"The Internet At 25"... but it started in 1969. I think this "Internet" is a lot like some 35 year old guys I've seen in various chatrooms trying to convince all of the co-eds that they're really 25.
I'm not really 'off' Windows. I use Windows PCs and manage Windows networks daily. Linux systems as well. Most of my actual work, however, is done on a Macintosh. Even my Windows-related work is typically accomplished from my Mac using standard VPN tools in combination with Windows Terminal Services and/or VNC.
It is the solution that works best for me personally. I am rarely in the office which means that portability is a key factor and I enjoy the portability options of Mac OS X over those of Windows or Linux while maintaining a fantastic 'middle ground' to communicate with and manage these other platforms.
My favorite, albeit tired, phrase is "Use the right tool for the right job." For my job, a PowerBook running Mac OS X is that tool. But, like any good carpenter or mechanic, I have more than one tool in my toolbox. I just happen to use some more than others.
I particularly enjoyed the cast of Simpsons characters throughout the book. While I'm sure it would have been just as informative had he used different personalities, it might not have been quite as entertaining.
Much of Noggin's programming is provided by Sesame Workshop (formerly Children's Television Workshop) which, in turn, is funded by PBS stations and other grants. And let's not forget that cable and satellite providers DO pay for the channel.
But that doesn't give Viacom any excuse to bundle it as a requirement for carrying their over-the-air local broadcast channels.
As for the Howard Stern comment, my suggestion of regulation had nothing to do with regulating content. It has to do with regulating business conduct. Remember the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? Remember the situation they portrayed with the mass media being controlled by one interest? That's what we're running into now. Viacom is using its considerable media empire to spread their dishonest and deceptive propaganda to the public... they've even gone so far as to broadcast their false statements as news and, in doing so, betrayed the public trust. All journalistic integrity out the window. The 16 Viacom-owned CBS channels can no longer be trusted to report news with any concern for objectivity. They've proven that, when it comes down to it, they will tell whatever lies the parent company wants them to tell and call it news.
If there were reasonable restrictions on media ownership, the effects of this shameful behavior would be negligible as it wouldn't reach the 16 largest television markets at the same time.
This is why they need to restore the restrictions on ownership of broadcast stations. This wouldn't be an issue if Viacom wasn't allowed to actually OWN these 16 broadcast stations. It's ridiculous that they should be allowed to require payment for Dish Network to rebroadcast a local channel that is freely available over the public airwaves as long as they're restricting it to the channel's actual target market.
As for Viacom's cable channels? The only one that has any redeeming qualities is Noggin. The fact that Viacom wants to FORCE everyone who wants to watch any of their channels to subscribe to ALL of their channels is just wrong.
Even worse, they're using their powers as a media juggernaut to deceive the public. You know that story they keep telling about how Dish Network just raised its rates by $3 per month for no reason and yet refuse to pay an extra 6 cents per month for Viacom's programming? It's an outright lie.
First, not all Dish Network subscribers had their rates raised AT ALL... and many of those who did see a rate increase saw a much lower increase than $3.
Second, the programming fee increase that Viacom is asking for is substantially more than 6 cents over the course of the contract. 6 cents per month is just the first year. Think "Columbia House"... those first few CDs may only cost you one cent, but then you're stuck buying a few dozen more at $20 a piece.
Third, they are also trying to force Dish Network to carry additional channel(s) that they don't want to carry. This also adds additional costs as they need to add equipment and manpower to support the additional feeds as well as using up additional bandwidth on their satellites.
Finally, Viacom is trying to claim that since they've successfully negotiated contracts with all of the cable providers and DirecTV that this is Dish Network's fault. What they neglect to mention is that the terms of their contracts with the cable companies and DirecTV are SIGNIFICANTLY more favorable than what they're offering Dish Network... especially the cable companies. That's due in part to Federal laws that set forth specific rules for how much local broadcasters can charge cable companies for rebroadcasting their signals. These regulations don't apply to satellite providers and so the local broadcasters take the satellite companies to the cleaners.
Viacom is urging people to call and cancel their Dish Network service. Dish Network is urging customers to call and complain to Viacom (and their advertisers... good idea) but what EVERYONE needs to do... whether you're a Dish Network subscriber or not is call your lawmakers and get them to start paying attention to the damage caused by companies like Viacom who are allowed to control such a significant chunk of the media without any effective controls placed on them.
There are other people sharing horror stories about Number Portability Requests over at WirelessAdvisor too. There's some very useful information there.
There is a reason why I submitted this story in the first place. I have been trying to get my number ported from AT&T to T-Mobile for 11 days now with no luck. Yesterday afternoon I called their number portability group and sat on hold for 5 hours, 10 minutes before I finally gave up.
I have never before experienced such incompetence on such a large scale.
An update on my end... I just spoke to someone in AT&T's number portability center. They said that they weren't able to look into my situation because they are limiting the number of people who can concurrently access the network. Think of it as AT&T's version of Rolling Blackouts. She said that she would have access some time before 11pm Central Time and agreed to call me back when she did. She also suggested that I try calling back to see if I get ahold of someone who DID have access. So I called back and the first several times I got a recording saying that they had a high volume of calls and that I should call back later and then disconnected. I didn't even have the option of waiting on hold. I kept redialing and now I'm finally in the hold queue. 25 minutes so far.
On Saturday, November 22nd I went into a T-Mobile store and bought a new phone and activated service with a new phone number with an intent to port my old number over from AT&T Wireless Services on Monday the 24th.
On Monday I called T-Mobile to begin the porting process. It took a little over an hour on the phone and at the end of the call they said it would take 3 to 24 hours before the change would be effective.
24 hours later, nothing had happened yet. I called T-Mobile back and was told that the request had been rejected by AT&T because my name on the request didn't match my name in their system. I grabbed my AT&T bill and reconfirmed with T-Mobile that it had, in fact, been entered correctly the first time. They resubmitted the request and said to check back in another 5 hours if it hadn't gone through.
5 hours later I called back to learn that AT&T rejected the request again saying that the ZIP code didn't match. We double-checked and it was exactly as it was listed on the AT&T bill. They said to check back again on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, more of the same. We went through again to make sure that all of the information in the request was exactly as it was listed on my AT&T bill and resubmitted the request. They said that if it failed this time, I was stuck until Friday since they wouldn't be open on Thanksgiving.
On Friday, nothing had changed. I called T-Mobile again and was told that AT&T was having serious computer problems and that all requests were being rejected. They said there was nothing else they could do right now and that there was no ETA. We were all at the mercy of AT&T and were simply stuck.
I checked again on Saturday and Sunday and got the same answer both times.
On Sunday I sent an eMail to AT&T Wireless Services telling them that there was no excuse for their incompetence given the fact that they've had over seven years since the original FCC mandate to prepare for this.
On Monday I called T-Mobile again and talked to someone about the situation... specifically about my concerns regarding double-billing since I have an active T-Mobile account right now and I have to keep my AT&T service active until the conversion is complete or I forfeit my number. The T-Mobile rep was very sympathetic and said that she would take care of it by making sure I am not charged for my T-Mobile service until after the portability request is successfully completed.
It is now Wednesday. 9 days since I submitted my port request. Three days since I sent an eMail to AT&T Customer Care. I still haven't heard anything from AT&T regarding the eMail I sent them on Sunday except for an automated form letter stating that they received my eMail and would respond as quickly as possible. I'm not holding my breath.
I honestly believe that their problems may not be as severe as they claim and that this is, at least partially, an attempt by them to get their existing customers to "give up" on switching to another carrier. Many people who have requested number ports away from AT&T have done just that... after become so frustrated with the delays and excuses they've decided to just stick with AT&T rather than suffer through continued aggravation. If nothing else, AT&T is delaying the departure of dissatisfied customers, forcing them to continue paying for poor quality service until the alleged computer problems are corrected. In fact, a number of customers have reported in various Internet message boards (including AT&T's own support forums) incidents where they have called in to simply cancel their service and were told by the AT&T rep that they couldn't do it at that time because the system was down and that they would need to call back later.
I, personally, intend to continue my quest to move my number to T-Mobile if for no other reason than to make it clear to AT&T that they're not just losing a customer, they're losing a customer to one of their competitors. Number portab
That's what they said about Windows CE
on
.Net:... 3 Years Later
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Remember when Windows CE had been out for a couple of years and everyone was declaring it a failed technology? Look what happened after that...
Now, I'm not saying that.NET is still bound to be a success, but it's still too early to count 'em out. We're not talking about BOB here.
Partially correct... NT only supported 16-bit character-based OS/2 applications.
The first version of Windows NT was version 3.1, though... and that decision had nothing to do with OS/2 lineage. It had to do with the fact that the current version of 16-bit DOS-based Windows at the time was 3.1 and they wanted NT to appear 'current'.
Maybe if Microsoft Developed for Linux
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
OS/2 was once a joint product between IBM and Microsoft. In fact, I have an old OS/2 book with a foreword by Bill Gates himself where he refers to OS/2 as "the future of computing". That is why NT originally had an OS/2 subsystem and supported the HPFS filesystem from OS/2.
With Linux, Microsoft has never had its hand in the pie. They have never had any control over its development. Linux bears no similarity to OS/2 as a competing technology. To suggest it is just wishful thinking on Bill Gates part.
This problem has been around for months... In order to look up WHOIS information on.ORG domains, you have to point your WHOIS client at whois.pir.org. For some reason, whois.internic.net isn't redirecting the appropriate information. I first noticed the problem back in early March.
They might be vegetables
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The biggest mistake people make when discussing Artificial Intelligence is assuming that the intelligence will be on par with (or, indeed, beyond) that of an adult human.
Chances are, the first sentient AI (should such a thing ever actually exist) will be relatively dumb. It may end up that the first AI is closer to a human with an extreme mental handicap. Language skills independent of pre-programmed responses may not be possible for the first AI. But that doesn't mean it won't be sentient.
Right after reading this story, my login fortune was as follows:
IBM: [International Business Machines Corp.] Also known as Itty Bitty Machines or The Lawyer's Friend. The dominant force in computer marketing, having supplied worldwide some 75% of all known hardware and 10% of all software. To protect itself from the litigious envy of less successful organizations, such as the US government, IBM employs 68% of all known ex-Attorneys' General.
Actually, anyone who does this is simply using the software they own (it came with OS X, and they bought that, right?) in a manner inconsistent with its design.
Here is where your argument is flawed. The software does NOT come with OSX. You get the backup software when you sign up for the.Mac service. You can download it when you sign up for the free trial account but the software disables itself when your trial account expires. By tricking the software into running after the account's expiration (by setting the trialAccountDaysLeft = -1) you are bypassing the subscription model of the software.
I don't give a flying fsck about intentions. Apple created a product and bundled it with their operating system;
Hello? Is your IQ above 40? The software is NOT bundled with the operating system. The software is bundled with the.Mac subscription which you are expected to PAY FOR. If it was bundled with the OS, you might have a leg to stand on. But it isn't. You have to sign up for the.Mac service in order to get the software. When your subscription ends, so does your right to use the software.
Yes, a.Mac subscription from Apple. But the poster is not cheating Apple; he's not accessing their servers and using their services. And because he's not using THEIR servers, there's no reason that he should pay them anything.
This is ridiculous. So people should be free to use whatever software they want without paying the author as long as they aren't using any of the author's other services? Apple put money into developing the software with the SOLE intention of it being used by paying subscribers to their service. As I pointed out, they even went so far as to make the software disable itself if you stop paying for their service. Someone found a way to disable the subscription check by spoofing server information. That doesn't make it legitimate. It's like software that generates CD keys. Just because it is possible to run Windows without paying for it doesn't mean it's legal. Just because it's possible to run the.Mac backup software without paying for it doesn't mean it's legal either.
But you're out to get something for nothing and that's an attitude you just can't argue with. You feel entitled to something that someone else made and there's just no persuading you otherwise.
You're under the false assumption that the backup software is a part of Mac OS X, though. It isn't. The software is offered only to.Mac subscribers. Using it without subscribing to.Mac is piracy.
Fair use only applies to products you have paid for. The backup software is intended only for people who have paid for.Mac services. Now if the story had been written in a way that suggested that the work-around was for people who have already paid Apple for.Mac and want an alternative method to backup their system then I would say kudos. But read carefully, it says, "...get most.Mac functionality without paying Apple for it." It implies that the intent of the tutorial is to avoid paying Apple.
The software is a premium designed to be used only by subscribers to the.Mac service. That is why there is a check built in to the software to verify your account status, etc.
Apple has written software to be used with their.Mac service. The cost of the software is included in the price of the service. When you use the software without paying for the service you are, in effect, pirating the software. You may justify this in your own mind by claiming that the price of the hardware and the OS should entitle you to the use of the.Mac backup software but that's not how it was intended. The backup software is not a part of the OS. It is not included with the computer. It is a download available to.Mac users. It has built-in safegaurds to prevent use by people who do not pay for a.Mac subscription. By circumventing these mechanisms you are pirating the software.
Now, I'm not going to chide anybody for software piracy itself. What I am doing is pointing a finger at Slashdot for promoting the act. If you choose to pirate software, there's nothing anybody can do about it short of a lawsuit but when you openly encourage others to pirate software, you have crossed the line of ethical behavior.
Am I the only one who thinks that it is just a little bit irresponsible to publish an article that condones the use software without paying for it? Granted this is a sort of grey area since some people would argue that you're paying for.Mac instead of for the backup software itself but the backup software is designed to be used with the.Mac service so using it without paying Apple is akin to piracy.
The Slashdot community normally champions the cause of Free Software but ordinarily they limit themselves to legitimate Free Software a la Open Source. I think it is shameful to openly encourage software piracy like this.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Internet At 25"... but it started in 1969. I think this "Internet" is a lot like some 35 year old guys I've seen in various chatrooms trying to convince all of the co-eds that they're really 25.
If only it could sync with Palm and/or PocketPC. I could get a lot more people to switch to it.
I'm not really 'off' Windows. I use Windows PCs and manage Windows networks daily. Linux systems as well. Most of my actual work, however, is done on a Macintosh. Even my Windows-related work is typically accomplished from my Mac using standard VPN tools in combination with Windows Terminal Services and/or VNC.
It is the solution that works best for me personally. I am rarely in the office which means that portability is a key factor and I enjoy the portability options of Mac OS X over those of Windows or Linux while maintaining a fantastic 'middle ground' to communicate with and manage these other platforms.
My favorite, albeit tired, phrase is "Use the right tool for the right job." For my job, a PowerBook running Mac OS X is that tool. But, like any good carpenter or mechanic, I have more than one tool in my toolbox. I just happen to use some more than others.
I particularly enjoyed the cast of Simpsons characters throughout the book. While I'm sure it would have been just as informative had he used different personalities, it might not have been quite as entertaining.
Much of Noggin's programming is provided by Sesame Workshop (formerly Children's Television Workshop) which, in turn, is funded by PBS stations and other grants. And let's not forget that cable and satellite providers DO pay for the channel.
But that doesn't give Viacom any excuse to bundle it as a requirement for carrying their over-the-air local broadcast channels.
As for the Howard Stern comment, my suggestion of regulation had nothing to do with regulating content. It has to do with regulating business conduct. Remember the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? Remember the situation they portrayed with the mass media being controlled by one interest? That's what we're running into now. Viacom is using its considerable media empire to spread their dishonest and deceptive propaganda to the public... they've even gone so far as to broadcast their false statements as news and, in doing so, betrayed the public trust. All journalistic integrity out the window. The 16 Viacom-owned CBS channels can no longer be trusted to report news with any concern for objectivity. They've proven that, when it comes down to it, they will tell whatever lies the parent company wants them to tell and call it news.
If there were reasonable restrictions on media ownership, the effects of this shameful behavior would be negligible as it wouldn't reach the 16 largest television markets at the same time.
This is why they need to restore the restrictions on ownership of broadcast stations. This wouldn't be an issue if Viacom wasn't allowed to actually OWN these 16 broadcast stations. It's ridiculous that they should be allowed to require payment for Dish Network to rebroadcast a local channel that is freely available over the public airwaves as long as they're restricting it to the channel's actual target market.
As for Viacom's cable channels? The only one that has any redeeming qualities is Noggin. The fact that Viacom wants to FORCE everyone who wants to watch any of their channels to subscribe to ALL of their channels is just wrong.
Even worse, they're using their powers as a media juggernaut to deceive the public. You know that story they keep telling about how Dish Network just raised its rates by $3 per month for no reason and yet refuse to pay an extra 6 cents per month for Viacom's programming? It's an outright lie.
First, not all Dish Network subscribers had their rates raised AT ALL... and many of those who did see a rate increase saw a much lower increase than $3.
Second, the programming fee increase that Viacom is asking for is substantially more than 6 cents over the course of the contract. 6 cents per month is just the first year. Think "Columbia House"... those first few CDs may only cost you one cent, but then you're stuck buying a few dozen more at $20 a piece.
Third, they are also trying to force Dish Network to carry additional channel(s) that they don't want to carry. This also adds additional costs as they need to add equipment and manpower to support the additional feeds as well as using up additional bandwidth on their satellites.
Finally, Viacom is trying to claim that since they've successfully negotiated contracts with all of the cable providers and DirecTV that this is Dish Network's fault. What they neglect to mention is that the terms of their contracts with the cable companies and DirecTV are SIGNIFICANTLY more favorable than what they're offering Dish Network... especially the cable companies. That's due in part to Federal laws that set forth specific rules for how much local broadcasters can charge cable companies for rebroadcasting their signals. These regulations don't apply to satellite providers and so the local broadcasters take the satellite companies to the cleaners.
Viacom is urging people to call and cancel their Dish Network service. Dish Network is urging customers to call and complain to Viacom (and their advertisers... good idea) but what EVERYONE needs to do... whether you're a Dish Network subscriber or not is call your lawmakers and get them to start paying attention to the damage caused by companies like Viacom who are allowed to control such a significant chunk of the media without any effective controls placed on them.
In reality, it has been OVER a week delay.
Most of the requests submitted on the first day still haven't been completed. It has been 11 days so far and AT&T has no ETA.
See my earlier comment about how I sat on hold for 5 hours, 10 minutes last night waiting to talk to someone at AT&T before I finally gave up.
There are other people sharing horror stories about Number Portability Requests over at WirelessAdvisor too. There's some very useful information there.
There is a reason why I submitted this story in the first place. I have been trying to get my number ported from AT&T to T-Mobile for 11 days now with no luck. Yesterday afternoon I called their number portability group and sat on hold for 5 hours, 10 minutes before I finally gave up.
I have never before experienced such incompetence on such a large scale.
Yes, file a formal complaint with the FCC. It is very important that everyone who is experiencing these problems do exactly that.
It's very easy to do... it's just a matter of filling in a web form now. Instructions are available on the FCC's Number Portability Information Site:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/
An update on my end... I just spoke to someone in AT&T's number portability center. They said that they weren't able to look into my situation because they are limiting the number of people who can concurrently access the network. Think of it as AT&T's version of Rolling Blackouts. She said that she would have access some time before 11pm Central Time and agreed to call me back when she did. She also suggested that I try calling back to see if I get ahold of someone who DID have access. So I called back and the first several times I got a recording saying that they had a high volume of calls and that I should call back later and then disconnected. I didn't even have the option of waiting on hold. I kept redialing and now I'm finally in the hold queue. 25 minutes so far.
On Saturday, November 22nd I went into a T-Mobile store and bought a new phone and activated service with a new phone number with an intent to port my old number over from AT&T Wireless Services on Monday the 24th.
On Monday I called T-Mobile to begin the porting process. It took a little over an hour on the phone and at the end of the call they said it would take 3 to 24 hours before the change would be effective.
24 hours later, nothing had happened yet. I called T-Mobile back and was told that the request had been rejected by AT&T because my name on the request didn't match my name in their system. I grabbed my AT&T bill and reconfirmed with T-Mobile that it had, in fact, been entered correctly the first time. They resubmitted the request and said to check back in another 5 hours if it hadn't gone through.
5 hours later I called back to learn that AT&T rejected the request again saying that the ZIP code didn't match. We double-checked and it was exactly as it was listed on the AT&T bill. They said to check back again on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, more of the same. We went through again to make sure that all of the information in the request was exactly as it was listed on my AT&T bill and resubmitted the request. They said that if it failed this time, I was stuck until Friday since they wouldn't be open on Thanksgiving.
On Friday, nothing had changed. I called T-Mobile again and was told that AT&T was having serious computer problems and that all requests were being rejected. They said there was nothing else they could do right now and that there was no ETA. We were all at the mercy of AT&T and were simply stuck.
I checked again on Saturday and Sunday and got the same answer both times.
On Sunday I sent an eMail to AT&T Wireless Services telling them that there was no excuse for their incompetence given the fact that they've had over seven years since the original FCC mandate to prepare for this.
On Monday I called T-Mobile again and talked to someone about the situation... specifically about my concerns regarding double-billing since I have an active T-Mobile account right now and I have to keep my AT&T service active until the conversion is complete or I forfeit my number. The T-Mobile rep was very sympathetic and said that she would take care of it by making sure I am not charged for my T-Mobile service until after the portability request is successfully completed.
It is now Wednesday. 9 days since I submitted my port request. Three days since I sent an eMail to AT&T Customer Care. I still haven't heard anything from AT&T regarding the eMail I sent them on Sunday except for an automated form letter stating that they received my eMail and would respond as quickly as possible. I'm not holding my breath.
I honestly believe that their problems may not be as severe as they claim and that this is, at least partially, an attempt by them to get their existing customers to "give up" on switching to another carrier. Many people who have requested number ports away from AT&T have done just that... after become so frustrated with the delays and excuses they've decided to just stick with AT&T rather than suffer through continued aggravation. If nothing else, AT&T is delaying the departure of dissatisfied customers, forcing them to continue paying for poor quality service until the alleged computer problems are corrected. In fact, a number of customers have reported in various Internet message boards (including AT&T's own support forums) incidents where they have called in to simply cancel their service and were told by the AT&T rep that they couldn't do it at that time because the system was down and that they would need to call back later.
I, personally, intend to continue my quest to move my number to T-Mobile if for no other reason than to make it clear to AT&T that they're not just losing a customer, they're losing a customer to one of their competitors. Number portab
Remember when Windows CE had been out for a couple of years and everyone was declaring it a failed technology? Look what happened after that...
.NET is still bound to be a success, but it's still too early to count 'em out. We're not talking about BOB here.
Now, I'm not saying that
Partially correct... NT only supported 16-bit character-based OS/2 applications.
The first version of Windows NT was version 3.1, though... and that decision had nothing to do with OS/2 lineage. It had to do with the fact that the current version of 16-bit DOS-based Windows at the time was 3.1 and they wanted NT to appear 'current'.
OS/2 was once a joint product between IBM and Microsoft. In fact, I have an old OS/2 book with a foreword by Bill Gates himself where he refers to OS/2 as "the future of computing". That is why NT originally had an OS/2 subsystem and supported the HPFS filesystem from OS/2.
With Linux, Microsoft has never had its hand in the pie. They have never had any control over its development. Linux bears no similarity to OS/2 as a competing technology. To suggest it is just wishful thinking on Bill Gates part.
This problem has been around for months... In order to look up WHOIS information on .ORG domains, you have to point your WHOIS client at whois.pir.org. For some reason, whois.internic.net isn't redirecting the appropriate information. I first noticed the problem back in early March.
The biggest mistake people make when discussing Artificial Intelligence is assuming that the intelligence will be on par with (or, indeed, beyond) that of an adult human.
Chances are, the first sentient AI (should such a thing ever actually exist) will be relatively dumb. It may end up that the first AI is closer to a human with an extreme mental handicap. Language skills independent of pre-programmed responses may not be possible for the first AI. But that doesn't mean it won't be sentient.
Right after reading this story, my login fortune was as follows:
IBM:
[International Business Machines Corp.] Also known as Itty Bitty Machines or The Lawyer's Friend. The dominant force in computer marketing, having supplied worldwide some 75% of all known hardware and 10% of all software. To protect itself from the litigious envy of less successful organizations, such as the US government, IBM employs 68% of all known ex-Attorneys' General.
Are you sure? I heard there were at least 4 or 5 people who bought Macs to run Linux.
Actually, anyone who does this is simply using the software they own (it came with OS X, and they bought that, right?) in a manner inconsistent with its design.
.Mac service. You can download it when you sign up for the free trial account but the software disables itself when your trial account expires. By tricking the software into running after the account's expiration (by setting the trialAccountDaysLeft = -1) you are bypassing the subscription model of the software.
.Mac subscription which you are expected to PAY FOR. If it was bundled with the OS, you might have a leg to stand on. But it isn't. You have to sign up for the .Mac service in order to get the software. When your subscription ends, so does your right to use the software.
.Mac subscription from Apple. But the poster is not cheating Apple; he's not accessing their servers and using their services. And because he's not using THEIR servers, there's no reason that he should pay them anything.
.Mac backup software without paying for it doesn't mean it's legal either.
Here is where your argument is flawed. The software does NOT come with OSX. You get the backup software when you sign up for the
I don't give a flying fsck about intentions. Apple created a product and bundled it with their operating system;
Hello? Is your IQ above 40? The software is NOT bundled with the operating system. The software is bundled with the
Yes, a
This is ridiculous. So people should be free to use whatever software they want without paying the author as long as they aren't using any of the author's other services? Apple put money into developing the software with the SOLE intention of it being used by paying subscribers to their service. As I pointed out, they even went so far as to make the software disable itself if you stop paying for their service. Someone found a way to disable the subscription check by spoofing server information. That doesn't make it legitimate. It's like software that generates CD keys. Just because it is possible to run Windows without paying for it doesn't mean it's legal. Just because it's possible to run the
But you're out to get something for nothing and that's an attitude you just can't argue with. You feel entitled to something that someone else made and there's just no persuading you otherwise.
You're under the false assumption that the backup software is a part of Mac OS X, though. It isn't. The software is offered only to .Mac subscribers. Using it without subscribing to .Mac is piracy.
Fair use only applies to products you have paid for. The backup software is intended only for people who have paid for .Mac services. Now if the story had been written in a way that suggested that the work-around was for people who have already paid Apple for .Mac and want an alternative method to backup their system then I would say kudos. But read carefully, it says, "...get most .Mac functionality without paying Apple for it." It implies that the intent of the tutorial is to avoid paying Apple.
.Mac service. That is why there is a check built in to the software to verify your account status, etc.
The software is a premium designed to be used only by subscribers to the
Apple has written software to be used with their .Mac service. The cost of the software is included in the price of the service. When you use the software without paying for the service you are, in effect, pirating the software. You may justify this in your own mind by claiming that the price of the hardware and the OS should entitle you to the use of the .Mac backup software but that's not how it was intended. The backup software is not a part of the OS. It is not included with the computer. It is a download available to .Mac users. It has built-in safegaurds to prevent use by people who do not pay for a .Mac subscription. By circumventing these mechanisms you are pirating the software.
Now, I'm not going to chide anybody for software piracy itself. What I am doing is pointing a finger at Slashdot for promoting the act. If you choose to pirate software, there's nothing anybody can do about it short of a lawsuit but when you openly encourage others to pirate software, you have crossed the line of ethical behavior.
Am I the only one who thinks that it is just a little bit irresponsible to publish an article that condones the use software without paying for it? Granted this is a sort of grey area since some people would argue that you're paying for .Mac instead of for the backup software itself but the backup software is designed to be used with the .Mac service so using it without paying Apple is akin to piracy.
The Slashdot community normally champions the cause of Free Software but ordinarily they limit themselves to legitimate Free Software a la Open Source. I think it is shameful to openly encourage software piracy like this.
I have a tutorial on my site for setting up the T68i with AT&T Wireless Services for GPRS Internet access on Mac OS X via Bluetooth.
There are also a number of reader comments on their experiences with the technology.
What were you doing at the time you started Slackware?
I was finishing up my bachelor's degree in Computer Science at Minnesota State University, Moorhead.
It's MinnesotaLinux, dontchaknow!