We seem to be having different conversations. I didn't express any opinion about what you just asked. I just said that your statement that "only the owner of a copyright can enforce it" was wrong.
I advise you to not post your "legal advice recommendations" in an online forum meant for people to hold discussions about relevant topics.
This whole discussion is basically about copyright law. How is challenging objectively wrong information about copyright law not relevant to the topic?
You understand the exact same applies to what you just said yourself?
No, it doesn't. Firstly, you are objectively wrong on this. Secondly, my comments here are based on formal legal advice as it applies in my jurisdiction (the UK).
What is not objective legal knowledge but merely my personal opinion is that posting bad legal advice, and in particular posting incorrect information about copyrights to a forum with a tendency to be less than respectful of copyright, could actually get someone who believed you in trouble. And if you don't think anyone reading Slashdot would believe you, please consider that your objectively wrong post is currently at +5, while my warning citing a specific and verifiable counterexample is currently at 0.
Only the owner of a copyright can enforce it.
Please don't post legal advice without appropriate qualifications. The above isn't the whole story in many jurisdictions, as there are other factors such as exclusive licensing to consider.
There's nothing wrong with hearing the news later, but people with mobile devices will hear it earlier and clearly a lot of people value that ability to stay up to date and use their time for something interesting when they're just in a coffee shop for a few minutes or on the train home. If you don't value that, then of course you personally don't need those devices.
The phone really brings nothing to the table.
Perhaps not for you. I know plenty of people who go out a lot for business meetings and don't need to take a full laptop any more, because they can get any urgent messages via their phone or other mobile devices. In our household we often use a phone or tablet to get directions and travel news if one of us is driving but has a passenger with mobile Internet. Sometimes it's just nice to get news that your friends got engaged or someone's baby arrived safely when you're out, and mobile social networking apps can tell you. Sure, you could also do all of these things with a laptop, but only if you left it turned on all the time, and it still wouldn't fit in your pocket.
I'm sorry, my bad. For 99.9% of serious content creation, they are just not the right tool for the job. For the last 0.1%, they are a good enough tool to get the job done by a sufficiently skilled practitioner if efficiency is not a consideration.
I simply cannot accept the proposition that people are -- willingly -- going to accept a future of either creation or consuption on these restricted devices.
If you mean exclusively on small factor touchscreens, sure, I agree. An iPad isn't going to replace a dedicated home cinema room any time soon, or a hardcore gamer's custom rig, or a CAD workstation at the office.
But for routine use, that ship already sailed. Smartphones are ubiquitous when people are out. Tablets are becoming ubiquitous around the house, for the kind of household that used to have multiple PCs or laptops instead. Bazillions of people are quite happy sending e-mails, checking Facebook, or catching up on a missed TV show on these devices, and for many of those people that already meets the majority of their needs.
Not everyone cares about playing AAA games on a PC (they have consoles for that) or running business applications (they go to work for that) or writing software. And to a first approximation, no-one cares about command lines. Real PCs aren't going anywhere for those who do want to do these things, but there's no point pretending that a water-cooled 4th generation i7 is necessary for reading e-mail.
nope, modern laptops are just as good as desktops now. Apart from the small screen (which can be good as a secondary thing to run your email or whatnot on), the laptop has as much power as your desktop.
An average laptop might have as much processing power and RAM and disk space as an average desktop, but the upper bound on a desktop is still far, far higher. To pick an example someone mentioned earlier, you can't get a lot of laptops with dual fast processors and 64+GB of RAM, which is a good but realistic specification for a professional CAD workstation. If you're rendering video or working with high quality audio, you might be thankful for a local RAID array with a few TB of capacity (as well as the large SSD for OS/applications and probably networked storage for larger capacity, obviously).
Also, in terms of peripherals, laptops are stuck in the dark ages. I'll take my two large monitors (try driving 8+ megapixels from any laptop's built-in graphics), my ergonomic keyboard and mouse, my real graphics tablet for sketching and precision work, and my real surround sound speakers over whatever feeble imitation the best laptop you can find has to offer, thanks. Sure, you can plug all of these into a modern laptop (until you run out of USB ports, at least), but if you're going to do that and shove the laptop out of the way, you've just bought an expensive and less reliable/upgradeable desktop anyway.
Exactly. For content consumption, small and mobile devices are very convenient. For quick interactions, they're OK. For serious content creation, they are just not the right tool for the job.
The trouble for the PC vendors is that for most serious content creation, desktops and laptops were already powerful enough a few years ago. Only those who really need local power, like creative media or CAD types in business or gamers at home, are interested in buying newer and more powerful machines often any more. For everyone else, the desktop isn't dead, it's just a mature platform and they already have it.
For what little it's worth, I agree with almost everything you said there. I don't think we're quite as stuck with "micromanaging" our kids here in the UK yet -- there are still enough of the older generations around to point out when parents are being overly protective and provide a degree of social/political acceptability -- but unfortunately the "fear everything" culture our governments and courts and schools seem determined to push on everyone is relentless.
Personally, I intend to ignore them anyway and teach my kids to be independent and responsible on their own, just as I'd stop to help a child who was hurt regardless of whether some jobsworth might look at a camera and think I was up to no good because of their rampant paranoia. It's the right thing to do, and I'll be damned if I'm going to raise kids who are afraid to go out of their own house or refuse to help someone else's kids who need it just because politics.
Of course, keeping personal information entirely secret is the best means of control, but in the modern world, complete secrecy is getting more and more impractical.
It's not just impractical; for most people, it's undesirable. You can't interact in many useful ways with people or organisations you'd like to collaborate with unless you inherently give up some degree of personal information. That "loss" of privacy isn't in itself a problem for most people, because it's done willingly and typically for mutual benefit.
The problems usually start when others get hold of the information, or when information that was willingly shared for one useful purpose then gets reused for something else. Technology makes both of these possibilities increasingly easy, but as always that technology is ethically neutral.
IMHO, what we need is to establish standards of respect for this kind of personal data, where it's not socially acceptable to share potentially sensitive information about someone without their knowledge and consent. Just because technology means we could do something, it doesn't mean we have to, any more than I have to drink five pints this afternoon and then drive home at 90mph past the park where your kids are playing just because I have money and a car. The common idea that you can't solve social problems with technological measures applies.
Where necessary, those social norms then need to be backed by force of law, so that organisations with contrary motivations such as businesses and governments are compelled to comply as well.
Fundamentally it's a fear of change.
Not all change is for the better, and some things are worth fearing. Ironically, the best lessons about the future dangers of this kind of technology can be found in history.
Can anyone comment reliably on whether this strategy actually holds up in the US? Here in the UK, I would expect that knowingly and deliberately running a company into the dust like that would be grounds for piercing the corporate veil.
It's local organic produce and home-delivered, so it's not straightforward to do a fair like-for-like comparison with large supermarket prices.
I don't think that really affects my point, though. There is no reason those supermarkets, with their vast economies of scale and negotiating power, couldn't introduce a scheme where you could "rent a crate" or something. At least one (Sainsbury's) did experiment with a similar idea a few years ago, but again despite apparently being quite popular at our local store, they discontinued it after a fairly short time.