It takes a special kind of leap to go from "Socially engineered into doing something" to "deserves physical violence because of unpopularity" or "financially unable to get out of an unhealthy situation so isn't deserving of a better situation".
The key difference being that in the prior example the negative impact is you follow someone that may not be of interest to you, in which case you can always un-follow. While a nerd or the poor will find they can't literally click a button to undo the "damage" that was done.
I get what you are trying to say, I disagree that you can apply that to this specific example. It would be better aimed at a rich person who literally thinks everyone on food stamps is a lazy bum.
What should we be mad at him for? There are well listed and reasonable pros to maintaining the smaller price point and artificially limiting the battery capacity. The only half decent con anyone can list is dead weight. Which, and I haven't done the math myself but, the consensus seems to be that it's very much negligible (Anyone got some math to back me up by chance, I seem to have forgotten my capacity + weight = range formulas.)
So yeah, I can't say I see what the giant fuss is about, and for the record, you may see everyone here as Musk "lovers" incapable of seeing his selfishness and wastefulness (i think?), while some would say you seem a Musk "hater" incapable of letting reason invade your opinion of the man. But you know, to each his own.
What get's me the most is the overall assumption seems to be that the ladies there were too good looking to be developers. I can't picture a more sexist thought process than "Oh hey there cute girl, who paid you to come to this?" It's probably the single most damaging assumption made, that a good looking female must have never tried being smart because ya know, sexiness and stuff.
So I like how he ends with that bit on patents, when I did my presentation at the USPTO Silicon Valley roundtable event a month ago, a couple of the presenters made the case that absolutely nothing needs to change with software patents because computers should be treated the same as any other kind of machine, and so software should be considered the same as every other type of patent. The fact of the matter is this is simply not true, computer software cannot be equated to physical items, and barely equate to business flow and methods. With all the complexities, as well as the fact that to try out a new version of software happens in seconds where making a prototype of some machine or object takes days, weeks or months. It seemed they either didn't fully understand the difference, or they understand and do not want the system to change since it works greatly in their favor.
Anyone who has an opinion on patents, especially software patents, should be keeping up with the roundtable events. And, I'm not saying that because I went either, stuff is being talked about at these events that will either be ignored or shape the patent system in one way or another. In either case, it's in our best interest to stay involved in the process.
>to try out a new version of software happens in seconds where making a prototype of some machine or object takes days, weeks or months //
Aren't most prototypes "made" in software nowadays and only final products are really fully produced.
In generally I think I agree with what you're saying. In Europe software patents, as such [!], are not allowed but patents to software have always been allowed that made a technical effect, ie performed a real physical change to a system. It's very hard to pin down the boundary but I think that this is something the board got right.
That said I think personally that all manufacturing rates have increased greatly since patent terms were set and that the terms should be decreased to compensate for this change in the rate of development.
That's a valid observation I hadn't made yet, concerning manufacturing in general. You're right about the prototypes being made with software as well, I mostly meant that to physically produce the prototype is different then when you produce the prototype for software, given the click and compile nature of it. All in all though I agree that the terms really need to be reconsidered, but I don't see our legislative branch making an real changes to our governmental system in general, it works out for them pretty good right now.
Contracts require (amongst other things) counter-parties who also sign and the exchange of goods or services between the parties ("consideration"), neither of which unilaterally signing some random document has.
In law, it is very difficult for individuals to bind their future selves. You generally need another party to create obligations that they can enforce against you. So for example counter-parties to a contract, trustees and beneficiaries, employers and employees, fiduciary agents and their clients etc etc. All of these require distinct legal persons to work, if you you combine them into a single legal person the obligations evaporate.
Because when it's you vs you the law pretty sensibly throws its hands in the air and says "well what the hell do you want the courts to do? Hop in a time machine and drag past you into court?"
I'd venture to say that it isn't caused by the SimCity fiasco, but could be used as a, "Hey guys we are trying to fix this, see?" Kind of move on EA's part. All I know for sure is there are too many people happy about this for it to not be related at all. (Not trying to say there's causation, just correlation.)
I can't say for certain since I don't live there, but a cursory search for baby kidnappings in Sweden pulled up a famous guy and that baby was stolen from a crib. Baby kidnapping isn't an issue for them, otherwise I imagine they would not be leaving their kids outside. It's like if no one steals stuff, you don't have to always keep your door locked.