21·
9 months agoWin7 and Win10.
- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: September 10th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·9 months agoheadline: “We’re still asking some people what they think should be done about the harm they caused.”
must be nice to get asked what you think you you might want to do about it.
-
I’m old enough to have been down this road a dozen times, and it has always ended in tears. The ones I bought into either came into the market too early, too beta, or too late, or just weren’t able to see it through or abandoned hope mid journey.
-
I think it has a great chance to be a great thing.
Why? The magic isn’t the Framework Ecosystem. It’s one thing, un-crapified modularity. The reason most of us can afford to keep a car working isn’t because of the great Mazda or Ford ecosystem of parts. Its because the un-crapified modularity of those parts. The designs are “open” (they’re not in the libré sense, but they are simple re-make or recreate ). That is why most of us can keep our cars going. If I need a headlight, or an alternator, or a throttle-position sensor, not only does Mazda make/have the part, there are a dozen other people who make the part. I not only get a replacement, but I get choices in a open market in a range of prices and qualities.
I imagine in 2032, even if the company Framework has disappeared, there will be a lady in New Jersey making inexpensive replacement modules. That is a ‘good thing’.
Its no accident everything on an Apple device is soldered down. If they made cars they’d grind down all the bolt heads and embed the engine in epoxy. It’s their ethos. If my macbook ssd goes bad, all they can do for me is sell me a new one. The beauty of the Framework is that each module can be replaced. So no, the typical user is not going to completely upgrade their laptop in 8 years. (but they could) But, most will want to replace that one broken part on their otherwise perfectly good laptop. Another way to think about it, lets say I have a 10 year old car, worth $5k. To replace every part might truly cost me $35,000. But the way chance works, it’s rate to actually need to replace every part. And the parts that need replacing are usually relatively inexpensive.
Some years ago Consumer Reports Magazine had a section where they’d list the costs of all the replacement parts of a new car. Was interesting. IIRC it was about 4x the cost of the car.
-
late to the party, but I had OperaGX do a clever evil thing recently - I have an old machine running MacOS 10.14 (for reasons), I had GX up, and I alt-tab’d and noticed there was the “don’t symbol” (ghostbusters) over the OperaGX Icon. I thought, “that can’t be right”. I’m running GX right now. I double checked, and I was using GX with several windows open. But the symbol was right - they had Updated OperaGX that I WAS running, WHILE I was running it, to a version that WOULDN’T work on the computer I was on. I eventually restarted GX, and got a 'You can’t use OperaGX with this version of MacOS". Jerks.
I dug around, and very roughly, the .app file is not the App. They use a folder off in Library to store the actual pieces of the app, and it there is a few different pieces, and the .app file points to the actual executables.
Anyway it was fun while it lasted. Never again.
Space Weather News - Dr. Tamitha Skov - 22 Jan 2024 https://www.yewtu.be.com/watch?v=41LGqYbxsvk
“The MOAB contains 26 billion records over 3,800 folders, with each folder corresponding to a separate data breach. While this doesn’t mean that the difference between the two automatically translates to previously unpublished data, billions of new records point to a very high probability, the MOAB contains never seen before information.” Totaling 12TB.
shady is as shady does. on the street or in a corner office.
- In terms of terms of service -this is not in the terms of service. Its a secret social contract. What do we know about the lockset on our doors? not much. What do we know about the company that made it’s ability to make keys? not much. There is a trust that the creator will know things that we wont, and for everyone’s betterment, they go to the grave with that knowledge.
Security is always temporary. Security puts an obstacle in the path of the treasure, it doesn’t seal off the treasure. That’s not how the real world can work. Bury it in concrete, seal it in steel. If the owner can get it, with enough time, the theif can too. Perfect security isn’t real.
-
Should they be forced - how can you? There are a thousand vulnerabilities to every product, its just that we don’t usually care so much. This is the idea behind many openSource ideas. We all know. In reality, businesses make and keep secrets.
-
It already is a social contract. It just seems important because now it’s concerning something we care about.
-
This is the struggle of law and order. To create laws that are never self-contradicting. Laws that don’t need exceptions. It’s hard math. Each society decides what IT values, and then makes laws around those values. Every fireman has a protected right to not simply break in to my home, but destroy my home in order to save lives inside it. It happens every day. They don’t come with keys, they come with battering rams and axes.
two things are different though- We trust them, based on years and years and years of faithful service. They are honest. the second, is their actions always leave Clear evidence that they did something. I wouldn’t come home and wonder if the fire department has been in the house. I would see the broken window and smashed in door and know. With the phones - we don’t know if anyone was in, and this is very very different. There’s nothing that prevents the phone from flashing a bright red warning that its been opened from the inside - except if the person disables the alarm :-) but its possible.
17 years ago Apple stated that they have a ‘kill switch’ for the apps, and this is similar. What do you do if a million phones go wild. If you could have set up a kill switch, would you regret not doing it.
What does it mean? It means that people who use these things HAVE to put trust in the person who made it. In the same way I have to trust in VW or FORD if I sit in one. There is no using the thing, without putting a tremendous amount of trust in the person who made it.
Sure is nice of Google to change things for the better of the world. I’m sure they stand to gain nothing from this. < /sarcasm>
“Valve Software has joined the ranks of Microsoft, Sony and Electronics Arts by requiring Steam users to waive their right to file a lawsuit against the company in order to use the digital distribution platform. The company made the announcement on Tuesday, saying that Steam’s new dispute resolution terms allow customers to only bring individual claims, not class action claims.”
People paid for particular product on a particular platform. That’s what they will get sued over. People made a contract with steam for product that runs on a platform. That’s just contract law.
Valve are the ones who require tethering to their magical drm cloud - not my copy of ‘Monkey Island’.
This is a bit of misdirection. This is a patent issue not a stolen IP issue.
What’s the difference? IP is secret. Patents are public. Published by the Government for all to see.This would lead the reader to believe that the issue at hand is Apple was trying to steal secrets from Masimo.
The issue at hand is a patent violation: Apple using Masimo patents in its product. Masimo claims 5 patents were infringed ( used without permission or licensing ). On Jan 10th, the Judge found that Apple had indeed infringed on a Masimo Blood Oxygen Patent.
Ah, common misconception - hacking an API != creating a compatible program. ( reverse engineering)
Imagine a drill company has a special shape for its bits. Our law allows someone else to either… make bits that can fit in that shape OR make their own drill that can accept those bits.
“BUT they copied!” - it doesn’t have to be a copy to be compatible, and they don’t even have to use the ‘special shape’ just be able to work with the special shape. The law does not allow for protections around that. Doing so would be by definition anti-competitive. Our anti competition laws or rather our IP protection laws are not intended in any way to ‘ensure a monopoly’. The IP laws give a person a right to either keep something they do secret OR share that knowledge with the world so we all benefit, in exchange for a very limited monopoly.
Practically speaking, If I got the KFC Colonel to give me the list of 11 herbs and spices in a Poker game, and then started making my own delicious poultry that is totally cool. Likewise, If I figured out that all that was inside a Threadripper was blue smoke and started making my own blue smoke chips, the law is ok with that.
In this case roughly, Having a public facing endpoint. And then saying that the public can access that endpoint is cool Saying that only the public using the code I alone gave them – well… that’s not been litigated a lot, but all signs point to no.
It’s like Bing saying its for Safari only, and suing people who accessed it using Chrome. It is a logical claim, but the law does not provide that kind of protection/enforcement.
tl;dr these concepts are old but being newly applied to fancy technology. The laws in place are clear in most cases. A car maker can not dictate what you put in the tank. FedEX and UPS can’t charge you differently for shipping fiction books or medical journals or self published stories. And they’d probably get anti-trust scrutiny they even told you what brand/style of boxes you had to use.
Equity.
In total, at the close of last year, SEC documents show that exactly 65 percent of Spotify was owned by just six parties: the firm’s co- founders, Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon (30.6 percent of ordinary shares between them); Tencent Holdings Ltd. (9.1 percent); and a run of three asset-management specialists: Baillie Gifford (11.8 percent), Morgan Stanley (7.3 percent), and T.Rowe Price Associates (6.2 percent). These three investment powerhouses owned more than 25 percent of Spotify between them — a fact worth remembering next time there’s an argument about whose interests Spotify is acting in when it makes controversial moves (for example, SPOT’s ongoing legal appeal against a royalty pay rise for songwriters in the United States).
Furthermore, according to MBW estimates, which my sources suggest are still solid, two major record companies — Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group — continue to jointly own between six percent and seven percent of Spotify (Sony around 2.35 percent and Universal around 3.5). With Sony and UMG added into the mix, then, the names mentioned here comfortably own more than 70 percent of Spotify.
https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotify-955388/>
same. reddit is populated with users who’s comments are generally indistinguishable from those of a 12-15 year old.
Yea, that Linux thing will never amount to much with this kind of strategy.
But wait. …
It’s all fun and games till the baby blows up when it really really shouldn’t blow up. And I personally, would rather have people learn that pain an email than learn that a million people are in pain because of their ignorance/bad work.
I respectfully, and fully disagree with you.
Would you believe there is also a brigade working for years to make Tesla look terrible? https://stopelonfromfailingagain.com/
People. go figure.