Stop reading emoji’s in text just because you’re sensitive. Jesus would little to no respect for your emotion inserted into others instead of being a true reading. Because it shows that you’re the ignorant narcissist.
Sure, there’ll be plenty to disagree with me but it doesn’t matter. I’m telling you the truth that you’re broadcasting about your emotional stuckage. IDGAF what people read when there’s nothnng there so I’m going ti ignore what you’re trying to say to me unless you somehow learn to pull the truth, pusher.
Don’t read emotions in words because there are none. I don’t emoji and I do what I can to be technically accurate. Doesn’t stop people from making assumptions about my emotions any time I type.
Stop assuming people have emotions just because you do when reading their words.
Maybe write in a way that doesn’t include word like stfu then. Those sound quite mad. Also you calling me narcistic etc. Really makes you soind mad as hell so if it’s a common problem for you that people assume your emotions wrongly then it’s on you. Then your writing is shit. Also none of your comment hasnt been emotionless or technically accurate😂😂
IDK, I probably wouldn’t want every anon having access to the source code for my cybereyes, let alone something like a pacemaker. Companies should be legally mandated to maintain devices like these for the average human life expectancy.
Missing the fact Open Source software is generally more secure because more people are looking at the code. You don’t need to see the source to find a vulnerability, you do need it to patch one properly though.
Greenberg spent many years developing the technology while working at the Alfred Mann Foundation, a nonprofit organization that develops biomedical devices
EDIT: For those challenging what I am saying, I was speaking towards his motives, when I responded to this comment …
They exist to make money not help humanity.
I was challenging the notion that he did not care about humanity, and just wanted the money.
Its ok to want to help others AND make money doing it. (Unfortunately) We live in a society where money is needed to exist.
Non-profits, just like for-profits, need to keep revenue at or above expenditures. Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.
Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.
I’m going to push back against this part of your comment. You are making an assumption. You can do both, help Humanity AND make money (since we live in a society that requires money to exist).
Open Source can and very often is profitable, though. Large companies like to trade technologies as assets, but a lot of people don’t realize that as individuals they can claim full rights and ownership over their product while also making it free to use and modify.
You’re giving a roundabout justification for regulation.
It should not be their choice when are discussing items/services that impact health this directly. Buy the ticket (release product and profit) take the ride (support for the life of installed user base at least).
Regulation is the only way the capitalist model works. Think about it, limiting capitalism is a majorly important part of making any part of it work because it’s so backwards.
This shit should be eminent domained and open sourced. It’s in the public’s best interest to have this tech available and if the people who invested in making it don’t want to support it or sell it to a company that will, they don’t need it anymore.
I don’t know either, and I think OP didn’t read the article. What the fuck is open source limb? Open source retina? What does recharging mean in that context? Swapping the battery or faceplanting on an inductive charger?
Or perhaps OP meant manually updating your eye instead of relying on a company? But in that case, a battery swap is not even related to open/closed source topic.
Open source hardware is a thing. See: raspberry pi, pine64, etc.
In hardware, open source means the schematics are available and the device is built with commonly available components; eg: no proprietary chips, standard discrete components, pcb schematics and plans available.
Now it makes sense. It would be better if people started calling it “open hardware” instead of extending open source to cover the transparency of the hardware’s design.
Open source is originally associated with software and refers to source code that is made freely available and can be modified and redistributed.
Open hardware means that the design specifications, schematics, and related information are made freely available for users to study, modify, and distribute.
👏 OPEN 👏 SOURCE 👏 AFTER 👏 OBSOLETION 👏
Fuck that. Free & Open Source Software ONLY for ANY bioimplant tech.
Why not just any tech? It’s already obsolete. Nobody is going to profit from it. Why not let couple nerds tinker with it?
Fuck ANY. ALL or STFU and you have no right to broadcast any kind of deception of the people en masse no less.
Jesus calm down lmao
Stop reading emoji’s in text just because you’re sensitive. Jesus would little to no respect for your emotion inserted into others instead of being a true reading. Because it shows that you’re the ignorant narcissist.
Sure, there’ll be plenty to disagree with me but it doesn’t matter. I’m telling you the truth that you’re broadcasting about your emotional stuckage. IDGAF what people read when there’s nothnng there so I’m going ti ignore what you’re trying to say to me unless you somehow learn to pull the truth, pusher.
What the hell man😂😂 maybe answer to the right comment next time
Edit: unless this really was answer you meant for me in which case I just have no fucking clue what you’re trying to say
Don’t read emotions in words because there are none. I don’t emoji and I do what I can to be technically accurate. Doesn’t stop people from making assumptions about my emotions any time I type.
Stop assuming people have emotions just because you do when reading their words.
Maybe write in a way that doesn’t include word like stfu then. Those sound quite mad. Also you calling me narcistic etc. Really makes you soind mad as hell so if it’s a common problem for you that people assume your emotions wrongly then it’s on you. Then your writing is shit. Also none of your comment hasnt been emotionless or technically accurate😂😂
IDK, I probably wouldn’t want every anon having access to the source code for my cybereyes, let alone something like a pacemaker. Companies should be legally mandated to maintain devices like these for the average human life expectancy.
Missing the fact Open Source software is generally more secure because more people are looking at the code. You don’t need to see the source to find a vulnerability, you do need it to patch one properly though.
Security through obscurity is not security
It’s definitely one layer of security. If it’s your only layer then you’re in trouble.
Ignorance. You don’t understand any of the philosophy or the conduct of FOSS let alone close source.
But…here…sign right here where the CIA/NSA/FBI/ETC. get any and all right to fuck you over any time the want to for any fucking reason.
They exist to make money not help humanity. Open source don’t make them money so they will never bother
From the article…
EDIT: For those challenging what I am saying, I was speaking towards his motives, when I responded to this comment …
I was challenging the notion that he did not care about humanity, and just wanted the money.
Its ok to want to help others AND make money doing it. (Unfortunately) We live in a society where money is needed to exist.
EDIT2: I’m all for open source.
“he spun off the company Second Sight with three cofounders in 1998”
The rest of the sentence from your quote. The company that put these implants into people was, from what I understand, indeed for profit.
Kind of hard to operate a company without also making money doing so. The two are not mutually exclusive to each other.
Non-profits, just like for-profits, need to keep revenue at or above expenditures. Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.
Feel free to enlighten them on how to run a beneficial company with no income.
Government grants… A là Lockmart.
I’m going to push back against this part of your comment. You are making an assumption. You can do both, help Humanity AND make money (since we live in a society that requires money to exist).
deleted by creator
He should have made it open sauce
Open Source can and very often is profitable, though. Large companies like to trade technologies as assets, but a lot of people don’t realize that as individuals they can claim full rights and ownership over their product while also making it free to use and modify.
You’re giving a roundabout justification for regulation.
It should not be their choice when are discussing items/services that impact health this directly. Buy the ticket (release product and profit) take the ride (support for the life of installed user base at least).
Regulation is the only way the capitalist model works. Think about it, limiting capitalism is a majorly important part of making any part of it work because it’s so backwards.
I vote for parties that are pro-opensource and promote opensource among friends and family. It’s all I can do.
What if the party is also for child murder?
And what if the other one who is against child murder is also anti-open source?
This shit should be eminent domained and open sourced. It’s in the public’s best interest to have this tech available and if the people who invested in making it don’t want to support it or sell it to a company that will, they don’t need it anymore.
How the hell would you even recharge an open source retina? This isn’t your typical PC app.
The same as a closed source one? What does charging something have to do with an app? I’m not even sure what you’re saying.
I don’t know either, and I think OP didn’t read the article. What the fuck is open source limb? Open source retina? What does recharging mean in that context? Swapping the battery or faceplanting on an inductive charger?
Or perhaps OP meant manually updating your eye instead of relying on a company? But in that case, a battery swap is not even related to open/closed source topic.
Open source hardware is a thing. See: raspberry pi, pine64, etc.
In hardware, open source means the schematics are available and the device is built with commonly available components; eg: no proprietary chips, standard discrete components, pcb schematics and plans available.
Now it makes sense. It would be better if people started calling it “open hardware” instead of extending open source to cover the transparency of the hardware’s design.
Open source is originally associated with software and refers to source code that is made freely available and can be modified and redistributed.
Open hardware means that the design specifications, schematics, and related information are made freely available for users to study, modify, and distribute.
👏IS👏THIS👏A👏SONG👏SHOULD👏WE👏CLAP👏ALONG👏RAMA👏LAMA👏DING👏DONG👏SONG👏