[Fwd: Re: sad treacherous computing day]

Alex Hudson home at alexhudson.com
Thu May 10 07:35:54 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 08:51 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> This is the important point. It's very easy to rationalise a purchase 
> of hardware containing treacherous computing technology with the 
> fallacious logic of "It's possible to conceive of a non-harmful use; 
> therefore, it's not certain that this is harmful; therefore, I can 
> dismiss any argument telling me I shouldn't buy this."
> That faulty logic has been distressingly common in this thread.

As opposed to the logic that if the hardware comes with free software
drivers and is entirely under your control, then it's pretty difficult
to understand an argument which purports it to be harmful?

The faulty logic I've been seeing has been more related to people not
having much clue about "treacherous" hardware, the different types, what
they do and how they work. It is actually relatively easy to distinguish
between "harmful" and "not harmful" hardware, and willingness to use and
appreciate one doesn't imply anything about the other.



More information about the Discussion mailing list