Allow me to demonstrate under the latest macOS (10.12 / Sierra):
1) Go get the screensaver bundle.
2) Open the
3) Now, from the drawer with all the screen savers, drag out Pipes.saver to your desktop. It's perfectly safe. Double-click it to install it.
Here's what happens:
First, you get a dialog that says "can't install pipes screensaver" from preferences (preferences is what is normally started when you go to install a screen saver.)
Then, from the Apple menu or the prefs icon, you go to preferences / security, and there is no button. Just as I described. Pipes.saver is not installed. And prefs will not install it no matter how many times you try this. You can verify this is the case by going to Preferences, and then Desktop & Screen Saver, and looking at the list of available savers. Pipes.saver is not there.
Okay, so that's the OS install behavior as it stands today.
Now, take the Pipes.saver file, and drag it using Finder into ~/Library/Screen Savers
Now again, open preferences / Desktop & Screen Saver, and look at the list. There it is. If you choose it, it runs just fine.
This concludes our demo of macOS Sierra refusing to install working software from non-appstore vendors.
It almost certainly won't be 30 years.
It'll be 1-3 years after the first one appears.
Apple's been boiling its frogs (sorry, I mean, customers) longer, and has moved from the ability to install any app you want, to the ability to install any app you want IF you set up preferences to allow it, to an inability to set up preferences to allow it, but if you try, a button appears (which you have to go into preferences to find) that may allow it (doesn't alway appear)...
They're one or two steps away from "app store only."
The frogs.... sorry, the customers... just one step from boiling now.
Interesting to see Microsoft begin to turn up the heat.
I guess pretty much everyone's a frog now.
Customer. I meant customer.
what's to stop consumers from voting for laws that make it illegal?
A representative republic? IOW, a system that doesn't allow consumers to vote for specific laws.
If this were real it would be effectively free energy.
Like that laughable idea, "solar cells." "Electricity from free light." Free energy! I mean, really. What utter nonsense, eh? Some people will believe anything.
It's racist, you plick!
18 USC 1503 : Federal Obstruction of Justice.
10 years in a Federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison.
Your new cellmate is named "Bubba".
This is a partial solution. It still doesn't let me organize my applications.
Nonetheless, patent protection is law, and innumerable business models depend upon it.
So basically what you are saying then, is that some business models that depend upon certain laws you object to are broken. Yes?
Your opinion is the fail when it comes to democracy.
That you want to be governed by an elite (or anyone) is irrelevant. I don't want to and shouldn't be forced too. Now go fuck off.
That's a stickier problem in electronics because of drm and other various anti piracy measures. At what point does an antipiracy device become a hinderance to repair?
From the point where it is actually implemented, onwards.
Which is higher priority?
The rights of people who have done no wrong are (okay, should be) higher priority.
Ideally, create fair laws that describe the bounds of legitimate behavior. Punish people who break these laws. Don't do things to people who are not breaking the law that prevent them from doing legitimate things based on the idea that someone, somewhere, might break the law.
The problem with DRM (Digital Rights Management) as it is presently constituted, is that the only rights that are being managed are those of the publishers. The rights of the consumer are being roundly trampled. It's appalling, really.
A business model that needs laws to prop it up is broken.
Copyright and Rights Licensing
Upon which the GPL is based, as well as just about the entire entertainment industry. It's difficult to imagine a studio spending tens or hundreds of millions on a production based on the hope that no one would copy and distribute the resulting product without seeing to it that they were compensated.
Upon which the drug industry, chip industry, etc., is based.
While these mechanisms are clearly not optimum, they do seem to benefit society in general. Certainly they are strong supporting factors for progress in the fields that they act as rights bulwarks for.
I really don't see that business models based on associated laws are inherently broken. Would you care to elaborate on your position?
Our schools (generally speaking currently mandate 3-4 *years* of PE and 0 years of computer science.
Some students are terrible at PE. So what? We make them do it anyway. These might even be the same students that excel at computer science, if the stereotypes are true.
But this isn't even a mandated year of CS. It's a bloody single hour, lodged somewhere in between the 4th and 12th grades. If you think we can't spare a single hour for coding, I don't know what to tell you.
The biggest obstacle to CS education is the sheer fact that nobody is exposed to it at an early age, so they don't know if they like it or are good at it before going to college. This stands in contrast to basically every other major STEM field, where everyone has an opportunity to (or be mandated to) take a high school level class. But only about 1 in 10 high schools even offer CS these days, and the numbers are going down because they're usually not counted for college science requirements.
So, no, this bill really is a good thing. The Hour of Code is so simple even troglodyte teachers can run it for their kids.
%DCL-MEM-BAD, bad memory VMS-F-PDGERS, pudding between the ears