Yeah, he's such a douche for pointing out that here, just as computers start to truly, fully infiltrate the lives of most people in the first world and trickle down into the developing world, there's a high likelihood that those in a position of power will start demanding computers be crippled (beyond the idiots in the MPAA/RIAA) for the purposes of control.
Yes! So instead of a single vendor holding its customers hostage, you get competition that drives down prices and a platform that is independent of the hardware.
That's a good thing. Well, unless you're a monopolistic corporation/control freak.
I do understand that an airplane can be turned into a giant guided missile that can take down a skyscraper. It may be that extreme measures are appropriate for security at an airport.
This has not been true since Sept. 11, 2001 when people decided that letting a terrorist hijack a plane was no longer a good idea. Of course, the measures taken do precisely shit for security.
But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?
Because everything is justified by the "War on Terror" even if no logic or data exists otherwise.
Has a VIPR team ever caught a terrorist or found a bomb, ever?
Nope, and they never will.
But you can bet your ass that some contractors and equipment vendors will make a lot of money off of this. And I suspect, like Chertoff, it wouldn't be hard to trace the contracts that are inevitably issued back to the senators who support this garbage.
He placed the condition of an Android tablet. Apple iZealots refuse to acknowledge that people might have already looked at and rejected iProducts for a number of reasons, but your inability to acknowledge that some people might see the crippled nature of the devices as a flaw is pathetic.
You need to decide if you want Android for the sake of it or if you are interested in an iPad and with it functionality over form.
Apparently he wants Android, and has already made decisions along that path.
Jailbreak it and you have just as much freedom. More really, since it's easier to hack than Android.
Sorry, pure bullshit. You're left waiting for a jailbreak to come along, and always at risk of Apple stuffing you back into the walled garden. Never mind that the platform is wholly closed.
ITC Judge: Motorola Mobility Infringed Microsoft Patent
Note the italicized part. Also, the text of the blurb appears to have been written by chrb, who himself is paraphrasing "Experts," referring to an ill defined 3rd party.
This decision is exactly the opposite of success for Microsoft.
Not at all. Microsoft doesn't need every patent to make it, they just need a handful. That's why these suits involve several patents, to increase the likelihood that something will stick. And now they have a patent they can press Motorola with and threaten other Android vendors over.
Err, no. Intel has continued to be a driving force behind them, despite the setbacks. Moblin merged with Maemo because Nokia approached them with the goal of creating something that wasn't so tied to one vendor, and created MeeGo. Then MeeGo got taken over by Microsoft, damaging the relationship and catching MeeGo in the middle. So Intel has gone off looking for another partner and found Samsung.
And since it looks unlikely that Samsung is going to drop everything and go Microsoft-only, I doubt that we'll see Tizen vanish into thin air.
Lockdown is fine, but when the lockdown puts the owner of the device in jail then it's crossing the line.
you can believe anything with a cell radio in it is going to be locked down as tightly as necessary to absolutely prevent changing radio parameters.
Baseband radios tend to be locked down yes. But there's no need for the application processor environment (android, etc.) does not need to be locked down beyond necessary security features. Well, no need beyond pro-corporate BS and control.
The first hacker that gets into a cell radio and shows the world how they can disrupt cell communications in their corner of the world will prove the need for this kind of lockdown beyond any doubt.
Nonsense. Utter and complete (hint: it would have happened by now.)
I do not think the parent "subsidy" is the reason for the lockdown
There's no other reason for such lockdown. People are buying a $200 tool by which Amazon gets expedited access to your wallet.
I think the only explanation that is reasonable is the absolute very last thing they want is any sort of downloaded software making its way onto one of these devices and taking it over.
No, they want you to be stuck in their garden.
Anyone criticizing this doesn't understand the risks or the incredible backlash that would follow from an exploit on one of these devices.
The criticism is the same: They sell crippled devices stuck in a walled garden and give users no legitimate out. And then useful fools come and defend their behavior screaming "omg buy something else" as this BS spreads.
Politics and governance are dirty businesses, and society and the individual are at odds. It has always been this way. Scandals are swept under the rug if possible. If not possible, damage control plans are executed. FYI... watergate was exposed, and Nixon did resign from office. Nothing here has changed.
In summary, none of the things you claim are different now, are any different than they always have been. You haven't lost anything that someone else wasn't gifting you in the first place. It was theirs to take away.
Indeed. We have always been at war with Eastasia. So do not be critical of things you claim are "new" for they always have been and always will be. Rest assured, Citizen, you will not be able to change things for the better.
The point here is that if I make changes to BSD software that entices you to use my variant, the original version is of little use to you unless you are capable of reimplementing the changes that I made.
And if you can't (which, presumably, is why you are using my variant) then you are dependent upon me to deliver fixes, changes, updates, etc., a situation the GPL was created explicitly to avoid.
Why is it every shout of 'write it yourself' to people saying that the GPL viral source-release 'feature' has downsides, seem to come over the internet, presumably created with dozens of individual pieces of software they did not write, on hardware they did not manufacture, by people in houses they did not bit, fed by food they did not grow, in a society they did not create and perhaps, not even contributed to?
Because we're fortunate enough to be unaware of your location, and potentially be subject to silly arguments such as this.
I'm using extremes to be a dick, but my point stands - there is a phrase 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' and yes, that applies to industry and producing a profit, using technologies and concepts that, surprise, may not have been invented by them, but merely refined and targeted.
Which is not relevant here.
If someone says that a particular license is not suitable for them, why the pithy 'boo-hoo' response?
Because it's virtually always someone whining about the fact that someone made a choice they can't stand, and feel a need to gripe about it instead of accepting it and moving on. Also, because this is Slashdot.
And even that is not wholly correct. Perhaps this works best:
I can profit while using GPL software. I simply cannot close the source code as a means of forcing my customers into a dependency on me. Which is why the GPL was created in the first place.
Perhaps the fact that all these new, fancy mobile devices running Android have kernel sources available. I'm sure if it were BSD we wouldn't see anything, and hacking them to do as we wish would be considerably more difficult.
Of course, this is my opinion and you are free to reject it as "invalid" if you see fit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, he's such a douche for pointing out that here, just as computers start to truly, fully infiltrate the lives of most people in the first world and trickle down into the developing world, there's a high likelihood that those in a position of power will start demanding computers be crippled (beyond the idiots in the MPAA/RIAA) for the purposes of control.
Yes! So instead of a single vendor holding its customers hostage, you get competition that drives down prices and a platform that is independent of the hardware.
That's a good thing. Well, unless you're a monopolistic corporation/control freak.
This has not been true since Sept. 11, 2001 when people decided that letting a terrorist hijack a plane was no longer a good idea. Of course, the measures taken do precisely shit for security.
Because everything is justified by the "War on Terror" even if no logic or data exists otherwise.
Nope, and they never will.
But you can bet your ass that some contractors and equipment vendors will make a lot of money off of this. And I suspect, like Chertoff, it wouldn't be hard to trace the contracts that are inevitably issued back to the senators who support this garbage.
Sadly, few and none. ARM hardware is so vendor-dependent it leads directly to problems like this.
Buying electronics for their resale value is an idiot's venture.
Perhaps he has reasons for not choosing the iPad? Oh wait, he told you and you called him a snob? Please. Apple snobs are the biggest of them all.
Or maybe because of what it doesn't do for him, namely, stuff him in a walled garden.
He placed the condition of an Android tablet. Apple iZealots refuse to acknowledge that people might have already looked at and rejected iProducts for a number of reasons, but your inability to acknowledge that some people might see the crippled nature of the devices as a flaw is pathetic.
Apparently he wants Android, and has already made decisions along that path.
Sorry, pure bullshit. You're left waiting for a jailbreak to come along, and always at risk of Apple stuffing you back into the walled garden. Never mind that the platform is wholly closed.
Why not just put it this way:
That's about equally as solid as your logic.
I know, let's hope us having control over our own hardware becomes a trend, rather than the obvious reality it should always have been.
It says:
Note the italicized part. Also, the text of the blurb appears to have been written by chrb, who himself is paraphrasing "Experts," referring to an ill defined 3rd party.
Not at all. Microsoft doesn't need every patent to make it, they just need a handful. That's why these suits involve several patents, to increase the likelihood that something will stick. And now they have a patent they can press Motorola with and threaten other Android vendors over.
should read
Err, no. Intel has continued to be a driving force behind them, despite the setbacks. Moblin merged with Maemo because Nokia approached them with the goal of creating something that wasn't so tied to one vendor, and created MeeGo. Then MeeGo got taken over by Microsoft, damaging the relationship and catching MeeGo in the middle. So Intel has gone off looking for another partner and found Samsung.
And since it looks unlikely that Samsung is going to drop everything and go Microsoft-only, I doubt that we'll see Tizen vanish into thin air.
Lockdown is fine, but when the lockdown puts the owner of the device in jail then it's crossing the line.
Baseband radios tend to be locked down yes. But there's no need for the application processor environment (android, etc.) does not need to be locked down beyond necessary security features. Well, no need beyond pro-corporate BS and control.
Nonsense. Utter and complete (hint: it would have happened by now.)
There's no other reason for such lockdown. People are buying a $200 tool by which Amazon gets expedited access to your wallet.
No, they want you to be stuck in their garden.
The criticism is the same: They sell crippled devices stuck in a walled garden and give users no legitimate out. And then useful fools come and defend their behavior screaming "omg buy something else" as this BS spreads.
And then ask the shanzai tablet manufacturers for the source code, and get a "only if you give us $6000" bullshit response.
Can you get the source code for the GPL bits?
Indeed. We have always been at war with Eastasia. So do not be critical of things you claim are "new" for they always have been and always will be. Rest assured, Citizen, you will not be able to change things for the better.
I think that about sums you up.
Right, so do you make it corporate policy to go on boards like this and whine about the GPL?
The point here is that if I make changes to BSD software that entices you to use my variant, the original version is of little use to you unless you are capable of reimplementing the changes that I made.
And if you can't (which, presumably, is why you are using my variant) then you are dependent upon me to deliver fixes, changes, updates, etc., a situation the GPL was created explicitly to avoid.
But how is fighting against such jackassery "not good?"
Because we're fortunate enough to be unaware of your location, and potentially be subject to silly arguments such as this.
Which is not relevant here.
Because it's virtually always someone whining about the fact that someone made a choice they can't stand, and feel a need to gripe about it instead of accepting it and moving on. Also, because this is Slashdot.
And if you don't acknowledge that going in, then you deserve the misery that comes to you.
Yeah, how dare the FSF go after them for copyright violation. Except the FSF virtually never sues, they try to achieve compliance first.
Good thing too, cause OpenWRT seems to be the result of such compliance and it's an awesome thing to have on my router.
And even that is not wholly correct. Perhaps this works best:
I can profit while using GPL software. I simply cannot close the source code as a means of forcing my customers into a dependency on me. Which is why the GPL was created in the first place.
Err, it is true. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, and the response before yours acknowledges the only case in which it is true.
Caveat: failure to include a license leaves "no redistribution" as the only reasonable answer to license questions.
Perhaps the fact that all these new, fancy mobile devices running Android have kernel sources available. I'm sure if it were BSD we wouldn't see anything, and hacking them to do as we wish would be considerably more difficult.
Of course, this is my opinion and you are free to reject it as "invalid" if you see fit.