So I'm a fairly staunch opponent of copyright law in general. I think it is way too encompassing and blah blah blah.
With that said, in the COMMERCIAL sphere, I'm much more accepting. If you are in the business of making commercials, I think you should have all of your ducks in a row when using someone else's work. I don't know if this case has merit or not, but "fair use" arguments seem to fall flat in a purely commercial context.
But like I said, super easy to trace back and with tons of hard evidence, both on-premises and in all of your victim's hands. Plus the circumstantial evidence of all the ripped off people having a common experience of using your business. Much better off with a software hack. I mean, you have the person's phone in your possession... why not just install whatever software that you want - where there is at least some degree of plausible deniability?
Not only is it FUD, but it could be done with brand-new phones. Thousands of people have access to the supply chain and at any point could pull inventory, modify/replace the original parts, and swap them back in. The fact is that there is no reasonable commercial incentive for the random repair person at a store to spy on the random customer that has his screen replaced, and it would be super simple to catch the responsible party. Talk about hard evidence!
I just don't understand. I wake up at 7:45, shower, shave, eat a bowl of cereal, make kids lunches, make my own lunch, and herd the kids out the door by 8:30 (8:45 when things go badly wrong). Are you taking a 45 minute dump or something?
How in the hell does it take 90 minutes to get ready? It doesn't take that long even with two young kids! Unless you are sitting around reading or something, which is not "getting ready". That's called "reading".
"He" won't control anything. He'll be dead. But his trustees will control his money when dead. He can make his wishes known, but that won't last forever. The Barnes Museum in Philly jumps to mind.
I don't think it's a scam at all. We have tax law that lets you deduct charitable contributions because we value those contributions greater than we value the tax revenue. This isn't about anything shady. He "controls the wealth" insofar as he uses it for charitable causes, which is not really controlling the wealth.
I should say the same for you. He wasn't paying taxes before. The parent implies that he needs to pay taxes on it now. He does not - it is paper wealth, and we have no wealth tax. When he dies, his estate would have to pay taxes unless the assets were first donated to a charity. When he dies, he has control over nothing - the trustees of the charity will. He can make his wishes known, and that's it.
That's fine, people like to classify. Makes sense evolutionary, but it's the source of a lot of our tribalism and bias. If blacks can live day-to-day with society biased against them the way it is, then I can certainly clarify my political leanings a bit on Slashdot from time to time:)
That sounds like the Ayn Rand, objectivist sort of "libertarian". The whole philosophy, such as it is, seems to be unabashedly centered around selfishness. In fact, the only thing all libertarians agree on is the principle of innate (inalienable) rights. Even there, many add "property" as an innate right to the traditional life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "Pursuit of happiness" leaves a lot of wiggle room. The main thrust is to leave people alone unless their behavior infringes one of your innate rights. It is very much a contradiction for a libertarian to use government power to enrich themselves, as their ideals are antithetic to such "abuses". But you'd be an idiot not to play by the existing rules, even as you try to change them.
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity... what does Tim Cook have to do with Chinese drones or lasers? I'd love to know what triggered you so I can do it again.
In a private company, one should be able to hire and fire whoever they want
Agreed.
You cannot be an anti-SJW libertarian only when the group complaining isn't the one you belong to.
Agreed.
But.
You can be opposed to a government law while still taking advantage of it. For instance, I can complain that high income earners get to take the mortgage deduction, and I'd be a fool to not take my mortgage deduction. You play the game by the rules as they are, and you can be a Libertarian and still use the existing rules to sue for compensation when you are discriminated against. To not do so puts you at a disadvantage to everyone else, and that is foolish. Idealistic, but foolish.
The extreme left and the extreme right have a lot in common. Mainly they spend all their energy trying to undermine the other team and demonstrate their bona-fides to each other. In general it does not surprise me at all to see either one express glee in the misfortune of the other - that is in fact their primary objective.
So yeah, using the power of the state to interfere with a private employment contract should really irritate a Libertarian, but the American right only pulls in some Libertarian ideals when it suits them. In general they are more than happy to use the government to advance their own cause. Remember that before Obama, the largest expansion of government into healthcare ever was... George W. Bush. And they'd love to push a nationwide law on abortion. Or concealed carry gun laws. Or drugs. Or... and so on.
Google definitely has cultural problems. I'm defending affirmative action (and more broadly, efforts to identify bias), but don't mistake that with defending Google's apparently close-minded culture.
No, if done well it is not about quotas at all. If you aren't hiring at around the same percentages as the pool of workers, then what the heck is wrong? It's about answering that question.
If we didn't have history, I'd agree with you. But women started from a lower place. Blacks started from a lower place. There has been tremendous progress, but we are not done yet. At the end of the day I'd like the idea of the government asking you your race or gender to be just plain bizarre.
Really? You won't concede that, at the point the tabs become so small that they no longer show any information at all, that there is a usability problem?
It's doomed to fail when people are forced to do it in order to meet some kind of a standard, because they think of it like you do - as a ridiculous exercise. In reality, it is just another way of saying "try to measure and correct for your bias", which is what everyone should be doing. So I'm in tech, and my company does practice affirmative action. With that said, we have a pool to draw from of women that is around 6%. Black males are almost non-existent. It's statistically impossible to measure our bias with such small numbers of available candidates. Roughly half of my co-workers are foreign-born men. Obviously the place to address this is lower down on the chain, but we have an absolutely indefensible funding system in public education, so that is unlikely to happen in the short term.
Slashdot Mirror
There are dozens of breakout clones that have shown up over the years.
Agreed. Don't know the specifics of this case, but suspect Nestle crossed a line.
Why should anybody have this protection decades after the original version could no longer run on modern hardware?
I'm a huge proponent of shortening copyright terms - you won't hear an argument from me.
Patents for anything in this would have expired years ago even if they had existed in the first place.
Agreed. I think copyright should have terms similar to patents.
Nestle needs to win this suit or yet another section of culture is going to be locked off from the public.
No, only the commercial sphere. The "public" is a lot larger than the commercial sphere.
OK, but if you can't do it with physical access to the phone, then a screen hack also won't help you.
So I'm a fairly staunch opponent of copyright law in general. I think it is way too encompassing and blah blah blah.
With that said, in the COMMERCIAL sphere, I'm much more accepting. If you are in the business of making commercials, I think you should have all of your ducks in a row when using someone else's work. I don't know if this case has merit or not, but "fair use" arguments seem to fall flat in a purely commercial context.
But like I said, super easy to trace back and with tons of hard evidence, both on-premises and in all of your victim's hands. Plus the circumstantial evidence of all the ripped off people having a common experience of using your business. Much better off with a software hack. I mean, you have the person's phone in your possession... why not just install whatever software that you want - where there is at least some degree of plausible deniability?
Not only is it FUD, but it could be done with brand-new phones. Thousands of people have access to the supply chain and at any point could pull inventory, modify/replace the original parts, and swap them back in. The fact is that there is no reasonable commercial incentive for the random repair person at a store to spy on the random customer that has his screen replaced, and it would be super simple to catch the responsible party. Talk about hard evidence!
I just don't understand. I wake up at 7:45, shower, shave, eat a bowl of cereal, make kids lunches, make my own lunch, and herd the kids out the door by 8:30 (8:45 when things go badly wrong). Are you taking a 45 minute dump or something?
How in the hell does it take 90 minutes to get ready? It doesn't take that long even with two young kids! Unless you are sitting around reading or something, which is not "getting ready". That's called "reading".
"He" won't control anything. He'll be dead. But his trustees will control his money when dead. He can make his wishes known, but that won't last forever. The Barnes Museum in Philly jumps to mind.
I don't think it's a scam at all. We have tax law that lets you deduct charitable contributions because we value those contributions greater than we value the tax revenue. This isn't about anything shady. He "controls the wealth" insofar as he uses it for charitable causes, which is not really controlling the wealth.
Likely go back to Bill? What the hell. OK, Bill Gates is evil. Carry on.
I should say the same for you. He wasn't paying taxes before. The parent implies that he needs to pay taxes on it now. He does not - it is paper wealth, and we have no wealth tax. When he dies, his estate would have to pay taxes unless the assets were first donated to a charity. When he dies, he has control over nothing - the trustees of the charity will. He can make his wishes known, and that's it.
He didn't pay taxes on it before, either. When he dies, the funds stay with the Foundation instead of being part of his estate.
That's fine, people like to classify. Makes sense evolutionary, but it's the source of a lot of our tribalism and bias. If blacks can live day-to-day with society biased against them the way it is, then I can certainly clarify my political leanings a bit on Slashdot from time to time :)
Photos and video, iPhone development.
That sounds like the Ayn Rand, objectivist sort of "libertarian". The whole philosophy, such as it is, seems to be unabashedly centered around selfishness. In fact, the only thing all libertarians agree on is the principle of innate (inalienable) rights. Even there, many add "property" as an innate right to the traditional life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "Pursuit of happiness" leaves a lot of wiggle room. The main thrust is to leave people alone unless their behavior infringes one of your innate rights. It is very much a contradiction for a libertarian to use government power to enrich themselves, as their ideals are antithetic to such "abuses". But you'd be an idiot not to play by the existing rules, even as you try to change them.
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity... what does Tim Cook have to do with Chinese drones or lasers? I'd love to know what triggered you so I can do it again.
Meds, man, meds.
In a private company, one should be able to hire and fire whoever they want
Agreed.
You cannot be an anti-SJW libertarian only when the group complaining isn't the one you belong to.
Agreed.
But.
You can be opposed to a government law while still taking advantage of it. For instance, I can complain that high income earners get to take the mortgage deduction, and I'd be a fool to not take my mortgage deduction. You play the game by the rules as they are, and you can be a Libertarian and still use the existing rules to sue for compensation when you are discriminated against. To not do so puts you at a disadvantage to everyone else, and that is foolish. Idealistic, but foolish.
Enter the $1 per shot naval laser.
Coming soon to an Israeli occupied territory near you!
The extreme left and the extreme right have a lot in common. Mainly they spend all their energy trying to undermine the other team and demonstrate their bona-fides to each other. In general it does not surprise me at all to see either one express glee in the misfortune of the other - that is in fact their primary objective.
So yeah, using the power of the state to interfere with a private employment contract should really irritate a Libertarian, but the American right only pulls in some Libertarian ideals when it suits them. In general they are more than happy to use the government to advance their own cause. Remember that before Obama, the largest expansion of government into healthcare ever was... George W. Bush. And they'd love to push a nationwide law on abortion. Or concealed carry gun laws. Or drugs. Or... and so on.
Google definitely has cultural problems. I'm defending affirmative action (and more broadly, efforts to identify bias), but don't mistake that with defending Google's apparently close-minded culture.
No, if done well it is not about quotas at all. If you aren't hiring at around the same percentages as the pool of workers, then what the heck is wrong? It's about answering that question.
If we didn't have history, I'd agree with you. But women started from a lower place. Blacks started from a lower place. There has been tremendous progress, but we are not done yet. At the end of the day I'd like the idea of the government asking you your race or gender to be just plain bizarre.
Really? You won't concede that, at the point the tabs become so small that they no longer show any information at all, that there is a usability problem?
It's doomed to fail when people are forced to do it in order to meet some kind of a standard, because they think of it like you do - as a ridiculous exercise. In reality, it is just another way of saying "try to measure and correct for your bias", which is what everyone should be doing. So I'm in tech, and my company does practice affirmative action. With that said, we have a pool to draw from of women that is around 6%. Black males are almost non-existent. It's statistically impossible to measure our bias with such small numbers of available candidates. Roughly half of my co-workers are foreign-born men. Obviously the place to address this is lower down on the chain, but we have an absolutely indefensible funding system in public education, so that is unlikely to happen in the short term.