Christopher J. Welcher - Technology

Another brick in the wall

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:10:27 -0700

As if my timing couldn't be any better...

The recent Library of Congress decision to allow for the jailbreaking of iPhones and the ability to install applications deemed inappropriate or not up to Apple's standards is a perfect example of what I was just talking about in my last blog. Everyone is so happy that they can now hack their iPhones "legally" and install porn apps that they're missing the bigger picture (yet again).

Apple (it could be any company) has designed a consumer product that no one is FORCED to buy, and has made a legal and exclusive contract with a carrier (another company) which was mutually agreed upon by these two private parties. Now some government bureaucrat has decided that it wasn't "fair" that people weren't allowed to bypass the device maker's design intent and use control of its own product. Silly rabbit... At least they allowed Apple to keep the ability to void the warranty if it is jailbroken (for now, I'm sure).

What these people are missing is if the ~~camel~~ donkey doesn't already have its nose inside the tent, it is in now. The precedent has been established. What's to stop another well meaning or well lobbied bureaucrat to decide to bypass contractual law and alter the use of a private company's property (intellectual or material)? What has happened here is that the property owner (Apple) has lost its control of its own intellectual property to the state. Plain and simple. If the state has any control of your product, they can force you to do anything they want.

I'd like to have Bungie port Halo to the PS3, but I know it's wrong for me to convince a sympathetic judge to nullify exclusivity contracts solely because it's inconvenient for me. I have options - buy an X-Box or plead my case with Bungie/Microsoft. Same with the iPhone. If you don't like the carrier or closed ecosystem, DON'T BUY ONE! You have a choice to buy a product as it is intended from the manufacturer, not the right to force the manufacturer to make it as you want it.

Silly rabbit...

SOURCE

Google is...

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:21:50 -0700

Google is a cult
Google is not afraid of offending any religious faith EXCEPT Islam
Google is a hypocrite for avoiding taxes while promoting progressive socialist ideology
Google is censoring data so it be used in freedom-limited countries
Google is not to be trusted with ANY of our private information
Google is caught manipulating its search results (again)
Google is ...

SOURCE

See I'm not the only one

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:53:28 -0700

And you wonder why I try to avoid Google as much as I can...

ARTICLE

Hell, I'll say it loud and proud: Happy Veterans Day!

Say it isn't so

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:56:46 -0700

What? A privacy issue with Google?
SOURCE

Privacy just for the rich and powerful...
SOURCE

Don't look now, you're on Candid Camera...
SOURCE

Thanks, but no thanks

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:01:08 -0700

So Google now wants to be in control of when you wash your dishes and clothes, or how you heat/cool your house, all in the name of not needing to expand our power infrastructure to meet the needs of our burgeoning population that relies on more and more electronics and planning for our future power requirements. In English that means not building more power plants, and heaven forbid a nuclear power plant. Nope, in their mind and other companies that would profit from the control of scarcer sources of energy, they want to dictate your energy usage per their desires, not yours. Go ahead and give them this authority over your freedom all in the name of "saving the planet" from the evil greedy power plants. You do it now with politicians, why not private companies - as quasi-private as our socialist/fascist government is converting them anyways.

SOURCE

Gotta have a source of power for all of those electric cars you want us to buy...

Google Bias

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:07:39 -0700

Ya think? So why should you trust anything they publish, push, store, or promote?

SOURCE

I could deal with their bias a lot easier if they admitted it, but like the mainstream media they don't see themselves as biased even when it is pointed out.

Use these search results, not those, because these are "better"

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:57:11 -0700

You know I can't go too long without a Google rant, so here's my latest fix. Seems that Google uses people, not complicated computer algorithms to influence search results, and we know how "objective" and "impartial" people who control the dissemination of information can be, especially ones that want to conquer the world...

This is why I remove Google's preinstalled software on all of my company computers and use Yahoo and other search engines whenever I can. Hey I'm an owner, I can be an IT dictator if I want to be.

SOURCE

Like the beard...

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:33:08 -0700

I just had a conversation with the evil one last night about this and now here comes another article from someone who doesn't trust Google either. I am not alone.

SOURCE

It isn't just me

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:11:43 -0700

That is worried about the Google juggernaut.

SOURCE

Google = Big Brother?

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:59:00 -0700

See, I'm not the only one who thinks we should keep a wary eye on these people...

SOUCE

Google leave me alone!

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:26:17 -0700

One of my favorite daily sites for information and conservative opinion, Lucianne.com has been blocked as an "attack" site by Google in order to "save us" from potential computing harm. Sure... and I've got some carbon credits for sale... I vote for Google censorship, but it could be liberal hackers - from CHINA.

SOURCE

If it turns out that Google is an innocent victim, I will be the first to apologize. It's just that their track record of impartiality is not so.

Google skirting the law and taxes?

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:17:43 -0700

Google wants to move some of its data centers into international waters to save money and protect the environment. They also happen to avoid taxes and regulations, but I'm sure that was just an afterthought...

SOURCE

Google, again...

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:33:42 -0700

Dare I say, another reason why I dislike/distrust Google. Yes, they are free to run their business as they see fit (yes, really!) BUT for the time being at least, I am free NOT to use Google.

SOURCE

Chrome dulled by quest for power

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:52:41 -0700

More reasons why I won't use Google's new browser. Why enable them to sell you and your privacy?

SOURCE
SOURCE

Read at your own risk

nospam@example.com (Christopher J. Welcher) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:20:51 -0700

I'm afraid my skeptical, cynical, and overall poor attitude will prevent me from trusting Google as a credible news source. I'll always be looking for the purposely placed ad, source, ranking, conclusion, recommendation, definition. Sorry, but I don't trust Google.

But you already know that.

SOURCE