Posted on 04/18/2015 11:24:45 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
Apple supports Homo-Fascism. Microsoft supports Homo-Fascism. As Freeper "Star Traveler" has pointed out, if you work with computers, you are going to end up sending money to a company that supports Homo-Fascism.
It occurs to me that we need a way to use computers that does not put money into the pockets of companies that support Homo-Fascism. (And other Liberal causes.)
How about a version of Linux that people who believe in Freedom can use to fight back against the Homo-Fascist tech companies? We could call it "Free-nux."
Someone needs to start a company that pushes this idea and provides support, etc.
/johnny
“Yeah, but from my perspective, the car is manufactured by Ernst Röhm incorporated, and it might be a good car and all, but i’d rather not be compelled to wear Yellow Stars and have my windows broken in the not so distant future.”
An excellent framing of the problem. Money is substance, and when you give substance to your enemies, they destroy you with it.
Everyone seems to forget that Linux and Open-Source licensing with every bit of software for it was started with the intent of being anti-Capitalist. With that bit of information, do as you wish.
I am a Burkean Conservative. I am well aware that there are plenty of occasions where making money is put above basic morality. Adam Smith warned of such things.
I am all in favor of Capitalism when it is constrained by moral guidance, but now that it has crossed that line, i'm not above using any tool to rein it in.
Apart from that, I have long since wondered why they think they should keep getting large sums of money for trivial upgrades/improvements/hacks to an otherwise very workable operating system which I have already paid for.
While i'm on this line, I am also against extending "intellectual property" to 70 years beyond the death of the author. Sure, it makes some people money, but I do not regard rent seeking as a legitimate form of capitalism. It is of the sort I regard as "crony" capitalism, and we ought not be having it.
As an author, a creator of intellectual property, I strongly disagree with you. Why should my property rights to my intellectual property creation disappear with my death and my heirs, my children NOT get my work that I have worked hard to create with my imagination and skill and built with the intent that it be passed on to them merely because YOU want it without having worked for it? Why should you have for free what I worked for? Why should my children be taxed of their entire inheritance because YOU want the free use of it? What a socialist idea.
1. A Start/ App menu with icons that you can r. click and easily find the source, choose as default app, easily make hots keys for, and copy the address (missing in some Linux distros).
2. A quick (W/9x WE actually was faster loading) window manager that allows tabbed browsing, with multiple rows, dragging tabs, different colored tabs, changing tab size, bookmarks, saving sessions, and find text, in other words, do what Firefox/PaleMoon/Waterfox web browsers can do, with extensions.
3. Also, a window manager the provides folder sizes as an option (like Folder Size) a compact but customizable (like QTtabBar ) navigable single pane view with details of file types, date, size, versus large playground icons, and does not hide files.
4. Likewise enables moving and customizing individual Taskbar buttons.
5. A clock with seconds, plus cpu and available ram stats (stacked), and alarms, calendars, and other useful right click options (like T-Clock )
6. That will never exclude one from having full permissions (root) without having to engage in learning coding (Ubuntu locks the hood in your own car). Never had a need myself for such overboard security.
7. Has a hot keyed extensive inclusive systems and configuration menu.
8. The ability to add multiple functions to r. click menus, like Right Click Extender can.
9. A much improved speech to text program (I have used the Windows version in W/8)), that enables you to make whatever custom commands you choose to execute whatever functions your choose (you provide the address or scripts, etc), and uses your own documents to read from learn how to recognize your voice. (Linux is far behind on this, which has much potential).
10. Can remap keys easily, like CapsLock to ctrl+c (which AutoHotKey enables, but hard to find for Linux)
11. Enables extensive customization of windows borders, title bars, tool tips, etc. (which is missing in W/8)
12. Comes with all legal codecs for media (only by paying in W/8 and Linux)
13. Better backup and restore features, with wide rage of saving options.
14. A EULA that is reasonable, without political correctness (MS OneDrive), and allows the OS to be transferred from one PC to another (W.8 does, thank God, but previous one's did not, unless it was Retail).
And why shouldn't the same idea apply to patents?
Patents are different creations than are copyrighted works of art, literature, or music. Those are very personal creations that have no other purpose that can be beneficial except in and of themselves for the enjoyment of the people who may wish to view, read, or hear them.
Patents are meant to protect inventions for a limited time to encourage advancement of technology and reward their inventors. By extending the life of patents beyond the set periods in law, may block the first purpose of the intent of Patents, and not permit the advancement of technology. A patent requires the inventor to describe his invention such that others can easily re-create it. I would support a reducing allowance for lower royalties over a longer period and after an initial period of exclusivity for the inventor to exploit his invention it must be mandatory to licensing all patents to all comers for a reasonable rate, similar to FRAND requirements of Standard Essential patents which are licensed to all comers under Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory rates so that technology can be used by all developers.
However, IF that were the case, then my argument for long term ownership of patents and inheritability of the Intellectual Property would and should also apply.
Our patent system is broken as it is currently implemented. . . because the terms are so short for certain patents, making monetizing the invention in the time available is problematic given research and regulatory costs and the requirement that patent application dates are the start date of the clock. Court rulings that a fictionalized description of an invention, even without describing how it can be accomplished, or even knowing if it is possible, can make the "invention" is no longer a viable patent, which make patents "prior art", thus making patents a difficult thing to defend once granted because all it takes is to find one non-technical minded judge to rule the patent invalid. We need a fairer system for the inventor, and for the people who want to license the patents under fair licensing rates.
My proposal would include the following:
All of this is about property rights. . . balanced with a reasonable public right to use intellectual property.
We also need to figure out a reasonable royalty rate for incidental internet use of photographic and music use by cutting and pasting. . . so that such innocent non-commercial use does not incur huge after the fact licensing demands from such organizations as Getty images that almost indistinguishable form extortion for innocent use of often intentionally non-labeled copyrighted images. The Fair Use doctrine needs to be expanded or nailed down for the Internet use for forums such as FreeRepublic.
A Friend of mine has long noted that when the Nation was founded, both Patents and Copyrights were the same length. (21 years, I believe.) Over the years, Copyrights have gotten more protected, and patents less so.
My friend also points out that Patents are for things that actually improve the world, that actually make it fundamentally better than it was. Music, Books, Art, etc. do not produce any tangible benefit to the world. They don't clean water, they don't feed people, they don't shelter anyone, and yet they are better protected than something useful, something that actually makes a difference to humanity.
Whatever arguments you have put forth in support of nearly perpetual copyrights, I would say they should also apply to patents. If anything, Patents ought to be even more heavily rewarded than copyrights, because patents produce tangible improvements. Sometimes forever.
Do you think it would be reasonable to keep a patent for 70 years after the death of the inventor, as is done currently with copyrights?
Yes. . . but I would add a couple more thing to my list.
With those provisos, I would. . . but drop the 70 years. Why put an arbitrary limit on it. . . and on copyrights.
What gives the government the right to seize intellectual property without due process any more than personal or real property? This way, death or life is removed from the equation. What about inventors or authors who sell their IP to a corporation? Such a corporation does not die. My solution obviates that problem.
I would not be opposed to handling copyrights in the same manner. Have a declining value in licensing after a period of exclusive use. Problems solved. Public fair use of copyright loosened a bit. Digital reading of a book or viewing of movies after exclusive use on the FRAND basis. . . and declining basis thereafter. For photographs, books, movies, and music, it might be necessary to do a stepped FRAND rate, quantum, so to speak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.