The immediate effects would be a squelching of the reactionary and hateful views found in much of today's television broadcasts, since everyone's voice would be equally as loud.
Your experiment has already been done, and it's called the Internet. As it turns out, not everybody's voice is equally loud because of network effects. There's definitely more opportunity, though, for a random person to rise above the noise.
A company makes it easy for you to mod their tablet, and all you can do is whinge.
Because we're not groveling sycophants willing to heap praise for every crumb given. Oh, sure, you can unlock your device, but you have to ask permission, your warranty is void, and your capabilities are diminished. Gee, thank you master!
The iPhone had the software installed. Even if it wasn't passing keystrokes, the point is I can't install an alternative system. I have to trust Apple and any deals they made with the telecommunications company.
It was then exaggerated and distorted for political gain so now people like you can say "warrantless wiretapping" without any context on what actually occurred.
The NSA was given unfettered access to AT&T's Internet traffic. We'll never know the extent to which it was abused because the government claims state secrets, and efforts by groups like the ACLU have been dismissed. I don't know how anybody could look at this situation and not at least admit that there is cause for concern.
That's what they said about the Jews, almost verbatim.
For-profit, public corporations are a legal entity that must seek to maximize profits for their shareholders. That's not the case for Jewish people, and that's why your analogy is asinine. It's also asinine because you're invoking the Holocaust, and I'm not advocating the extermination of corporations.
I'm just saying there's good reason to want freedom when it comes to your device, one that doesn't involve some "unseen world". I don't see any benefits to continuing this conversation, so this is my last reply.
t's not a "kind of software". It's a specific piece of software that does specific things. The specific Carrier IQ for the iPhone didn't do the things people were correctly complaining about.
It's software with the capability to track your every keystroke, and the point is if I don't trust it, I can't remove it, because the iPhone doesn't give me that capability.
Yet another buzzword Internet meme.
You asked for behavior by corporations that would give cause for concern. Telecommunication companies, like AT&T, the first provider of the iPhone, engaged with the government to undertake massive, warrantless wiretapping. This isn't some "meme", it's the truth. You really are blind.
Here's a thought experiment: replace "corporations" with "Jews" in that paragraph.
That's asinine. Corporations number one concern is profit, and there are countless examples of corporations abusing their positions to maximize that profit at the expense of consumers. The mobile phone companies in particular are very aggressive, pushing shovelware apps on people that they can't get rid of or slamming them with surprise fees.
It's convention. It used to be common to put periods after each letter in an acronym. The convention changed in a way that's more streamlined, as it often does, and still using the old convention is a distraction, old-fashioned, and makes the newspaper look out of touch and downright naive when everybody else has moved on. You could argue it was a case of style if there was mixed usage, but at this point they are pretty much the only holdout.
As for abbreviations, for abbreviations, you may note that the Associated Press styles the abbreviation for the United Kingdom as "UK" (no dots) but the United States is "U.S." (with dots).
U.S. seems to be the one holdover, but I suspect eventually that will fall by the wayside too.
The English language itself, however, includes no rules or claims about such matters.
Language is based on convention, and the English language especially so, as many "rules" are commonly broken by convention. There's a blurry line between rules and style, and sometimes styles become rules or the rules change. Just look at text written 300 years ago -- it's pretty much the same language but there's a lot that would be considered "wrong" now. Or just look at dictionary entries and corresponding usage notes that change over the years.
Citing OS/2 is a strange example. It's not like IBM screwed people over. They lost to Microsoft Windows. They gave it a serious go (unlike HP's WebOS), and supported it far longer than most companies would have.
The New York Times really needs to move past putting periods after each letter in acronyms like HP. They do the same thing with acronyms like the NFL. It just looks stupid, because pretty much nobody else does that any more, even other newspapers. Language changes, and sometimes for the better.
Being able to state a reasonable case will help to convince them.
It's been made all along. Those who don't care about such issues won't be swayed.
Carrier IQ wasn't a problem on iPhone. It was only a problem on the more "open" Android phones.
I don't know where this comes from. It's the kind of software that I don't trust on any phone, especially given the way the telecommunications companies rolled over for the massive warrantless wiretapping.
I like how everyone who doesn't agree with you is blinded.
There are plenty of people sleepwalking along and not questioning where this technology is going. If anything, it's the prevailing attitude of most consumers. And your very questions of some "unseen world" where this might be a cause for concern, or needing evidence for how corporations abuse their power and put their own interests ahead of consumers -- it all seems pretty bizarre and blind to me.
Nothing I say is going to convince you, but for me it's already enough that Apple decides what software I can or cannot use, and I do not want to ask permission and pay extra for the privilege of using my device. And even if you get a developer account, it still isn't clear to me that you can install any software you want as if it was jailbroken, as there's some "provisioning profile" that adds a bunch of red tape. There's also the issue of potential spyware like Carrier IQ.
As for "making the best of the real world", that's what I'm trying to do without just blindly and quietly accepting the technological world as it appears to be slipping into a locked-down world.
Basic freedom. It's your device, you should be able to do what you want with it. If it isn't important to you, fine, but I don't know what's so hard to understand that would "require insight into some unseen world". That corporations often act against our own personal interests isn't exactly some exotic concept.
Of course the one fact to take away: DRM does *nothing* except inconvenience legitimate users.
I don't think it's so simple. There's a class of people that will casually copy a game from their friends and family but won't pirate it from the Net. If you make it harder for them to copy, you might increase sales by encouraging these people to buy the game.
It seems to me that Steam is essentially DRM that a lot of gamers have accepted. If people are going to pirate beyond that, you might as well stop fighting them because then you really are pissing people off for no benefit.
The question is, is it a walled garden or not? The answer is yes, because you have to get permission and pay extra to develop or install non-approved applications on your device. I can still buy a PC and there is no "unlocking" or "developer" account to install a different OS, install any application I want, or write software for it.
I don't know why people are so hung up on culture. Just think about the cultural shifts that have occurred over the centuries, or how many shifts there have been in the past century alone. A lot of times that culture has a lot of negative aspects that are better left behind. Culture changes. Get over it.
Also, I said, "dominate or at least does very well". What's significant is that IE in its heyday had a virtually monopoly on the browser, and according to those statistics is down to about 40%.
And Chrome is not developed through an OSS model as much as through professional development model (Google makes it and gives it away).
There's no rule in the open source model about who is allowed to create the code or for what reasons.
PHP does not dominate by any means and I would argue is largely considered sub par in quality to all other solutions in the same domain.
The LAMP stack is quite popular for small sites, and even some small sites that grew big (like Facebook). Overall on servers Linux popularity exceeds that of Microsoft and runs a lot of the Net.
Well, it's granted under the theory that people wouldn't be creating as much otherwise. In other words, the 1st sharing would be a much more rare occurrence.
On the other hand, each person would have access to more stuff by eliminating the artificial scarcity. That may or may not make up for less incentives to create.
If you oss model will do it, you'll have to explain why it hasn't come to dominate despite being cheaper over the last 20 years.
There's actually a lot of areas where open source does dominate or at least does very well, like Firefox and now Chrome, Linux on server backends along with software like MySql or PHP.
I don't claim to know what the right answer is, but the copyright current model seems far from optimal.
This pre-condition (I assume you meant that, and not "per") is being applied to and enforced on everybody via the law. Society granted that enforcement, and society can take it away if the costs outweigh the benefits.
If you write a book, you as the OWNER of the intellectual property get to deny its use until you get a compensation you want.
Only because we as a society give them that right. When the cost outweighs the benefit we can look for alternative models. It's one thing to say you won't share. It's quite another to share and then forbid everybody else from sharing.
Slashdot Mirror
The immediate effects would be a squelching of the reactionary and hateful views found in much of today's television broadcasts, since everyone's voice would be equally as loud.
Your experiment has already been done, and it's called the Internet. As it turns out, not everybody's voice is equally loud because of network effects. There's definitely more opportunity, though, for a random person to rise above the noise.
A company makes it easy for you to mod their tablet, and all you can do is whinge.
Because we're not groveling sycophants willing to heap praise for every crumb given. Oh, sure, you can unlock your device, but you have to ask permission, your warranty is void, and your capabilities are diminished. Gee, thank you master!
Stem cell research and abortion provide two perfect examples of the circumstances I'm referring to.
Those are good examples where reasonable people could disagree on what is the right thing to do.
Seems that Slashdot is bogging down your site. Alternate site: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/
The iPhone version had no such capability.
The iPhone had the software installed. Even if it wasn't passing keystrokes, the point is I can't install an alternative system. I have to trust Apple and any deals they made with the telecommunications company.
It was then exaggerated and distorted for political gain so now people like you can say "warrantless wiretapping" without any context on what actually occurred.
The NSA was given unfettered access to AT&T's Internet traffic. We'll never know the extent to which it was abused because the government claims state secrets, and efforts by groups like the ACLU have been dismissed. I don't know how anybody could look at this situation and not at least admit that there is cause for concern.
That's what they said about the Jews, almost verbatim.
For-profit, public corporations are a legal entity that must seek to maximize profits for their shareholders. That's not the case for Jewish people, and that's why your analogy is asinine. It's also asinine because you're invoking the Holocaust, and I'm not advocating the extermination of corporations.
I'm just saying there's good reason to want freedom when it comes to your device, one that doesn't involve some "unseen world". I don't see any benefits to continuing this conversation, so this is my last reply.
Where is this list of blocked websites in the USA?
You have to wait for SOPA to pass first. In the meantime, there's always domain seizures.
t's not a "kind of software". It's a specific piece of software that does specific things. The specific Carrier IQ for the iPhone didn't do the things people were correctly complaining about.
It's software with the capability to track your every keystroke, and the point is if I don't trust it, I can't remove it, because the iPhone doesn't give me that capability.
Yet another buzzword Internet meme.
You asked for behavior by corporations that would give cause for concern. Telecommunication companies, like AT&T, the first provider of the iPhone, engaged with the government to undertake massive, warrantless wiretapping. This isn't some "meme", it's the truth. You really are blind.
Here's a thought experiment: replace "corporations" with "Jews" in that paragraph.
That's asinine. Corporations number one concern is profit, and there are countless examples of corporations abusing their positions to maximize that profit at the expense of consumers. The mobile phone companies in particular are very aggressive, pushing shovelware apps on people that they can't get rid of or slamming them with surprise fees.
Kudos for acknowledgment.
That's not language, it's style.
It's convention. It used to be common to put periods after each letter in an acronym. The convention changed in a way that's more streamlined, as it often does, and still using the old convention is a distraction, old-fashioned, and makes the newspaper look out of touch and downright naive when everybody else has moved on. You could argue it was a case of style if there was mixed usage, but at this point they are pretty much the only holdout.
As for abbreviations, for abbreviations, you may note that the Associated Press styles the abbreviation for the United Kingdom as "UK" (no dots) but the United States is "U.S." (with dots).
U.S. seems to be the one holdover, but I suspect eventually that will fall by the wayside too.
The English language itself, however, includes no rules or claims about such matters.
Language is based on convention, and the English language especially so, as many "rules" are commonly broken by convention. There's a blurry line between rules and style, and sometimes styles become rules or the rules change. Just look at text written 300 years ago -- it's pretty much the same language but there's a lot that would be considered "wrong" now. Or just look at dictionary entries and corresponding usage notes that change over the years.
Citing OS/2 is a strange example. It's not like IBM screwed people over. They lost to Microsoft Windows. They gave it a serious go (unlike HP's WebOS), and supported it far longer than most companies would have.
The New York Times really needs to move past putting periods after each letter in acronyms like HP. They do the same thing with acronyms like the NFL. It just looks stupid, because pretty much nobody else does that any more, even other newspapers. Language changes, and sometimes for the better.
So buy devices that fit your preferences then.
Thanks for the obvious advice.
Being able to state a reasonable case will help to convince them.
It's been made all along. Those who don't care about such issues won't be swayed.
Carrier IQ wasn't a problem on iPhone. It was only a problem on the more "open" Android phones.
I don't know where this comes from. It's the kind of software that I don't trust on any phone, especially given the way the telecommunications companies rolled over for the massive warrantless wiretapping.
I like how everyone who doesn't agree with you is blinded.
There are plenty of people sleepwalking along and not questioning where this technology is going. If anything, it's the prevailing attitude of most consumers. And your very questions of some "unseen world" where this might be a cause for concern, or needing evidence for how corporations abuse their power and put their own interests ahead of consumers -- it all seems pretty bizarre and blind to me.
Nothing I say is going to convince you, but for me it's already enough that Apple decides what software I can or cannot use, and I do not want to ask permission and pay extra for the privilege of using my device. And even if you get a developer account, it still isn't clear to me that you can install any software you want as if it was jailbroken, as there's some "provisioning profile" that adds a bunch of red tape. There's also the issue of potential spyware like Carrier IQ.
As for "making the best of the real world", that's what I'm trying to do without just blindly and quietly accepting the technological world as it appears to be slipping into a locked-down world.
Basic freedom. It's your device, you should be able to do what you want with it. If it isn't important to you, fine, but I don't know what's so hard to understand that would "require insight into some unseen world". That corporations often act against our own personal interests isn't exactly some exotic concept.
Of course the one fact to take away: DRM does *nothing* except inconvenience legitimate users.
I don't think it's so simple. There's a class of people that will casually copy a game from their friends and family but won't pirate it from the Net. If you make it harder for them to copy, you might increase sales by encouraging these people to buy the game.
It seems to me that Steam is essentially DRM that a lot of gamers have accepted. If people are going to pirate beyond that, you might as well stop fighting them because then you really are pissing people off for no benefit.
So nothing, for those people who don't care about such things. For those who do, it is something to be avoided.
in a few years the facebook fad will be over
Or it may not be. You could have made this statement a few years ago and you would have been wrong.
The question is, is it a walled garden or not? The answer is yes, because you have to get permission and pay extra to develop or install non-approved applications on your device. I can still buy a PC and there is no "unlocking" or "developer" account to install a different OS, install any application I want, or write software for it.
I don't know why people are so hung up on culture. Just think about the cultural shifts that have occurred over the centuries, or how many shifts there have been in the past century alone. A lot of times that culture has a lot of negative aspects that are better left behind. Culture changes. Get over it.
If the copyright terms were not draconian, scarcity would be much more temporary.
I agree with a shorter copyright term, something like 5 years in this day and age would be reasonable.
Firefox, by the way never dominated. It never broke past 20% of the market share.
I'm looking at stats right now that show it peaked above 30%: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200807-201111
Also, I said, "dominate or at least does very well". What's significant is that IE in its heyday had a virtually monopoly on the browser, and according to those statistics is down to about 40%.
And Chrome is not developed through an OSS model as much as through professional development model (Google makes it and gives it away).
There's no rule in the open source model about who is allowed to create the code or for what reasons.
PHP does not dominate by any means and I would argue is largely considered sub par in quality to all other solutions in the same domain.
The LAMP stack is quite popular for small sites, and even some small sites that grew big (like Facebook). Overall on servers Linux popularity exceeds that of Microsoft and runs a lot of the Net.
But you came out of it. That's always the big question -- when to give up hope. My grandfather died in agony, but still fighting till the end.
Well, it's granted under the theory that people wouldn't be creating as much otherwise. In other words, the 1st sharing would be a much more rare occurrence.
On the other hand, each person would have access to more stuff by eliminating the artificial scarcity. That may or may not make up for less incentives to create.
If you oss model will do it, you'll have to explain why it hasn't come to dominate despite being cheaper over the last 20 years.
There's actually a lot of areas where open source does dominate or at least does very well, like Firefox and now Chrome, Linux on server backends along with software like MySql or PHP.
I don't claim to know what the right answer is, but the copyright current model seems far from optimal.
There's a good article from Gary Taubes that presents a good summary of the argument, along with some of the uncertainties:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=2&ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all
This pre-condition (I assume you meant that, and not "per") is being applied to and enforced on everybody via the law. Society granted that enforcement, and society can take it away if the costs outweigh the benefits.
If you write a book, you as the OWNER of the intellectual property get to deny its use until you get a compensation you want.
Only because we as a society give them that right. When the cost outweighs the benefit we can look for alternative models. It's one thing to say you won't share. It's quite another to share and then forbid everybody else from sharing.