyone who wants to do it, regardless. Besides, with 3D printing it is reasonable to think that at least replacement parts to your products, whatever you do, will be possible to be done sooner or later much cheaper than you think, if it isn't already possible.
What cannot be tolerated is giving someone exclusive rights to produce something and this person use it to prevent this thing to be produced at all.
Not specifically to me but certainly to the customers, who give them the privilege of exclusive rights over the products they manufacture.
And so those companies should be allowed to do as they wish but not allowed to prevent others from providing the repair parts they refuse to provide.
Because you are an asshole. You want not only to be able to refrain from providing replacement parts to your customers, but to sue anyone who does. If you can't do the job right open space for those who can.
The point is, a manufacturer should be obligated by law to provide repair parts for reasonable prices, or, at the very least, let others provide them.
When we, as a society, give someone or some company exclusivity in manufacturing something, we can expect him to sell it and for reasonable prices. If this entity cannot or doesn't want to sell, society will be better served by taking the monopoly from it.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion as the car parts in question become available to the repair shops just the same. The same does not happen to these camera repair parts.
As long as there is a real contract (not an EULA, mind you), and this contract do not violate any consumer laws, sure. That is not the case here.
The point is that we, as a society define the privileges we give to copyrights owners. I don't see why we should go out of our way to allow these kinds of licensing, especially when they go against laws made to protect consumers and guarantee their rights.