What's your position on this fad of appliances needing networking and whatnot other connections? Especially in the light of other devices (like routers) usually running something that used to be free software 'til the appliance maker got their hands onto it. It is likely that some if not many or even the majority of IoT appliances will run (allegedly) free software in one way or another, and most likely without any regard of the underlying licensing model.

Would you rather see it as a vehicle for OSS to move into everyone's home and literally become a household thing, or is it just yet another abuse of free software by makers of appliances who just like to cut corners?

Sorry, clicked the wrong article. Someone mod the parent of this one (also by me) offtopic if you have some modpoints to spare. Thanks.

When has this happened? I couldn't think of a single instance right now.

Well, technically, RMS has more similarities with Santa...

I shudder at the thought. Imagine people with lower coding skills who resort to cargo cult programming thinking that hey, after all, it's from the biggest OS in the world, it can't be bad code!

Won't fly. Despite all efforts to make smartphones anything BUT a phone, they still are. And hence you still need a carrier.

And carriers won't really enjoy the idea of NOT being able to lock you down to their contract.

Uh, do we have any REAL questions?

That's where pathogens are superior to us. They neither have politics nor religion.

Go ahead, I don't mind it. Hey, whatever floats your boat, who am I to judge someone's preferences?

But I'm also not insensitive to people not wanting others ogling them. I have to admit it would make me uneasy if someone kept staring at me. Not even in a sexual way, just staring. I do not like attention too much and I prefer not to be the center of it.

I guess not minding being ogled is something only really existing in natural exhibitionists and people who'd rather get paid to put some clothes on than to take them off and hence never experienced it first hand.

No. Might be different with some stranger.

If you can't see the difference, I'm sorry for you. Get out of your basement from time to time.

You have a reasonable expectation that nobody but your second floor neighbors can watch you. That difference is important. You know your neighbors. And even if you don't know for sure that they won't stand at their window and masturbate to you lying next to your pool, it's fairly unlikely due to you easily being able to identify them and throw the book at them.

It's a bit different with random strangers walking by your property. Not only does it multiply the chance of getting a pervert, they are also fairly sure they can get away with perving on you if you don't happen to know them.

You'd probably save that shot for when whoever installed it returns...

Their cousin?

Probably more than the site is worth from an advertisers' point of view.

What do you get with the site? Basically, a lot of eyeballs. That's it. You can use it as an ad platform or as a platform to get your information out.

That in turn only is something you benefit from if you have something to offer that will not IMMEDIATELY be ripped apart by tech-savvy people, along with people who pretend to be tech-savvy but are essentially just here to run their mouth without any measurable knowledge in the subject. You have a crowd here that is rather toxic to anything even remotely "big business" or corporate. Anything that comes out of management or C-Level is by default regarded with suspicion or outright hostility, and any legal changes are at the very least met with the same sentiments.

You can't even do the FOX bit and drone on the same political agenda with the option to reinforce and resonate the agenda you wish to push, for this the audience is far too diverse, ranging in the political spectrum from the far right to the far left.

This all makes it a great place for a discussion and to get input from various opinions and stances, but it' horrible from a corporate point of view. Corporations want consent about their agenda. They don't want you to question it.

Pathogens don't "learn". They evolve, ok. They adapt, ok. But they aren't sentient. They are not thinking. And especially they aren't thinking "hey, if they vaccinate, they won't die anyway, at least not as fast, so let's get more deadly!" This isn't the fucking Pandemic flash game for crying out loud!

There is no interest of killing a host for a parasite. It's an side effect. Unintended, and actually harmful for the parasite in the long run. Just like poisoning the seas is harmful for us. We ain't some comic book villain who does it for ... well, for being evil. We do it 'cause it cuts costs. The oil spill is only the side effect, not the reason we do it.

So yes, they COULD get more deadly because we don't die as fast and a more deadly mutated strain would kill itself off with the host if there was no vaccination. But that is hardly an argument against vaccination. It only means that at worst we're with vaccination where we are now without. AT WORST. If, and only if, the pathogens mutate in such a way that they get more deadly. Which is neither in their interest nor anything they would (evolutionary) strive for.

What's the benefit for a pathogen to be more deadly? Killing the host is actually bad for it, since that ends spreading (with this host at least).