Apple, like any other company, gets your name, address, and zip code when you buy something at one of their stores, right?
Apple, like any other company, does not get any of that. At least not when I pay by cash. And otherwise they just get my credit card number, which is technically tied to my name and address, but I do not believe the stores get that information.
Only the 95% of people who have no understanding of antitrust law, competition, and economics.
Antitrust law isn't applicable, because people are describing what they would like changed.
Economics, to which I will fold in competition, makes it quite clear that oligopolies can be just as bad as monopolies. Notice a lot of pocket device OS's?
No one's claiming it's illegal. People are claiming it's evil and should be illegal.
That's like if you walked into a bar and said "man, my three friends tag-teamed my mom last night". Sure, assuming it was consensual, it was legal. That doesn't mean they are not shitty friends, and that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bitch to the bar.
It's too hard to make a program that draws funny pictures on the screen without introducing security holes; somehow I don't want to trust my ethics/morality/what I think I can yell at people for to a far more complex set of rules in an analog world.
Actually the "settlers" were illegal immigrants, and the actions where they slowly took over land was called filibustering.
The settlers were invited in to help displace the Comanche in the under-populated (by 'civilized' people) Texas area. The General Colonization Law expressly made it easier to immigrate to Texas from America and get land.
Texas revolted, essentially, because Mexico outlawed slavery, and the Americans brought slaves (thereafter called indentured servants for life) into Texas.
Look into the work that was done to eradicate the buffalo, which served as a primary source of food, clothing, and practically everything else to the Native Americans of the plains. This was done with the express intent
It was done because buffalo tongue fetched a hefty price in New York and other cities. As evidenced by the fact that they cut the tongue out and left the rest behind.
Also consider the intentional spread of disease (smallpox) via contaminated materials and exposure - often this was done intentionally once it was realized that the Native Americans had no resistance.
The one American/British example centers around their use at Ft. Pitt during the French and Indian War. That is, biological warfare.
Again, it was authorized because they viewed the Native Americans as subhuman and was evil. However, although there was a lot of talk to wiping out Native Americans, the British/Americans never really did.
Similarly, the Trail of Tears was certainly exacerbated by racism and profiteering. It was horrible. And it was not dispassionate (nor did I ever claim it was.)
But it was forced relocation, not genocide. Genocide was attempted against the Armenians, the Gypsies, the Jews, and many more groups. Native Americans were subject to horrible treatment. Native Americans were screwed over, killed, stolen from and denied the protection of the federal government.
But Genocide is different from Stealing. Genocide is even different from government sponsored racism. Forced relocation is "drive out the dirty [ethnic group] by killing them until they leave". Genocide is "quick shoot the dirty [ethnic person], he's getting away."
People always forget the Replicators require energy and according to E=mc^2, replicating anything like a car would probably run-up your electric bill to about $5,000.
And people always dramatically underestimate the speed of light. The mass of a corned beef sandwich in a deli is equal to electrical output of 725 power plants... for an entire day.
They must be one of those groups who thinks he stole the inverse square law from Hooke, calculus from Leibniz, and elliptical orbits from Halley (of comet fame). Although, even if he just was fantastically good at stealing credit, he's still worth a mention for the milled edges on coins.
For irony, thanks the the ROY G BIV indigo/violet artificial difference, he's a great example of allowing bias (for 7 in nature) to overcome hard empirical fact.
I brought up his star example at a lecture. I was told "there are green stars". After saying "oh, well, I was just quoting Feynman, must have been an advance since he wrote it but the point about stupid examples in textbooks still holds", I go home. No, there still are no green stars. But I learned something about blackbody radiation in the process. Thank you Feynman, for continuing to teach, and continuing to encourage me to learn, from beyond the grave.
The great tragedy to me is that while we as western civilization have done a somewhat serviceable job of preaching the evils of slavery and of the German genocide against the Jews, but we seem to be trying to forget the genocide we practiced against Native Americans. Manifest Destiny was no less than that.
I don't know that we try to forget it, it's just hard, emotionally, to focus on. But I object to calling it genocidal. They were seen as subhuman; It was greedy and evil- but the Native Americans were killed to steal from them, not to wipe them out.
Wonder if these new Texas books teach the Trail of Tears. I have my doubts.
The Trail of Tears was not a genocidal act. It was a greedy act. The Cherokee were on land with gold, and that was that.
We should be proud there that the SCOTUS ordered them not to be removed. And ashamed that Andrew Jackson marched the army down there to do it anyway. At least to whatever degree we take pride/shame in our nation's history.
If you actually were taught your history correctly all our founding fathers were religious men. Some deeply religious
How is that relevant? Are you one of those people who talks about "Jew-movies"?
Or, to put it a different way, even if the entirety of the creation team of a "X" are Wiccans, does that make X Wiccan automatically? Wouldn't it need to relate to Wicca in some way first?
) Since history is not your strong suit let me help you with this. The pilgrims came over here because of religious persecution from the Church of England. When the founding fathers wrote all of our laws they made sure this could not happen again, as well as, made sure we would not be ruled over again.
The Pilgrams came over here because they didn't want to live in Amsterdam... the reason they went from England to Amsterdam was to avoid the CoE's persecution. They then enacted laws requiring relgious conformity that went orders of magnitude further than the CoE's did, eventually driving people to "Rogue's Island" (Now Rhodes Island).
In other words, hardly the best role models. They did a good job protecting us from witches however.
. In fact the original Declaration of Independence stated the following. "Life, Liberty, and Property" but it was changed to "the Pursuit of Happiness" because they didn't want the southern slave owners to argue that the slaves were property. In fact, I believe it was John Adams that said (roughly) if we do not fight this battle now (In regards to slavery) we will fight it again in 100 yrs.
Locke wrote "property". When the Founding Fathers cribbed him, they used "Pursuit of Happiness". Slavery was explicitly tabled for some number of years, a strategic decision without which there would be no USA now... maybe morally dubious, but the country needed to be cohesive before it could address the situation.
I could go on and on as to the true reason all the 1st 10 amendments of the constitution were written, but if you aren't interested in it why should I bother. It seems to me everyone wants to "Interpret" the amendments to what suits them, when the original writers themselves wrote what they meant them to be... The Bill of Rights was written in plain English so NO ONE could misinterpret it!
The Bill of Rights is vague, and requires interpretation. How do you define a "reasonable" search? What makes a punishment "cruel"? "unusual"? To what type of council are you entitled? What does it mean to "establish religion"? What type of arms can be born and how regulated must the militia be?
And, I fail to see the "misinterpretation" you purport to concerning the treaty.
The larger concern here is that people are, whether they realize it or not, hawking darn-near outright socialistic behavior.
Well, a strong safety net isn't really socialism. That deals with ownership of the means of production. Also, you kinda have to put everything in perspective. Not all ideas that derive from socialist thought are inheritly wrong. I dare say every political philosophies has been right about some things and wrong about others. Not that, on whole or because of the extremeness of some parts, they are all good or equal. But to dismiss a whole philosophy is pretty wrong-headed.
Pure communism: Failed. Pure capitalism: Failed first.
A mix works. As soon as you admit that, we can debate where to draw the line. But "line moving closer to an evil philosophy" simply doesn't work as an argument.
Fact is that man/most manufacturing jobs could and should be automated out of existence. It really sucks when friends/family/coworkers lose their job and can't find work. It *has* to happen. Society will adapt - we don't get to skip out on taking our medicine just because we don't like it.
That doesn't suck. Them not being able to eat, afford shelter or medical care, those really suck. Not being able to find a job is bad, but if that means cutting down on luxuries instead of not surviving, I think we can deal.
he trick here is holding those on the high dollar end of this inefficiency responsible for the failures that they create. When only the bottom end pays dearly - that's inefficient too.
And telling those fortunate among us able to generate that much wealth through improving society that they have to help everyone else out.
But surely you don't believe that the game company obtained thousands of individual copies of the game crack from the cracking group, and then only distributed the existing copies?
No, I don't.
But I think that it is clear the cracking group wanted their crack distributed far and wide without any compensation. Given that, there's no reason for Rockstar not to sell it. Even the GPL explicitly states that the contents can be sold. So think of it as Rockstar distributing the crack for free, and charging for all their content that comes with it, as well as the original code within the crack.,/p>
. Reselling something for more than the nothing you paid for it is pretty much the very reason copyright laws exist.
Copyright law never prohibits reselling something for more than you paid for it. Copyright law prohibits, surprise, duplication and derivation. If you are given 100,000 copies of something copyrighted, you can resell them all at a profit. If you are given 1 copy and told to make as many copies as you want, you can sell those copies (as Rockstar would claim was the case). If you are given one copy, and told to give away copies, you would have to then give them to a third party, who would then resell them (absent clever licensing verbiage, which is not the case here).
The part of what was being sold that was mine is what I added. In this example, we would BOTH be in the wrong.
Except that Myth gave away copies, and explicitly wanted those who received copies to in turn give it away again. Reselling something for more than the nothing you paid for it is perfectly acceptable.
Was the crack distributed separate from the game? If no, then you might be able to argue that the crack as it exists is a derivative work. If yes, then you can not make that argument.
The crack is clearly a derivative work either way. A derivative work need not include the exact code of the original work. Game mods are derivative works, for instance.
Does that mean Walmart should be forced to sell RealMedia software? Why should a vendor have the "right" to force others to include their software or runtime in their store?
Walmart has limited physical space, the app store does not. Further, Apple prevents you from getting software anywhere else. Ford shouldn't be allowed to force you to buy gas from Exxon and Apple shouldn't be allowed to force you to buy software from them (in both cases the "forcing" is a contingent requirement for purchasing a product).
Who's to say what's a technological reason? It drains the batteries too fast is a technological reason. And why should we create this new law? What problem does it solve? That vendors aren't being forced to sell crappy software from Adobe in their stores?
The user should have control over their device. Running down the batteries is the user's prerogative... it's their battery and their electricity that powers the phone.
And wouldn't such a law pretty much make antivirus software illegal since the only purpose is to stop software that technologically can run?
No, that's stupid. Viruses run in spite of what the user wants. And no one ever makes you run anti-virus software. You can run Windows without it (and be perfectly safe, for instance if you have a non-networked gaming machine).
How is the analogy wrong? Apple has a closed product they sell that includes certain technologies. Adobe has a closed product they sell that includes certain technologies
Because it's not a matter of "certain technologies". Adobe wrote a piece of software that you can run any technologically conformant file in. Apple will not allow you to run any technically conformant file (i.e. a swf player) on their OS.
If you don't like the iPhone, you can buy a different fricking phone rather than forcing the person who makes a phone that doesn't do what you want to include specific features
What about forcing people who make hardware not to restrict what software you can use with it when there is no technological reason to do so? Customer protections are, in general, good things.
I didn't know what TL;DR meant until I saw your post. Can we all agree that anyone whose typing speed is so slow they have to make up acronyms like that isn't worth listening to?
Slashdot Mirror
I just preordered 17.
Apple, like any other company, does not get any of that. At least not when I pay by cash. And otherwise they just get my credit card number, which is technically tied to my name and address, but I do not believe the stores get that information.
Eve is clearly spying on fucking, but it's not clear that she herself is fucking to do so.
Antitrust law isn't applicable, because people are describing what they would like changed.
Economics, to which I will fold in competition, makes it quite clear that oligopolies can be just as bad as monopolies. Notice a lot of pocket device OS's?
No one's claiming it's illegal. People are claiming it's evil and should be illegal.
That's like if you walked into a bar and said "man, my three friends tag-teamed my mom last night". Sure, assuming it was consensual, it was legal. That doesn't mean they are not shitty friends, and that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bitch to the bar.
It's too hard to make a program that draws funny pictures on the screen without introducing security holes; somehow I don't want to trust my ethics/morality/what I think I can yell at people for to a far more complex set of rules in an analog world.
The settlers were invited in to help displace the Comanche in the under-populated (by 'civilized' people) Texas area. The General Colonization Law expressly made it easier to immigrate to Texas from America and get land.
Texas revolted, essentially, because Mexico outlawed slavery, and the Americans brought slaves (thereafter called indentured servants for life) into Texas.
It was done because buffalo tongue fetched a hefty price in New York and other cities. As evidenced by the fact that they cut the tongue out and left the rest behind.
The one American/British example centers around their use at Ft. Pitt during the French and Indian War. That is, biological warfare.
Again, it was authorized because they viewed the Native Americans as subhuman and was evil. However, although there was a lot of talk to wiping out Native Americans, the British/Americans never really did.
Similarly, the Trail of Tears was certainly exacerbated by racism and profiteering. It was horrible. And it was not dispassionate (nor did I ever claim it was.)
But it was forced relocation, not genocide. Genocide was attempted against the Armenians, the Gypsies, the Jews, and many more groups. Native Americans were subject to horrible treatment. Native Americans were screwed over, killed, stolen from and denied the protection of the federal government.
But Genocide is different from Stealing. Genocide is even different from government sponsored racism. Forced relocation is "drive out the dirty [ethnic group] by killing them until they leave". Genocide is "quick shoot the dirty [ethnic person], he's getting away."
And people always dramatically underestimate the speed of light. The mass of a corned beef sandwich in a deli is equal to electrical output of 725 power plants... for an entire day.
They must be one of those groups who thinks he stole the inverse square law from Hooke, calculus from Leibniz, and elliptical orbits from Halley (of comet fame). Although, even if he just was fantastically good at stealing credit, he's still worth a mention for the milled edges on coins.
For irony, thanks the the ROY G BIV indigo/violet artificial difference, he's a great example of allowing bias (for 7 in nature) to overcome hard empirical fact.
I brought up his star example at a lecture. I was told "there are green stars". After saying "oh, well, I was just quoting Feynman, must have been an advance since he wrote it but the point about stupid examples in textbooks still holds", I go home. No, there still are no green stars. But I learned something about blackbody radiation in the process. Thank you Feynman, for continuing to teach, and continuing to encourage me to learn, from beyond the grave.
I don't know that we try to forget it, it's just hard, emotionally, to focus on. But I object to calling it genocidal. They were seen as subhuman; It was greedy and evil- but the Native Americans were killed to steal from them, not to wipe them out.
The Trail of Tears was not a genocidal act. It was a greedy act. The Cherokee were on land with gold, and that was that.
We should be proud there that the SCOTUS ordered them not to be removed. And ashamed that Andrew Jackson marched the army down there to do it anyway. At least to whatever degree we take pride/shame in our nation's history.
How is that relevant? Are you one of those people who talks about "Jew-movies"?
Or, to put it a different way, even if the entirety of the creation team of a "X" are Wiccans, does that make X Wiccan automatically? Wouldn't it need to relate to Wicca in some way first?
The Pilgrams came over here because they didn't want to live in Amsterdam... the reason they went from England to Amsterdam was to avoid the CoE's persecution. They then enacted laws requiring relgious conformity that went orders of magnitude further than the CoE's did, eventually driving people to "Rogue's Island" (Now Rhodes Island).
In other words, hardly the best role models. They did a good job protecting us from witches however.
Locke wrote "property". When the Founding Fathers cribbed him, they used "Pursuit of Happiness". Slavery was explicitly tabled for some number of years, a strategic decision without which there would be no USA now... maybe morally dubious, but the country needed to be cohesive before it could address the situation.
The Bill of Rights is vague, and requires interpretation. How do you define a "reasonable" search? What makes a punishment "cruel"? "unusual"? To what type of council are you entitled? What does it mean to "establish religion"? What type of arms can be born and how regulated must the militia be?
And, I fail to see the "misinterpretation" you purport to concerning the treaty.
Well, a strong safety net isn't really socialism. That deals with ownership of the means of production. Also, you kinda have to put everything in perspective. Not all ideas that derive from socialist thought are inheritly wrong. I dare say every political philosophies has been right about some things and wrong about others. Not that, on whole or because of the extremeness of some parts, they are all good or equal. But to dismiss a whole philosophy is pretty wrong-headed.
Pure communism: Failed. Pure capitalism: Failed first.
A mix works. As soon as you admit that, we can debate where to draw the line. But "line moving closer to an evil philosophy" simply doesn't work as an argument.
That doesn't suck. Them not being able to eat, afford shelter or medical care, those really suck. Not being able to find a job is bad, but if that means cutting down on luxuries instead of not surviving, I think we can deal.
And telling those fortunate among us able to generate that much wealth through improving society that they have to help everyone else out.
Oh, that's the problem with the internet. I meant it as a compliment, both to you and the GP.
Your post was almost as well written as the GP's.
No, I don't.
But I think that it is clear the cracking group wanted their crack distributed far and wide without any compensation. Given that, there's no reason for Rockstar not to sell it. Even the GPL explicitly states that the contents can be sold. So think of it as Rockstar distributing the crack for free, and charging for all their content that comes with it, as well as the original code within the crack.,/p>
Copyright law never prohibits reselling something for more than you paid for it. Copyright law prohibits, surprise, duplication and derivation. If you are given 100,000 copies of something copyrighted, you can resell them all at a profit. If you are given 1 copy and told to make as many copies as you want, you can sell those copies (as Rockstar would claim was the case). If you are given one copy, and told to give away copies, you would have to then give them to a third party, who would then resell them (absent clever licensing verbiage, which is not the case here).
Except that Myth gave away copies, and explicitly wanted those who received copies to in turn give it away again. Reselling something for more than the nothing you paid for it is perfectly acceptable.
The crack is clearly a derivative work either way. A derivative work need not include the exact code of the original work. Game mods are derivative works, for instance.
Walmart has limited physical space, the app store does not. Further, Apple prevents you from getting software anywhere else. Ford shouldn't be allowed to force you to buy gas from Exxon and Apple shouldn't be allowed to force you to buy software from them (in both cases the "forcing" is a contingent requirement for purchasing a product).
The user should have control over their device. Running down the batteries is the user's prerogative... it's their battery and their electricity that powers the phone.
No, that's stupid. Viruses run in spite of what the user wants. And no one ever makes you run anti-virus software. You can run Windows without it (and be perfectly safe, for instance if you have a non-networked gaming machine).
What the hell does any of that, absent the retort to the correctly-applied lameness filter, mean? I get "TL;DR", but only because of an earlier post.
Because it's not a matter of "certain technologies". Adobe wrote a piece of software that you can run any technologically conformant file in. Apple will not allow you to run any technically conformant file (i.e. a swf player) on their OS.
What about forcing people who make hardware not to restrict what software you can use with it when there is no technological reason to do so? Customer protections are, in general, good things.
I didn't know what TL;DR meant until I saw your post. Can we all agree that anyone whose typing speed is so slow they have to make up acronyms like that isn't worth listening to?
Yes Comrade, and as soon as we create the New Soviet Citizen, communism will work.
Anytime your plans call for people suddenly and magically becoming smarter or more responsible, you have an issue.
Somehow I think the Air Force may have information security concerns.