Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Silencing of Maya

niederfamily.blogspot.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 332 posts

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#291

Post by wissler »

jholman wrote: post #286
wissler wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is horribly embarrassing argument. It's a blatant post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy. What's worse is that it ignores the central point: the cost of your system is that individuals who think of an idea that happens to match one that is patented by one of these corporations gets the tar beaten out of him if he tries to use/trade it. You can't justify this violence, you can only try to sweep it under the rug, as you…

Speaking of embarrassing, you're embarrassing people who advocate against patents, with your incoherent vehemence. The comments you've been responding to have been civil and contributory to the conversation, and your responses, I think, have been less than civil and perhaps not very well-crafted towards contribution. If the rest of this comment appears to be a personal attack, I apologize; I would ask that it be read…

Next time you're seething with rage that someone crossed your arbitrary line about what you mistakenly think is "civil", save your breath and save your energy.

As to your silly play by play, it's all just your own self-serving spin. You have some bogus theory of civility that you mindlessly cling to as if it were a religion, it's a wrong theory, and that's really all the substance there is to your "criticism." I see your remarks in the same way as I'd see a religious zealot reading me the riot act over violating one of his beloved precepts.

If inside of that babbling rant of yours there is something you actually consider to be a reasonable disagreement, not with my style, but with the logic of my point, then go ahead and point it out without ranting and I'll try to elaborate for you.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#292

Post by wissler »

jholman wrote: post #286
wissler wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is horribly embarrassing argument. It's a blatant post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy. What's worse is that it ignores the central point: the cost of your system is that individuals who think of an idea that happens to match one that is patented by one of these corporations gets the tar beaten out of him if he tries to use/trade it. You can't justify this violence, you can only try to sweep it under the rug, as you…

Speaking of embarrassing, you're embarrassing people who advocate against patents, with your incoherent vehemence. The comments you've been responding to have been civil and contributory to the conversation, and your responses, I think, have been less than civil and perhaps not very well-crafted towards contribution. If the rest of this comment appears to be a personal attack, I apologize; I would ask that it be read…

One more thing. I regard patents as nearly tantamount to cannibalism: patent trolls eat the efforts of honest, productive people. I don't think gentle words are appropriate and civilized for cannibalism proper, nor for the evil of patents. On the contrary, to treat these leeches as if they were somehow being reasonable is the height of being counter-produtive.

The trolls don't mince words: they readily call it "theft" if you happen to be using something they patented. If we mince words then we loose from the very start, for the moral argument is the most powerful.

Which is precisely why you try to turn it on me given all your hypocritically impolite scolding about me not being polite enough for your tastes. If you're opposed to moralizing, don't moralize, not even about people who moralize.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#293

Post by mauricioc »

Maascamp wrote: post #272
rwallace wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If for example the child's Ipad was taken away because it was found out to be stolen property it would have an equally negative effect on her development. No, it would not. In that scenario, her parents would have a straightforward recourse - go and buy her another iPad. The closest parallel would be a law that forbade her from using any portable computing device regardless of where it came from. And yes, that woul…

I disagree. In this scenario her parents do have a straightforward recourse - go and buy her the physical device sold by the patent owners (who's interface is apparently almost exactly the same, hence the patent infringement claim). Now, you could argue that the patent isn't legit (it may not be) or that the dedicated device is prohibitively expensive (it may be), but both of those arguments are tangential to the poi…

From the article:

"Interestingly, we also carefully considered purchasing a communication device from PRC, and met with one of their representatives in November, nine weeks before a post on my Facebook wall introduced me to SfY (and seven weeks before it even existed in the iTunes store). We examined PRC’s devices and were disappointed to see that they weren’t a good fit for Maya. For us, this wasn’t an issue of an expensive device versus a “cheap” app. This was an issue of an ineffective device (for Maya) versus an app that she understood and embraced immediately. The only app, the only system, that she immediately adopted as her own way of communicating."

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#294

Post by gbog »

rimantas wrote: post #246
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hardware companies should no be allowed to make or sell or control software. So if I, as an electrical engineer, design an implantable pacemaker for people with heart problems, they have to visit Joe's Software Shack and Live Bait to make it work? This is just silly.

It is not just silly, it's the most stupid suggestion of the year. If you are happy to use half-working, half-baked products, feel free. I will choose those, where software is finely tuned to the hardware and this combination makes pleasurable experience. "If you are serious about software you should make your own hardware" © Alan Kay.

This is the problem, many people choose short term pleasure against long term safety. I hope for you that you do not apply the same reasoning when you choose between cook at home and fast food.

Or maybe you'd deny obesity is a problem?

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#295

Post by gcb »

regularfry wrote: post #289
gcb wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't the company that claims to have invented it first have a product in the market?

Not one that's good enough, apparently.

I feel the discussion may be either: Cheap enough or marketed enough.

Because never the article talk about it. So either it's cost prohibitive, our they couldn't even find it's existence. But again... If it were life changing...

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#296

Post by ktizo »

rimantas wrote: post #255
artmageddon wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you argue that? Genuinely curious.

Can you tell me the case where separating hardware from software created superior product? Anyway, I am too tired to argue with FOSS extremists touting their imaginary world with imaginary benefits and solutions for imaginary threats for imaginary users. "Users" ir the key word there. Majority of the people using software are just users, not programmers. We are not all butchers, bakers, and car mechanics. We don't ha…

Can you tell me the case where separating hardware from software created superior product?

Computers.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#297

Post by ktizo »

bambax wrote: post #185
pjmlp wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest culprit here, in my view, isn't Apple, PRC, or the patent system. The biggest culprit are the customers that blindly accept this model to buy applications and give to such companies money to pursue their practices.

But what are they to do...?!?

Start organisations that make cool stuff, or join those that already are. If you think something is missing from the world, the best way to do something about it is to build it.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#298

Post by ashleyblackmore »

http://www.prentrom.com/news/updated-statement-regarding-pen...

"SCS and PRC filed the patent infringement lawsuit after we reached out to the app company’s founders and offered various business solutions, but were refused."

"There’s a reason patents are in place, to protect decades of hard work and research that go into our devices. To take someone’s life work and market it as your own is simply wrong. The founders of the company marketing this app are speech-language pathologists who were trained by PRC, and who used their knowledge of the Unity system to develop a Unity-like app of their own and market it in the Apple iTunes store."

There's obviously some undercurrent here, since apparently the folks behind the application are former employees of these companies. Of course, none of that changes the fact that what these companies are doing is unconscionable, since it benefits only themselves and not the people they are purportedly setting out to assist with these devices. Amazing, considering those same people are the ones putting bread on the company's table.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#299

Post by ricardobeat »

Karunamon wrote: post #279
ricardobeat wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The capability to remove apps from customer's devices has always existed in desktops since the internet, even for those you keep in CDs, as long as you are connected and receiving OS updates.

Really . Could you provide an example of this?

It is technically possible, doesn't mean it has been done (or maybe it has, Apple issued a patch a few weeks ago to remove malware on OSX?). OS updates could install anything onto your machine, including a tool that removes/blocks whatever it wants.

Re: The Silencing of Maya

#300

Post by Karunamon »

ricardobeat wrote: post #299
Karunamon wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really . Could you provide an example of this?

It is technically possible, doesn't mean it has been done (or maybe it has, Apple issued a patch a few weeks ago to remove malware on OSX?). OS updates could install anything onto your machine, including a tool that removes/blocks whatever it wants.

It is technically possible for me to write and distribute a virus that erases anything but GPL-licensed software from the disk of any computer it infects, sends all your money to the FSF, and turns your computer off at 8pm every night to ensure you get a good night's sleep.

However, both of these scenarios aren't happening in the real world.

Post reply on HN