Lenovo, if you're going to modify your hardware in a way that all major Linux distributions won't install, then either develop the Linux fix, or take the blame that your hardware doesn't allow Linux to be installed.
None of this "does not intentionally block" stuff. Your hardware change that blocks major non-Microsoft OSes is something that you should consider, or take the blame for not considering it.
Before anyone says that is unfair, it is no less fair than pointing out that any vendor X of a product (not even a computer) can't do Y. (HP and ink cartridges?) This kind of thing should be made widely known. Especially when large numbers of developers run Linux, and use laptops.
If terrorists were to use private email servers, then she would still expect silicon valley to magically do something about it. Yet she would expect that her own private email servers are magically secure against such intrusions. And she would see neither the conflict nor the irony.
I don't mind the anti piracy ecosystem pissing endless DMCAs into the wind of anti piracy, as long as they follow the best practice of facing INTO the wind when they do it. Issuing DMCAs to take down your own sites is an excellent example.
Innovation tends to create the other two evils of 'competition' and 'disruption' which are even worse than 'piracy'. Gatekeepers can live with piracy. As long as competition and disruption are prevented.
Piracy makes for a wonderful secondary revenue stream by suing and getting settlements from people who may be completely innocent. Such as taking kids entire college education money away for downloading a few songs. Collection societies can spring up like weeds to collect licenses for things they don't even represent, and for playing the radio or humming a tune in a public place.
But once Innovation is allowed, that opens the door to competition and disruption which can undermine the nice stable order of things where endless revenues comes in for doing nothing.
Also, that "legal alternative" to not having access, except when we want, where we want, and for how much much much we want, it would would prevent us from 'creating demand' and charging outrageous prices to enjoy the work for a limited window of time before we turn off the supply to create more demand.
We have come full circle and are become the very thing we were fighting in the last century.
In the last century, kangaroo courts with "show trials" where defendants were denied access to counsel or evidence was the thing we made fun of and gasped in horror at. Now it is us.
When the magical 'terrorist' incantation is invoked, we also have the whole list of Secret Courts, Secret Warrants, Secret Arrests, Evidence, Trials, Convictions, and Secret Prisons with Secret Torture.
Our police that were once highly respected part of our communities now act as an occupying invasion force complete with actual military equipment to use against the insurgents who once were called 'citizens', but now are called 'civilians'.
You've got it backwards. The corporations are the hosts, or masters of the countries that serve them and their purposes. Their purposes are to maximize executive bonuses, by any means possible. A purely financial consideration with no consideration of moral or ethical issues.
> Writing educational books, or other text books for that matter, has > never been a means of making a living for those who actually write them
Welcome to the 21st century! Professors get to select the textbook for their class. So they select . . . ta da . . . their own textbook! They don't necessarily need to have a publisher in a traditional sense, or even have a soft or hardback binding. It could be three ring or spiral bound produced at a local printing shop.
Then, each year, the professor updates the textbook. Primarily to destroy or lower the market value of used textbooks.
Charge high prices for the book, maybe only available in the college bookstore.
And who said writing college textbooks wasn't a profitable racket?