Does this count for technologies like Appcelerator?
Or can I work around the standard way Appcelerator works for example by making more Javascript code available through a webkit Ti.UI.Webview or something?
I mean that their fears are not (necessarily) misguided, and claiming them to be is not helping the FSF's argument. I would rather they focus their arguments on the real reasons to avoid DRM, rather than making unverified claims about Mozilla's motivations.
How are they supposed to verify a claim like that in advance? Their market share is dropping already, that's about as rigorous as you can get without forking the universe to run some tests.
Not from lack of EME. EME isn't nearly widespread enough to have any impact. Netflix still runs just fine in Silverlight.
In the absence of evidence, I don't see how claiming those fears are misguided is any less valid than claiming that they are well founded. I'm not really sure what argument you're making here.
I assume you are referring to the fact that the traits can make their way into non-GMO seeds due to the way nature functions? However, Monsanto has only been able to successfully defend their patents when gross violations have occurred – i.e. the crop has also been sprayed with roundup. Someone who is honestly trying to grow non-RR seed is obviously not going to be doing that.
Monsanto has been so successful with this because, for 99% of the farmers out there, these patents have no effect on their business. It wasn't particularly common to grow your own seeds for a variety of reasons, even before the patents came into effect.
He had A-list endorsements coming through with the previous product, when it becomes that high-profile and main stream the U$A won't be able to just steal the domain without public due-process.. They had their chance, but they may still find a way..
not what the OP said.
TPB is very much high profile but you can't access it in some countries because it is banned at the ISP level (with a reasonably public legal process).
Yes, exactly this. TPB's IP addresses are blocked at ISP level, and the response has been to set up many reflector sites (e.g. malaysiabay.org), and mirrors.
A complicated interactive site is of course much harder to mirror than a bunch of magnet links.
I'm trying it out at the mo.. It seems to be fairly full of Google searchers.. The fact that there are so many $1 means I thought by going in at $10 I would get a good response.. I've had quite a few, but there's no incentive for the responder to test their solution that it has met the test.. It's like Stack Overflow in that the first to respond often wins.
I don't believe it is comparing apples and oranges. It was once considered by some slave owners to be a mere trifling problem occasionally to beat one of them to death, or work them to death, or otherwise behave in ways that are now considered unacceptable.
In the same way, some people put dolphins in captivity, and consider it an inconvenient side-effect of tuna fishing that dolphins are regularly killed in large numbers. And yes, some people eat dolphins, and that supports an industry that kills them for profit, just as slave traders used to capture people and ferry them across oceans. For profit. Deaths of a percentage were considered acceptable losses.
It seems to me that the parallels are stronger than the differences, and I also wonder how people of the future will judge the actions of today, and silence of those who didn't speak up.
Rights are a human concept. Not, incidentally, one I have any belief in. However this is not the place for a rights vs responsibility debate.
How do you ascribe 'Human' rights?
Currently it is humans vs everything else. To include dolphins is to rewrite it as "Anything which meets these intelligence or sentience criteria". Which is fine, until you deal with the human beings which do not meet either criteria. To treat them differently is to ignore the whole argument that we are not special. So rewrite the concept as "Anything where a single member meets the criteria" - and that is where you end up.
Personally I agree that we are not special, but that is where I diverge with the author.
If a robot becomes sufficiently sentient, possesses emotions and needs, has empathy and reproductive capacity, and other such animal traits, then I see no reason not to extend similar rights to it too. If we develop the ability to create such a creature (for that is what it will be), and choose to create such a creature, then we must face the responsibilities that our actions bring and the rights that that creature will have.
It is unlikely carrots will evolve to a similar level any time soon, so we've a while to think about vegetable ethics. In the meantime, brussels sprout genocide is fine by me.
But since it's a purely philosophical argument.. If you create a program with all the sentient properties, feels pain etc.. Does it not afford these magic rights you speak of? After all pain is just an electrical impulse expressed as a negative emotion..
If vegetables prove to create a chemical response to trauma, does that not mean they feel pain too?
If we create a program that has all of that, then yes.
Note that my criteria (individual items are of course up for discussion, but the point is a broad range of human/animal like criteria) go way beyond pain. Emotion, empathy, maybe other things like self-learning etc. are a long, long way off being implemented successfully in software. I think that maybe when we reach the point where they are, it may not seem such a daft idea to protect them in this way. "After all pain is just an electrical impulse expressed as a negative emotion" which helps to illustrate the close relation between us and the (currently) mythical software we are talking about.
The rights which we are talking about aren't "magic" as you quote. They actually serve a practical purpose and in my opinion are a positive evolutionary trait. When applied to humans, their purpose is obvious (protecting us from each other, promoting cooperation and ensuring our survival as a species). But we live in a world beyond just humans, and inter-species protection and co-operation is in both human and animal (and, one day perhaps, computer) interests.
On the subject of vegetables, I have never found cabbages to be particularly empathetic, so I happy to relegate them to the inferior classes for the time being.
Surely if one other person is downloading the same torrent at the same time it's better (potentially) than a direct download, as part of the torrent can be shared in the swarm..
As long as archive.org is seeding everything all the bits are there..
Love it! You've got the 960 grid, how about some other common page template sizes that the UI can snap to, like iPhone, iPad. I'd also like to be able to go into that mode so I only see native (moqup style) controls as options..
I often want to bang out a layout so I know I've got UI / distribution of controls sorted and then know my general widths / positioning..
If the snapping as good, and I could export or easily grab the positioning / pixels that's something I'd pay a bit for..
We're planning to add inner snapping to various device stencils (iPhone for now and others in the future), as well as polishing various interactions. We also get very enthusiastic when planning features like master pages, rulers, cotations and so on. Stay tuned!
I've been seriously considering this for ages.. I wonder what his setup for travel working is? I'm thinking a 17" Macbook would be too much of a pain / risk to travel round Asia with? A follow-up post on the logistics of the work side would be amazing!
Or can I work around the standard way Appcelerator works for example by making more Javascript code available through a webkit Ti.UI.Webview or something?