261–270 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you mention it I feel like I overlooked the obvious solution.
permanently modifying the hardware is the more portable solution. it will always work with unmodified software i.e. at a colleague's location. i presume your wife works with others that use the same platform.
No, as OP mentioned, the software was compiled to match the device ID of the mic it was shipped with. So it would only work with versions of the software that were the same as OP's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can imagine tinkering with a Tesla could cause some heartburn for Elon. There are safety issues, which are real. What happens when some maniac changes the software to make autopilot into full self driving, then plows into a minivan on its way to Little League practice? Also interesting, recently heard about a guy who can reprogram some diesel trucks to get better performance (probably at the expense of NOX emission…
What happens if I tinker with a regular car and put a nitrous oxide engine? The safety issues, which are real, could allow someone to plow into minivan on its way to Little League practice. It could explode. It could cause a massive fire. It could go way faster than the speed limit, bypass the limits of the breaks, and go against any number of laws. So... does this mean I could sue Ford if someone modified a Ford car…
What?
Today's kids have been well trained by Apple, Google and Netflix and hardly even understand what we are talking about.
"Oh, you don't have an iPhone anymore? Just buy it on Google Play and you will have it again on your Galaxy." is a quote I have heard more than once...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
permanently modifying the hardware is the more portable solution. it will always work with unmodified software i.e. at a colleague's location. i presume your wife works with others that use the same platform.
>permanently modifying the hardware is the more portable solution. it will always work with unmodified software i.e. at a colleague's location. No, as OP mentioned, the software was compiled to match the device ID of the mic it was shipped with. So it would only work with versions of the software that were the same as OP's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though I don't necessarily agree with you, I'll upvote you as I think you bring up a good counterpoint that's not being discussed. It's possible that this company's business plan assumed the replacement by obsolescence model - instead of a high upfront cost to recoup their R&D, they expected users to replace it every few years at full cost. This is no different than the vast majority of the bait & switch type schemes…
In the case of the drug, we as a society (and I use "we" very loosely here; in this case it means "mainly people who benefit directly from this opinion") have "decided" that a "person" (company) who invents a useful drug "deserves" to gain tons and tons of money, and operate in a way which prevents others from duplicating the drug, even if that behavior leads directly to the needless suffering of potentially millions…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why I said circumventing copy protection shouldn't be illegal. You should be able to make that video and use it for your own purposes. My problem is with Step 2 of the article's hypothetical: instead of feeding the video into a speech-to-text machine for your own use, you put it on Twitter where Twitter makes a bunch of money off something that was mostly CNN's work.
I don't think you understood what his product does, it's a FPGA to defeat HDCP in realtime and then adds various overlays to the picture, e.g. a live twitter feed in the right corner.
Imagine if someone has their Blu-ray player playing on a TV. They design a system that flashes physical flashcards in front of the TV with a twitter feed. That shouldn't be illegal, right?
Now, what is the difference between that and overlaying a digital twitter feed? You are legally allowed to view the content. Why shouldn't you be able to consume it in any way you deem fit? If you copy or distribute it, that should be (and is) a crime, but until you have done that, in my opinion you have done nothing wrong.
Corporations have successfully lobbied to erode the whole basis of our legal system by taking away the presumption of innocence at every turn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
who pays this tax? the person that forks the github repo?
This is just one scenario, but you can imagine a system where the person who profits over any IP would pay IP tax, which would then get distributed upstream to previous registered contributors. IP producers would need to be tracked, but this is something that systems such as github already do extremely well, and credit card companies already run systems that process fees for every single transaction. Producers will a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear much of the same. I don't think I've ever seen Snapchat mentioned here without an oogle of 40 somethings complaining about how useless and unintuitive it is.
We appreciate your defending the HN community against spurious putdowns, but adding another spurious putdown is not a great way to go about it.