We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership • Hacker News Board

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#401

Post by scintill76 » Thu, Apr 23, 2015, 11:19 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #389

scintill76 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh, I'm all for calling people "she" if they desire, but this feels like a pointless comment. Do you know that the person being referred to (user "jordigh") would prefer to be called something other than "he"? Do you know whether or not the person you're replying to has done the research on which word to use? If you don't know, you're wasting our time with snarky but baseless "PC" attitude. At least put in a few mo…

As the person whose gender was in question, I appreciate the doubt. I don't think you had any reason to believe that I was male, and male should not be the default gender.

Actually, as another poster said, I saw your name and a few personal details in your profile and did enough research, including seeing a photo that is probably you, to be 95% sure you are male. I suppose it is extra-annoying because the person was wrong in this case, but I would still find that post lacking if you do prefer to be called "she."

I don't have a problem with your response in general, or ideas like "male should not be the default gender". I often try to avoid using gendered pronouns, for reasons like this. If the original person had said something like that, I probably wouldn't have replied. I do have a problem with someone casually questioning the use of a word, without demonstrating any consideration of whether it is actually correct, whether an effort was made to make sure it was correct, etc. For all we knew, the person who used "he" personally knows you, and mindfully chose to use a male pronoun. That uninformed, knee-jerk reply ("He?") is as useless and obnoxious as having a bot post "PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: REMEMBER THAT NOT ALL HACKERS ARE MALE. WE WELCOME WOMEN!" every time someone uses the word "he."

Really, to go full-on PC for the benefit of trans people, etc., I guess we can't use gendered pronouns even if we do know someone, unless we have been explicitly (and recently) told which pronoun they prefer.

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#402

Post by anonbanker » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 6:58 AM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #284

apricot wrote: post #48

Richard Stallman spent the last 30 years telling us this would happen. As soon as books become computer files, you don't buy them anymore, you lease usage rights. As soon as tractors contain computer code, you don't own them anymore, you are granted a license to use them. When will it stop? More and more everyday objects are incorporating software and firmware in many different forms. I remember reading Stallman's sh…

I'm waiting for the first class action suit against said manufacturer for selling products which don't meet expected standards of fit for usage. It seems to me that locking up products in this way artificially limits their usage lifetime and fitness for use which seems to run afoul of an implied contract that they are selling a product. If that product cannot be used past X years, and the consumer is locked out of ch…

Thanks for doing my homework for me. do I need to pay you royalties if I use this argument in a class proceeding?

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#403

Post by anonbanker » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 7:05 AM UTC

mwfunk wrote: post #257

mwfunk wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I remember back before ebooks, we could all just Xerox the books we owned, bind them together, and sell or give away the copies to anyone we wanted to, and they could do the same. It was a lot more work than just copying a file, but everyone was perfectly fine with people doing it. Oh wait a minute, that's not at all what it was like. It's very easy to latch onto people like RMS who make everything seem so blac…

I just realized that I'm basically saying that RMS himself does not function in good faith, and I think that's the root of my distrust of him. He's the kind of person who likes to assemble elaborate ideologies over time. He doesn't seem like the kind of person who is instinctively skeptical about his own perceptions. I really don't get the sense that he ever plays devil's advocate with himself or actively tries to co…

RMS strikes me as the kind of guy who is constantly arguing against himself, and playing the devil's advocate. In many speeches[1], he is not just setting up strawmen to fight his position, but is actively adopting other mindsets he does not agree with in order to explain concepts to an audience.

But he's very good at stating his own (biased) opinion.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNBMdDaYhZA

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#404

Post by RodericDay » Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #334

djb_hackernews wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a futuristic utopian human society. Are the people writing poetry, playing instruments and painting murals or are they assembling widgets in a factory? Humans are really good at creating things, that's what I think we are here to do, not "work".

Most of the content nowadays is created as "work", usually for advertising. In the futuristic utopian society we would get rid of all that crap, and I'm willing to bet we could let people create however much they'd like and we still wouldn't have information overload problem. It's easier to manage your information diet when everyone around you stops trying to push their content into you.

> It's easier to manage your information diet when everyone around you stops trying to push their content into you.

quoted from emphasis. remove money from intellectual property and you remove some incentive, from both good actors and bad ones.

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#405

Post by AJ007 » Wed, Apr 29, 2015, 6:43 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #228

AJ007 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this land that is being bought for future subdivisions? Definitely have seen this in areas by suburban areas. Certainly not all farming is being done at a loss?

Farming is a lot like a startup, except maybe drawn out over more years than tech people like to see. You invest everything you have into a business that will return you very little, at least in the start. As you start to grow you put your profits into growth. Finally, as you reach retirement age the debts are hopefully paid off and you are actually making money for the first time. You're also sitting on millions of…

This sounds like you are describing what has occurred for farmers who started 30 or 40 years ago and are retiring now. I assume most farmers who retired decades ago weren't sitting on millions; certainly my grandfather wasn't.