Hardware that respects my freedom?

Yep.

>>40

Or you can just get a toilet scrubber job at Intel and copy a few CADs, when nobody is looking.

I think one of the reasons IC manufacturers don't publish their designs is to prevent being sued for patent infringement. Since IC designs are already protected by copyright, maybe it would be a good idea to change the law so that ICs become unpatentable (the way software is should be is should be). Actually, to give manufacturers an incentive to open their sources, maybe the law could only grant IC patent immunity for ICs whose full sources have been published.

>>42

Manufacturers have no incentive to expose internals, because releasing source code would make competitor's work easier. For example, leaked Windows 2000 source code greatly boosted Wine's development.

>>43
Capitalism is anti-human and a bane to human progress and ought to be destroyed.

>>44

Humans are anti-capitalism and a bane to capitalistic progress and ought to be destroyed.

>>45

capitalistic progress

Capitalism is a stasis where the select few are rich and getting richer, and the vast majority are poor and getting poorer.

>>46

To able progress, and the inept lose their place. Hygienization of humanity

>>47

*The able

>>47
Able to what? Able to lie, cheat and steal? Or able to get richer when they're already rich?
Rupert Murdock can lie in bed and masturbate all day and still make more money than you, even if you work 60 hours a week.

>>46

Then how come American niggers are a lot richer than African ones and live better than African nobility?

>>43

Manufacturers have no incentive to expose internals, because releasing source code would make competitor's work easier. For example, leaked Windows 2000 source code greatly boosted Wine's development.

That's true. I didn't say patent risk was the only reason, just that it was an important one.

Also, I'm not sure how much it would really help the competitors; I don't think I know enough about CPU design. However, if it does eventually help competitors, that's a good thing for users since we'll get better CPUs faster.

Another thought; the innovation-rewarding benefits of secrecy wouldn't be entirely lost: they could also only publish the sources at the very last minute as the IC is about to hit the shelves. It would take the competitors a fair amount of time to clean room reverse engineer any technological advances (and then to integrate them into their own designs, test, etc.), so in the meantime the innovating company would get lots of sales for having some clever unique feature; innovation is rewarded.

>>44
I somewhat agree with you. The point of any economic system in a democratic society is to serve the people (in practice this works out as making the people feel served); in this case, the interests of the companies (i.e. to make money faster by stifling competition) are getting in the way of the interests of the people (i.e. safer computing). Sure, in an idealized capitalist system every actor has perfect information of what's best for them and literally everyone would avoid hardware they can't trust, but that's hardly a realistic assumption.

>>45
That was VIP quality!

>>51

if it does eventually help competitors, that's a good thing for users since we'll get better CPUs faster.

Intel doesn't care about users or better CPUs. The only motive for Intel's existence is to make money for the shareholders.

>>52

Moreover, users dont want anyone to care about them. If you put in charge a person who cares, such person would push command-line interface, instead of GUI, because GUI is less flexible and dumbs users down. People are self-indulgent, so they love inefficient and dumb things, like x86.

People vote politicians and companies who indulge their hideous lifestyle. That is why McDonalds makes billions, while restaurants serving healthy food get bankrupt.

>>52
Re-read my post carefully. In the paragraph that answers to post forty-four (>>44) I make exactly that point.

>>53

If you put in charge a person who cares, such person would push command-line interface,

Say that to my 90 year old grandparents not online and see what happens.

instead of GUI, because GUI is less flexible and dumbs users down.

My answer to that is                 LISP                 .

>>54

That is why McDonalds makes billions, while restaurants serving healthy food get bankrupt.

That might also have something to do with pricing and wage slavery in the United States of America.

>>54
The people want what they want. Is it really the people's fault that tasty nutritious food is more expensive than tasty cheap junk?

>>56
Is it really the people's fault that they give in to cheap appetizers instead of wholesome food? Yes, it is. Every member of "the people" is responsible for not being a human and going along with propaganda and the herd.

>>57
Assigning blame is unscientific and ultimately destructive.

>>58
Reasoning is scientific and ultimately constructive.

>>59
That isn't what scientific means or is or what reasoning is. And reason isn't limited to science's petty and childish empiricism.

Science isn't ultimately constructive either. It's more like the opposite.

>>60
Discovering reasons behind the social behavior of primates is scientific.

>>62
Fuck off with your bestiality.

>>59
Reasoning by assigning blame isn't.

>>60
Looks like the hateful positivist is doing eir rounds again.

>>60-62
Take this to /lounge/.

>>64
I'm positive that you're a nigger lover.

>>64

eir

Please leave this board and go spread your degeneracy somewhere else, preferably in a mental institution together with all the other feminists.

>>65-66
/lounge/

>>67
/back2/

Wat

Dubs

check 'em