However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way.
You consumed the song's value when you listened to it. But before that you didn't pay for it. So you devalued the song.
You got value for listening the music, the artist got no value for making it.
The solution in place was sabotaged and thus stopped working.
That's not true at all. If you follow the thread back up, Dan East said this:
It slightly blows my mind that companies (airlines) would buy a piece of hardware that costs hundreds of millions of dollars, which is incredibly mobile and used to travel thousands of miles at a time, with a huge amount of liability (billions potentially), and not include any kind of built in, always-on, hard-wired tracking device. Especially in this day and age. We're just talking about pinging tiny little packets of positional data every few minutes.
Where do you see a mention there that "a solution in place was sabotaged"?
I understand that people need to be able to earn a living, but we tend to create scarcity in order to create profit. Think of the cost of reproducing a film these days, or an mp3, do you think each copy is worth the fee charged for it?
It's not only the reproduction costs but it also includes the value of the hard work of the artist.
At first glance it would seem that "no one loses anything" when you make a copy of some song. But it's kind of like making fake money -- no one loses money if you print money, but in the end the value of the money decreases due to inflation. It's the same for music: if enough people just take a free copy, the value of the music decreases. Then the artist and/or record company do not see feasible to produce that artist's music anymore.
How would you guarantee such a tracking device resists all possible sabotage efforts?
That kind of mindset seems to be common in Slashdot. "If something is not completely perfect, it's completely useless." Many times comes up in security-related articles.
Translation: I'm a Redmond shill trying to sound reasonable, but I can't help but make blatantly pro-Redmond statements like "significantly better than a comparative Tablet OS"
Do you have any fucking shame? More importantly, do you think we're fucking idiots that we don't recognize you for who you are?
Frankly, yours was quite stupid comment too.
Some particular reason you chose to spend money instead of getting the free and open-source Classic Start Menu (from Classic Shell)?
Just a quick nitpick: Classic Shell is still free but the recent versions are no longer open source.
Imagine that in 1952, an IBM RAMAC 350 disk drive would have been able to hold only one
So what! At least it can hold a full song. Put a good song there and enjoy. It's better than having 760,000 misc songs which I never have time to listen to anyway.
"When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we're protecting you against criminals, not our own government," Zuckerberg wrote in a Facebook post Thursday afternoon.
His concerns are based on the latest investigative report from The Intercept, which revealed that the National Security Agency has weaponized the Internet, making it possible to inject bad software into innocent peoples' computers en masse. Put simply, using the QUANTUM program, the NSA can sneak into someone's Web browser.
The report is based on documents provided by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden."
Link to Original Source
Much better performance
Any actual real world data (read: benchmarks that show a practically useful improvement) to back that up ? Also, Wayland removes support for 2D acceleration, and existing X applications would have to use an emulation layer, that is, running an instance of X on top of Wayland.
I do not have. I base that only on what I have heard.
no tearing problems
Can be fixed without replacing X, and is a minor issue anyway.
Not a minor issue at all. Of default Linux installations, only Compiz-based ones can reliably prevent tearing. Mutter tears slightly, but it can be fixed with some configuration. XFCE tears because the default compositor uses XRender (the default compositor can be replaced with Compton to fix the issue). KDE tears by default on some systems unless "full screen repaints" is selected. LXDE does not ship with a compositor and all so it tears greatly. So tearing can be avoided with careful setup with X.org too, but it is not something that "just works". Not a minor issue as you say.
smooth compositing and desktop effects
These are generally among the first things I disable when installing a Linux distribution. The fewer useless and performance/reliability crippling gimmicks there are enabled, the better it is for practical usability.
A little bit of glitter does not hamper usability. It's nice to have zoom animations for window minimize/restore, and a fade out effect for menus. Those run reliably and smoothly on Windows 7/8 even on low end hardware. Put a Linux desktop on a low-end Atom/Bobcat system and the same effects are choppy and take more system resources.
old legacy X11 crap thrown away.
In other words: no backward compatibility with existing software. Well, one can always just run the Windows version with Wine (I already do it sometimes, since it can be easier than solving Linux dependency mess). Or just wipe Linux and use Windows instead, where one can actually expect applications to work out of the box, even after a long time.
That is certainly true, but after the transition phase, I believe we can adapt most open source software to be Wayland-compatible.