| |||||||||||||
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)Posted Oct 27, 2012 15:48 UTC (Sat) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094)In reply to: Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica) by drag Parent article: Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
You should read up at: http://www.rootstrikers.org/
also - you seem to have an incredibly cynical view of government that may match up with some governments but certainly not all.
(Log in to post comments)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica) Posted Oct 27, 2012 19:52 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Quite. It's certainly not always true of the UK: a lot of our parliamentarians are lawyers, and given the amount UK lawyers can earn, they're likely taking a substantial salary cut to be an MP instead (even if they are still earning twice the average wage). If they get into senior positions they can often earn a lot after they leave (directorships, consultancies, the old revolving door), but this is by no means guaranteed.
Power is almost certainly the attractant more than money. (Not that everybody is motivated by power any more than everybody is motivated by money -- but it is certainly *not* true that money is the root of *all* evil.)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica) Posted Oct 28, 2012 12:12 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Representatives will tell you, and I have no reason to doubt, that most of them, most of the time, actually seek to do a good job governing. But governing is hard, and what is obvious to someone else is not necessarily obvious to anyone in government, let alone everyone in government.
The history of government reform shows that even when reform is against the short and medium term interests of some individuals in government, they will often support it if they see that it's the right thing overall. If you squint hard enough you might imagine that they see reform as preferable to some sort of bloody revolution, but in the case of a lot of historical UK reforms, at least, there was no realistic prospect of such a revolution. The Suffragettes for example, could have continued to be annoying, to cause unpleasant spectacles, march in the streets, but they did not have the means, nor any hope of securing the means, to overthrow the government of the day. Nevertheless they eventually succeeded in their aims, an all male government passed a bill giving (some) women the vote.
Women's suffrage also provides illustration that a government regulation can be arbitrary and unfair without being ill-meant. In 1929 a young woman (Jennie Lee) was able to stand for election (and win) but couldn't vote for herself because although a bill equalising the voting age for men and women had passed it had not come into force before the by-election at which she won her seat and so she was too young to vote but not too young to be elected. This situation obviously makes no sense, but you can't point your finger at any individual who planned for things to work out this way, it was an accident.
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica) Posted Oct 28, 2012 17:25 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> you seem to have an incredibly cynical view of government
That's putting it mildly.
> that may match up with some governments but certainly not all.
Generally speaking most people can't imagine things being any different anymore then people could imagine life without the Catholic church or a the king a thousand years ago. Only incremental improvements are thought possible, but nothing could ever be completely different.
There are lots of ways to have government and many ways to have government would be very positive. I think the "state government", which is the form of government that is most common in the world due to it's militarism, is fundamentally corrupt in nature. It's not something that can be fixed through voting and if you end up with some sort of armed revolution you just end up with the same thing ruled by different people.
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica) Posted Oct 28, 2012 19:18 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] if you end up with some sort of armed revolution you just end up with the same thing ruled by different peopleStudy the Glorious Revolution and its effect on the governance of what shortly became the UK and say that. It really did change things, for good. The same is true of quite a lot of revolutions. Sure, power suckers will always suck power -- but that doesn't mean the way in which they suck power will always be the same, nor that every government is the same as every other government, and most certainly not that they are all as bad as each other! (I happen to believe that e.g. France, headgear bans or no, is a considerably better place to live than, say, North Korea, even though both have fairly large state sectors. I suspect most people would agree with me on this. You really do need to look at more than 'size of government'.)
|
|||||||||||||