And what does that mean? That drivers for most hardware doesn't exist unless we write it ourselves? I don't have time for that steep a climb.
You guys are now seriously freaking me out. My experience has been decades of windows not mainframes with 1980s era OSes. Is all that experience going to be useless?
I'm looking forward to owning my computer, especially as Microsoft claws away more of my rights season by season. But WTF am I getting myself into when I make the jump? Is it possible to own my computer and have an easy to understand OS?
I hope I'm not fucking myself when I try to make the switch, but when the first response to it's got problems is don't look a gift horse in the mouth then yeah, it makes me a bit worried I'm going to be left out in the elements on my own by a community with the attitude of COD gamers.
It's part of how I remember id est versus exempli gratia
The problem is noted by Karl Marx, the capitalist inevitably captures the government and its regulating departments so that the body of laws will be revised in their favor. Remember that the point of copyright laws in the Constitution of the United States, to promote science and the useful arts was killed when IP was extended. Every year that someone owns an idea is year that the rest of us does not.
I don't know the solution, but corruption of the temporary monopoly was inevitable.
I assume UBI. Already quality of product is not cultivated by the current publishing system. People who get their books published do so by affording a good agent with connections, which rules out the black kid using a manual typewriter her brother rebuilt.
Maybe capitalism doesn't work, except for the richest capitalists?
Most IP owners didn't create what they have, but bought it off someone else. I have little pity for rich people.
I'd say society is better off with no IP related temporary monopoly than the system we have. There are enough instances where creators die penniless and publishers make all the profits to suggest there already is no financial incentive for an inventor to invent. Like Goodyear, they do it more as a hobby or in the interest of society.
Maybe if we had social safety nets so everyone not rich wasn't desperate, we might be able to have a robust innovation sector that was less focused on using law to screw competitors and consumers.
Billions typically paid for by government subsidy, id est taxpayers. I'm not sure what the justification is for private IP rights when the capital is socialized.
Robot-made pizza came up about a decade ago on Idle Thumbs noting that the guy who was promoting it was suggesting it would be cheaper to make, yet he wasn't willing to offer cheaper pizza prices.
I wonder if it's legally possible to make a non-profit restaurant or other food source that charged cost + 10% and then sought to automate as much as possible and pay fair wages when automation wasn't, and see if that could compete effectively in fair market capitalism. I'm sure there are barriers to trying to make such a thing happen (not to mention creative legal attacks by for-profit competitors) but I don't know specifically what those barriers are.
We kinda knew this was going to happen. New Hollywood really wants to be classic Hollywood, where the studios own the lives of the actors and control every aspect. But I expected them to start by cyber-thesbianning Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman, Jean Harlow and Clark Gable.
But yeah, the studios are going through a creativity crisis, now decades into a best practices run of avoiding new ideas for less risky sequels and high concept films, preferring spectacle over introspection and character study.
The copyright maximalism and Hollywood accounting isn't really about piracy or greed so much as desperation to keep old promises of exponential dividend growth.
Every bubble eventually pops, and the longer they try to keep it intact, the more disastrous the outcome.
In the meantime, I look forward to when small indie directors can star Bogart and Harlow in their concept film.
Be willing to murder your colleagues?