21–30 of 56 posts
It sounds like this news would be more accurately titled "Jailbreaking continues to be exempt for smartphones and non-exempt for tablets".
Let's start calling these "smartphones" and "tablets" what they are: computers. It's not okay to tell someone what they can or cannot do with the 1's and 0's on their machines. DRM sucks and so do companies that would seek to restrict rights on how you can use your computer.
I'm ok with DRM if it's confined to a particular application and the content it manages, like the Kindle app, for example. You can always choose not to install that app. But I reject system-wide DRM for the same reasons you describe. More and more people interact online primarily through mobile devices so these rights are more important than ever.
What about tablets? No dice. The Librarian "found significant merit to the opposition’s concerns that this aspect of the proposed class was broad and ill-defined, as a wide range of devices might be considered 'tablets,' notwithstanding the significant distinctions among them in terms of the way they operate, their intended purposes, and the nature of the applications they can accommodate. For example, an e-book reading device might be considered a 'tablet,' as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer."
Read this not as "smartphones yes but tablets no" but as "smartphones yes but kindle no".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm ok with DRM if it's confined to a particular application and the content it manages, like the Kindle app, for example. You can always choose not to install that app. But I reject system-wide DRM for the same reasons you describe. More and more people interact online primarily through mobile devices so these rights are more important than ever.
The problem is an app-specific DRM scheme is impossible to implement. The user would be able to intercept any API calls the app makes to an external program, at the very least capturing/spoofing the signal to the I/O drivers. The only way to make a secure system in this sense is if the software can establish a chain of trust and be confident that it is not running on top of 'compromised' software. An solution to this…
It sounds like this news would be more accurately titled "Jailbreaking continues to be exempt for smartphones and non-exempt for tablets".
Even that isn't strictly true, since the exemption for smartphones only applies to phones purchased before January 2013.
Let's start calling these "smartphones" and "tablets" what they are: computers. It's not okay to tell someone what they can or cannot do with the 1's and 0's on their machines. DRM sucks and so do companies that would seek to restrict rights on how you can use your computer.
If it's legal to jailbreak it, shouldn't the company be oblige to provide an official way to do so? Why is it expected that the users come up with the means? What if it's next to impossible due to hardware encryption and whatnot. It's already not trivial on most devices.
Just as carving a garden-gnome is not intended, manufactured, or expected behavior, there's absolutely NO reason for a phone manufacturer to go out of their way to offer jailbreaking tools. Your statement is completely illogical. Just because it is legal for a user to do something does not mean a company should have to do it. Even if it is legal for a user to do something doesn't mean that they must be able to reasonably do it, it just means if they do there won't be legal ramifications. Your post reeks of self-entitlement and a deep misunderstanding of the actual issue in question.
Another ridiculous example to round it out: Since it is legal for me, as a user, to attempt to install visopsys (an operating system made by one man which is obviously incompatible with everything) on my macbook apple provide drivers and support for installing this OS even though supporting it would likely take thousands of developer hours and gain Apple nothing. Users likely won't be able to install it on their own and developing drivers for it is probably near impossible.
See how your argument is exactly the same as the above? Jailbreaking, just like that OS, is the product of users and as such need only be supported by users. If a company wants to support jailbreaking, such as google allowing chromebook unlocking, that's their prerogative, but there is NO reason to expect or insinuate that a company should actually provide support for some random operation a user has come up with that in fact is to the company's detriment.
Honestly, considering the quality of your argument, I question your ability to function in society. If you're not underage (on the order of 7 or so) I highly encourage you to check yourself into the nearest mental facility due to an obvious mental disability manifesting itself as borderline retardation. At the very least I encourage you to GET THE FUCK OFF HACKER NEWS FOREVER because reading your idiotic statements, opinions, and retard-spew is roughly as pleasant, and just as enlightening, as self castration while gargling shit. Save us all the pain of dealing with you and deal with yourself, fatally if necessary.