6 ms·

Is this supposed to be ok?

elmerfud 10y ago
Of course it's not OK, but it's not really shocking either. The vast majority of people have accepted the non-ownership ideas that have been pushed for the last 30 years. Because these phones are potentially dangerous, people accept it as reasonable. This is just another small step toward total non-ownership, and the destruction of private property rights. Kitchen fires burn down more homes than an S7 but we don't ban people having kitchens. There was many small steps leading up to this and there will be many after it and people will be happy to give up all personal property rights.
- dvdhnt 10y ago
  What personal property rights? None of us really own anything, anymore, at least in the most developed countries (that's my only point of reference). I/e the government can seize even the wealthiest's assets with minimum effort. You don't really own your home, if you're lucky enough to partake in that, because as soon as you fail to pay taxes consistently, they take it. Then again, failure to abide by homeowner's association by-laws can cause your home to be taken away in some circumstances. Even your car, your bed, your tv... you "own" it until you have no place to put it; then it's just trash or free-stuff for those who come after you. It's quite fitting if you ask me, given that we're all basically leasing everything down to the atoms that make us up, all to be returned upon our death. What's most frightening to me is the pretense of personal property rights. It hangs out in the back of most people's minds, encouraging them to resist communal ideals like universal basic income and true public healthcare (at least in the US). So, once something incredible happens, like a house fire, cancer, unauthorized government seizure, etc., we're left to fend for ourselves when these issues would be minor if we were all working together. That said, IMO, if we're going to have a pretense of property rights, then we need to have inalienable property rights, but if those rights are indeed destined to remain fragile, we should do away with them now to better prepare for a world where robots have more jobs than we do.
  - jmcdiesel 10y ago
    "What's most frightening to me is the pretense of personal property rights. It hangs out in the back of most people's minds, encouraging them to resist communal ideals like universal basic income and true public healthcare (at least in the US). So, once something incredible happens, like a house fire, cancer, unauthorized government seizure, etc., we're left to fend for ourselves when these issues would be minor if we were all working together." While that's a great utopian idea ... it never works in practice, and it turns out pretty horrible. Because you have to justify why someone should work hard to contribute, or why anyone should work harder than the next guy... if the outcome of doing as little as possible to get by is the same as the outcome of busting your ass every day - everyone will do the former and society would stagnate pretty quick... As much negative weight people put on property, ownership and just about everything anti-socialist/communist ... its the system of reward for effort that drives innovation. Profit drives change.
    - dvdhnt 10y ago
      > While that's a great utopian idea I'm not describing a system without reward, quite the contrary. For one, basic universal income is cheaper than patch-work social programs because it ensures continuity in fiscal planning, ensures that a minimum amount of money is in circulation and being spent (as a result of additional monetary policy), and helps to curb loan defaults and unpaid bills (feeding back into the first point). > Because you have to justify why someone should work hard to contribute, or why anyone should work harder than the next guy... busting your ass every day - everyone will do the former and society would stagnate pretty quick Busting your ass to get ahead is an American exaggeration at this point. In general, most employees just get by. I've seen this in the military and private sector. Oppenheimer didn't do atomic research for monetary gains, nor did Einstein, because in the end, they didn't get it, especially O. Plato, Socrates, Galileo, Turing... most people who push the boundaries towards change do so because they want to. Change for the sake of money generally goes terribly wrong; the British empire, fracking, etc. Then again, we can pick and choose on both sides. > it never works in practice, and it turns out pretty horrible. And if we're being honest, this has never been tried. Yes, communism spread during the cold war, but it was opposed overtly and covertly from all sides, and from within, by capitalists. Plus, communism isn't true socialism; we've only seen the rise of greedy parties and dictators enforcing socialism for their own gain, profiting more than their people. The only true socialism/communism to exist comes in the form of insects, who consistently outnumber us by trillions.
stew721 10y ago
The end-user would have to accept and apply the OTA(s). Samsung did it in Australia too. Depending how it goes there, and here in Canada, they may do so in the US and other locales as well. They're doing it to cover their ass. Every Note 7 user is a potential lawsuit waiting to happen. You don't think that you actually own your device, even when buying it outright, do you?!?

Of course it's not OK, but it's not really shocking either. The vast majority of people have accepted the non-ownership ideas that have been pushed for the last 30 years. Because these phones are potentially dangerous, people accept it as reasonable. This is just another small step toward total non-ownership, and the destruction of private property rights. Kitchen fires burn down more homes than an S7 but we don't ban people having kitchens. There was many small steps leading up to this and there will be many after it and people will be happy to give up all personal property rights.

dvdhnt 10y ago
What personal property rights? None of us really own anything, anymore, at least in the most developed countries (that's my only point of reference). I/e the government can seize even the wealthiest's assets with minimum effort. You don't really own your home, if you're lucky enough to partake in that, because as soon as you fail to pay taxes consistently, they take it. Then again, failure to abide by homeowner's association by-laws can cause your home to be taken away in some circumstances. Even your car, your bed, your tv... you "own" it until you have no place to put it; then it's just trash or free-stuff for those who come after you. It's quite fitting if you ask me, given that we're all basically leasing everything down to the atoms that make us up, all to be returned upon our death. What's most frightening to me is the pretense of personal property rights. It hangs out in the back of most people's minds, encouraging them to resist communal ideals like universal basic income and true public healthcare (at least in the US). So, once something incredible happens, like a house fire, cancer, unauthorized government seizure, etc., we're left to fend for ourselves when these issues would be minor if we were all working together. That said, IMO, if we're going to have a pretense of property rights, then we need to have inalienable property rights, but if those rights are indeed destined to remain fragile, we should do away with them now to better prepare for a world where robots have more jobs than we do.
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  "What's most frightening to me is the pretense of personal property rights. It hangs out in the back of most people's minds, encouraging them to resist communal ideals like universal basic income and true public healthcare (at least in the US). So, once something incredible happens, like a house fire, cancer, unauthorized government seizure, etc., we're left to fend for ourselves when these issues would be minor if we were all working together." While that's a great utopian idea ... it never works in practice, and it turns out pretty horrible. Because you have to justify why someone should work hard to contribute, or why anyone should work harder than the next guy... if the outcome of doing as little as possible to get by is the same as the outcome of busting your ass every day - everyone will do the former and society would stagnate pretty quick... As much negative weight people put on property, ownership and just about everything anti-socialist/communist ... its the system of reward for effort that drives innovation. Profit drives change.
  - dvdhnt 10y ago
    > While that's a great utopian idea I'm not describing a system without reward, quite the contrary. For one, basic universal income is cheaper than patch-work social programs because it ensures continuity in fiscal planning, ensures that a minimum amount of money is in circulation and being spent (as a result of additional monetary policy), and helps to curb loan defaults and unpaid bills (feeding back into the first point). > Because you have to justify why someone should work hard to contribute, or why anyone should work harder than the next guy... busting your ass every day - everyone will do the former and society would stagnate pretty quick Busting your ass to get ahead is an American exaggeration at this point. In general, most employees just get by. I've seen this in the military and private sector. Oppenheimer didn't do atomic research for monetary gains, nor did Einstein, because in the end, they didn't get it, especially O. Plato, Socrates, Galileo, Turing... most people who push the boundaries towards change do so because they want to. Change for the sake of money generally goes terribly wrong; the British empire, fracking, etc. Then again, we can pick and choose on both sides. > it never works in practice, and it turns out pretty horrible. And if we're being honest, this has never been tried. Yes, communism spread during the cold war, but it was opposed overtly and covertly from all sides, and from within, by capitalists. Plus, communism isn't true socialism; we've only seen the rise of greedy parties and dictators enforcing socialism for their own gain, profiting more than their people. The only true socialism/communism to exist comes in the form of insects, who consistently outnumber us by trillions.

stew721 10y ago

The end-user would have to accept and apply the OTA(s). Samsung did it in Australia too. Depending how it goes there, and here in Canada, they may do so in the US and other locales as well. They're doing it to cover their ass. Every Note 7 user is a potential lawsuit waiting to happen. You don't think that you actually own your device, even when buying it outright, do you?!?