otterley

4 ms·

31.
by otterley 22d ago
I thought the same; it doesn't sound merely coincidental.
32.
by otterley 22d ago
> we might do better without IP IP protections are a critical foundation that ensures the software engineering profession is a profitable one. I prefer to live in a world in which I can use my skills to feed my family, thanks.
33.
by otterley 22d ago
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/developer/introducing-retry-thr... (2016 -- 10 years ago!) https://builder.aws.com/content/3EumjoZascWd1oZiEgL8ORlv3qE/... (originally published 2020, republ
34.
by otterley 23d ago
> when I buy a computer, I own the computer, not a limited license to use it. You own the hardware portion of the computer. You do not own the software portion. Look, if you don't believe me (IAAL who studied this in detail), ask yo
35.
by otterley 23d ago
Given the poster's nickname, the person who posted it and the author may be one and the same.
36.
by otterley 23d ago
> What if I, the owner of Standard Oil, don't want my oil in inferior cars? That makes no sense, either as a hypothetical or a historical reference. > Programmable hardware and software are obviously always severable. This is not
37.
by otterley 23d ago
> The world is a better place when you can plug your Dell monitor into your Apple computer and it just works. It's also a better place when you can buy your operating system from Canonical if you'd like to run on your Apple com
38.
by otterley 23d ago
> And yet we have proof right in front of us that e.g. Apple will not port their GPU drivers to Linux, and people had to reverse engineer it, so clearly the evidence says it does not create that incentive On the contrary, Apple engineers
39.
by otterley 23d ago
> if you want to incentivize creation, then you should want a system where payment is for creation, and where further creation (e.g. paying a different developer to modify it) is freely allowed. Why is that? I would think that the possib
40.
by otterley 23d ago
> There's tons of people being paid to work on OSS, and much of which would still exist by volunteer effort alone. Those people are largely working on OSS as a hobby or for clout, i.e., to kickstart their career; or, they're wo
41.
by otterley 24d ago
> I also think society would be a better place if we worked to produce new software that people desire That's the entire point of copyright -- to incentivize this work by conveying ownership to those who produce such software. Wit
42.
by otterley 24d ago
I don’t know. I’ve seen high quality work product from solo practitioners. Also, even the most expensive lawyer cannot make you win when the law isn’t on your side.
43.
by otterley 24d ago
And you don’t think abolishing copyright would impact your career or your ability to feed your family?
44.
by otterley 24d ago
Which of these parties doesn’t have lawyers? (I’m talking about bigcorps stealing from bigcorps here.) In a case where both parties have lawyers, having more and more expensive lawyers is not necessarily predictive of a case’s outcome. Ther
45.
by otterley 24d ago
So, what do you do for a living?
46.
by otterley 24d ago
No judge I’ve ever met gave a damn how much a party spent on legal resources. With rare exceptions, they care a great deal about achieving justice, and often bend over backwards to help indigent parties avoid prejudicing themselves. Keep in
47.
by otterley 24d ago
How do you figure?
48.
by otterley 24d ago
I’m pretty sure “certified real” aren’t the words Apple will use, nor do they use it in this document. The words to describe the technology were chosen with care: semantic verification, attestation, tamper evident, etc.
49.
by otterley 24d ago
Don’t know why this was downvoted but this is the right take. A photograph is evidence , but isn’t a proof in and of itself.
50.
by otterley 24d ago
> because of your worry (which is based on remarkably little information) You must be new around here. ;-)
51.
by otterley 24d ago
Depending on the circumstances, failure to control your agent could be considered gross negligence and put you at risk of criminal or civil liability. Be mindful!
52.
by otterley 24d ago
In which cases wouldn’t it make sense?
53.
by otterley 24d ago
The 9th Circuit Court of appeals recently published this that is somewhat related (Amazon v. Perplexity): https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/26-144... Look at pages 10-17 to see how the law
54.
by otterley 24d ago
IAAL (not legal advice, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction). You really do not want to pen-test a target without their permission. If you're identified as a culprit, the Feds will shove the CFAA so far up your ass you'll need
55.
by otterley 26d ago
I wonder how long that will last. That may be their privacy policy today, but AFAIK that's merely a policy, not a binding agreement. I don't know whether anything stops them from changing their mind later, i.e., the classic rug-pu
56.
by otterley 26d ago
Why doesn’t it happen with them?
57.
by otterley 26d ago
It’s not futile. Write your congressperson and state representatives. If enough people do this around the country, laws will eventually be passed to prevent it.
58.
by otterley 27d ago
Mahindra is selling cars in Australia but they’re not the same models sold in India. Same names but different specs. Fair enough that the housing is made from concrete but the quality is still pretty poor. The foundations are uneven, as are
59.
by otterley 27d ago
It’s absolutely unreasonable. Each subscriber has a certain amount of fixed bandwidth available to them, and there are other devices connected to their network. By connecting an unauthorized device, that device now has both the ability to c
60.
by otterley 28d ago
There are a few reasons for that. First, the cost of labor is very low. Second, with the exception of food, you get what you pay for. The housing is of poor quality compared to what you get in the west—it’d never pass inspection there. Ever

More ›