Because the Republicans currently have the support of something like 20% more of the population than the NAZIs did when they seized power.
Remember, unlike folks who believe in democracy, tyrants don't need a majority to win.
This is an extremely dangerous time for liberty in the US, and complacent attitudes like yours are only increasing the danger.
Considering that this is new capacity, not total capacity, it's a fucking absurd outrage that it's anything less than 100.0%.
Every percentage point less than that represents us continuing to make the problem even worse even though we goddamn well know better!
Everything you mentioned is simply a subset of "[corporation] takes away our ability to own property" (i.e., trying to usurp our fundamental property right to control our computer). You can also add Apple and John Deere "right to repair" to the list, along with automakers trying to lock capabilities of the machine we already payfor behind paywalled subscriptions. It's all the same underlying issue.
Make no mistake: corporations are waging a war on the public's right to own property, and we're going to be forcibly returned to serfdom if we don't start fighting back.
At the time, their actions were largely dismissed as an elaborate political cosplay. But it eventually became clear that this was part of an orchestrated plan.
Speak for yourself, CNN! Your enlightened centrist dipshit asses might've been fooled, but that does not mean those of us who aren't brainless were!
Yet another bad consequence of building our cities wrong. If we fixed the zoning code to make them walkable, we wouldn't "need" traffic stops in the first place.
It's amazing how car dependency is an underlying causal factor in nearly every problem in the US, from climate change, to obesity, to the housing crisis, to apparently even police misconduct.
Free Software is the only solution to this in the long run.
As an older millennial I use the phone just fine, thank you very much.
It's Facebook and other random proprietary crap being used for IRL communications (especially important stuff like community associations, etc.) that I can't deal with.
What percentage of these attacks deep into Russia are being launched from Ukraine and what percentage are being launched from Russia? Of the latter (assuming non-zero), what percentage are being launched by Ukranian forces operating in Russia and what percentage are being launched by dissident Russians themselves?
There is no such thing as "conditionally open source." The license terms you describe are just "not open source."
If they actually gave a shit about commercial entities contributing back, they should've gone AGPL3. This is just a money grab and yet another example of how permissive licensing isn't good enough and everything should be copyleft.
Huh, that's the kind of thing that would just make me start visualizing how many I could fit in there.
...says the guy who clearly doesn't understand the geologic water cycle.
Or walkable zoning, lack of which is the fundamental cause of the car dependency.
That's true, but only in the sense that theft and copyright infringement are fundamentally different things.
Generating stuff from ML training datasets that included works without permissive licenses is copyright infringement though, just as much as simply copying and pasting parts of those works in would be. The legal definition of a derivative work doesn't care about the techological details.
(For me, the most important consequence of this sort of argument is that everything produced by Github Copilot must be GPL.)
Sigh... of course it's fucking kkkobb county.
My title was intentionally flipant.
No, your title was rude and condescending. "Flippant" is a different thing.
I hate these Word Crimes!
The error with Hitler wasn't sending him to prison, it was letting him out again after only a few months.
"Eastman Commits More Sedition"
Fixed your headline, Talking Points Memo.
Wanting shit to be properly categorized isn't oppression. Your take is flat-out idiotic.
I'm imaginining some kind of monstrosity of a gaming laptop with a power cable that looks like a hydra splitting into three or four USB-C connectors, and it's gloriously silly.
Maybe it's time for a new thing similar to USB 3.0 micro B, with two USB-C connectors next to each other on the same plug.
Of the ~100 billion humans who have ever lived, about 8 billion (8%) are still alive today. Therefore, your chance of dying is 92%, not 100%.
Here's hoping Sync and Boost lead the way
Or better yet, let's hope Free Software apps lead the way and ditch the proprietary ones.
Jellyfin is to Plex as Lemmy is to Reddit.
I want everybody including people still serving their sentence to be able to vote, mainly because I don't want it to be possible for disenfranchisement to be an ulterior motive for criminalizing things the political opposition does. (For example, marijuana prohibition.)
It keeps track of which files you've played (e.g. to automatically pick the next episode in a series), it automatically downloads metadata and cover art so you have a nice browsing interface, it manages multiple profiles so that e.g. you can limit your kids' access to only G and TV-Y or filter out genres a user doesn't like, it lets you set parental controls to limit the amount of time watched in a day (or disable it at certain times of day), etc.
Why would they stop? That revenue model has been working just fine for Wikipedia for over a decade now.
Edit: ok your comments just made me buy a cheap android TV box
That's a terrible idea; those things all run hacked firmware from China with preinstalled malware. (There's a fairly recent Linus Tech Tips video about it if you want more info.)
Instead, you need to be buying hardware from a reputable brand and then (ideally) installing a Free Software OS on it yourself, e.g. a Raspberry Pi running LibreELEC.
WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed. This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
You are about to do something potentially harmful. To continue type in the phrase 'Yes, do as I say!'
User: gleefully types in the phrase
"Very dark. Likely be eaten by grue."
I've had a P.O. box for years because I don't want to disclose my home address when I register domains. Maybe I should check it one of these days...
Dual boot is too inconvenient. Just go Linux cold-turkey and run Windows in a VM if you have to.
You can still view the source code. That’s what open source is.
No, it's not. It only counts if it provides the four freedoms listed here:
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
And before you say "but that's the definition of 'Free Software', not 'Open Source'," even the latter, misguided as it is, at least still requires freedom 0!
wildly different from what a regular social media looks like.
It's wildly different from what social media moderated by corporations looks like, but I'm not so sure which is "regular."
Specifically to force all of us to do unpaid labor for Google.
Where's my fucking paycheck‽
I wish there were a selfhosted alternative that would sync with banks like mint.com does, but I haven't found one yet.
I've also dabbled a little trying to make one, but it seems like banks don't really want you to use their API unless you're Intuit.
According to the Open Source Initiative (the folks who control whether things can be officially certified as "open source"), it basically is the same thing as Free Software. In fact, their definition was copied and pasted from the Debian Free Software guidelines.
Additionally, "copyright infringement is a moral right" seems fairly wrong. Copyright laws currently are too steep and I can agree with that but if I make a piece of art like a book, video game, or movie, do I not deserve to protect it in order to get money? I'd argue that because we live in a capitalistic society so, yes, I deserve to get paid for the work I did.
No. And it's not just me saying that; the folks who wrote the Copyright Clause (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson) would disagree with you, too.
The natural state of a creative work is for it to be part of a Public Domain. Ideas are fundamentally different from property in the sense that property's value comes from its exclusive use by its owner, wheras an idea's value comes from spreading it, i.e., giving it away to others.
Here's how Jefferson described it:
stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benvolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property. society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility. but this may, or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Thus we see the basis for the rationale given in the Copyright Clause itself: "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," which is very different from creating some kind of entitlement to creators because they "deserve" it.
The true basis for copyright law in the United States is as a utilitarian incentive to encourage the creation of more works - a bounty for creating. Ownership of property is a natural right which the Constitution pledges to protect (see also the 4th and 5th Amendments), but the temporary monopoly called copyright is merely a privilege granted at the pleasure of Congress. Essentially, it's a lease from the Public Domain, for the benefit of the Public. It is not an entitlement; what the creator of the work "deserves" doesn't enter into it.
And if the copyright holder abuses his privilege such that the Public no longer benefits enough to be worth it, it's perfectly just and reasonable for the privilege to be revoked.
At the end of the day, the artists just want to be able to afford to eat, play games, and have shelter. Why in the world is that a bad thing in our current society? You can't remove copyright law without first removing capitalism.
This is a bizarre, backwards argument. First of all, a government-granted monopoly is the antethesis of the "free market" upon which capitalism is supposedly based. Second, granting of monopolies is hardly the only way to accomplish either goal of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts" or of helping creators make a living!
ITT: folks who think Linux is too complicated or whatever, but are perfectly willing to jump through endless hoops to work around some of Windows' deliberate hostility.
The Stockholm syndrome is real.