That assumption is probably one of the things they are trying to prove, namely did Earth life originate off-planet? If they get a negative result because they don't find common ancestry, they've added some evidence against the panspermia theory.
Apple is making it impossible for anyone else to sell a computer that is compatible with OS X. The Microsoft anti-trust rulings these days all seem to stem from interoperability. There are existing rulings that suggest if you refuse to play well with others, you can be found guilty of antitrust violations.
Except, that in Mircosoft's case, they had a monopoly, and were using the monopoly + interoperability problems to increase their share in other markets. This is what they were convicted of, and it's a subtle point. MS wasn't convicted of being a monopolist, it was convicted of using its monopoly to gain share in other markets.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on either hardware or software, and in fact, Apple's inoperability issues are probably a brake on Apple's software market share. It's possible, even likely, that if they licensed OS X liberally for all hardware, they could sell more copies, at a higher price than they do now. It's even possible that Apple wouldn't lose much in the way of hardware sales. I can only speak anecdotally, but I for one would be inclined to stick with the whole bundle, as my experience with Macs since 10.4 has been very positive.
Heck, if Microsoft is going to be found guilty by bundling Media Player with Windows, I think Apple does far worse things when it comes to bundling, such as forcing me to purchase Apple hardware to run Apple software.
You do not have the inalienable right to run software on any machine you want. I wish we did, because then I could force all those game companies to make their software Mac or Linux compatible. Let me repeat this point, since this seems to be the core issue driving all the angsty bitching: you do not have the right to run any random software on whatever hardware you want.
That is what this new counter-suit will be about. Based on previous Microsoft rulings, I think Psystar has an argument. What may kill their case is the psuedo-legality of their current business practices. Will a court give Psystar a fair shake if they pre-judge them to be criminals trying to illegally profit off someone else's product?
The previous Microsoft rulings, while related, are not on point in some very important ways. Remember, Microsoft has the OS monopoly, not Apple, and Microsoft gained their OS monopoly by licensing the OS to any PC "clone" who cared to pay. Apple's bundling of the hardware and software isn't about making you pay more for the hardware, it's about controlling the experience, and hence the value of the brand. It's about being a luxury good, and not a commodity good. It's not about increasing market share (ie obtaining a monopoly) it's about making more money selling less units, and having happy customers who come back. In other words, it's about creating fanbois.
There is nothing illegal about hardware/os bundling: until MS came along, all os's were bundled with hardware, usually hardwired right in as roms. The reason Apple draws so much ire is because they have a product that you really really want -- the OS X -- but you don't want to buy the hardware. Well, tough shit.
If it's not your baby, the Chr score is way off, but I have to tell you as a long time hater-of-babies, when you have your own, its Charisma score is 18/100.
Stupid lady doesn't know shit about privacy or court opinions. If she so worries about it, why doesn't she prevent the RIAA-equivalent in canada from enforcing monitoring ISPs traffic? Dumb wh*re
Actually, she knows a lot about privacy, maybe less so about court opinions. She's trying to stop the RIAA equivalent and their ilk in Canada, but her office doesn't really have a lot of teeth outside of certain specific pieces of legislation.
I heard an interview she gave on CBC, not long ago. She really does know what she's talking about, and she really does care. It was somewhat refreshing to hear, actually.
Actually, I think the best alternative is the one proposed by the Privacy Commissioner. Keep the records public, mask key pieces of information. The rules could say that the names of all corporations cannot be obfuscated, thereby allowing transparency in corporate cases. The specifics of such a scheme would need to be worked out, but I think it's not a bad idea.
The "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy as a matter of logic, not necessarily as a matter of empirical evidence.
If a government is known to create palatable laws as a way to introduce what would otherwise be less-palatable laws later, then there would be cause to believe that the slippery slope argument is valid in this case.
The permafrost is serviced by satellite internet, for the most part, which I suppose technically counts as high speed, though it's laggy and prone to long outages. The permafrost definitely needs to be counted.
It's true that much of the population is in the urban centres, but much of the rural population is covered, and that's an important point.
I myself live in a rural area (500 km north of Toronto, 150 km away from the nearest small city) and most of the area is covered with some form of broadband internet. Only those on the farms outside of the towns are not covered, and they'll all be covered in a year or two.
(I'm not implying that my anecdote is authoritative...just sayin' is all)
Broadcasting the Opening Ceremonies isn't news as far as I'm concerned. They aren't reporting on the event, they're broadcasting a show. There should be a distinction between entertainment and news reporting, and broadcasting the Opening Ceremonies follows pretty clearly into the Entertainment category.
And, if other posts above and below are any indication, the anchors made it pretty clear that there was some CG involved to get some of the shots. Graphics weren't used to deceive the television audience, they were used to give the audience a more immediate sense of what was actually happening. They didn't lie to anyone, they presented a truth that mere reporting would never had conveyed.
That's great, but really, it's the opening ceremonies of a sports event. There are much larger problems with the American media than a little bit of theatre in the Opening Ceremonies.
exactly. It's show business, people, not news reporting. This whole discussion is like a moviegoer saying "What?! you mean John McClane didn't really blow up a building, they used computer effects? It's a conspiracy!"
Isn't that great, that we're all Oregonians, then. Oh wait.
I know that for myself, I try to buy local where I can, but some things are just not available, due in part to the local geography. We have a short growing season here, and some things just aren't available locally, things like fruit, most vegetables, anything "organic" (there are farmers willing to grow organic food, but when they take it in to sell, it gets put in the same bins as all the rest of the food), et cetera. Meat is easy to get locally, but for most consumer goods it's "made in China" whether you like it or not.
As for urbanites, in my past experience the greatest barrier to buying locally is cost. Many, many low-income earners simply cannot afford to pay the premium prices for locally made products, and must shop at discount stores like Wal-mart.
I agree that we should all try, but there is much wrong with society that won't be cured just by shopping locally. Also, and somewhat off-topic, you won't convince many people to change their habits by being rude to them, or badgering them, or browbeating them. Just so you know.
That's funny, I've heard a lot of different people use the term "left-liberarian". Your ignorance is not my responsibility, but here's a gift for you anyway.
As a left-libertarian, I object to your lumping of all libertarians into anti-unionists. Clearly your example is one where less government control will make big improvements in the lot of ordinary people, which is, as you point out, the libertarian thesis of both the right and left.
Don't be sucked in by the weird American right-lib notion that there should only be enough government to give corporations the power/right to rape the people. That's only one form of libertarianism, despite what people here would have you believe. Personally, I'd like to see only enough government to protect the rights of people, and the first thing to go in my ideal world would be the rules that allow corporations to exploit their labour.
Just because I send you an email with a picture in it doesn't transfer the copyright of that material to you, nor does it give you a license to republish the material.
Which is funny, because as a counter-example, here in Canada, a constitutional Monarchy and not a Republic, you are certainly entitled to sue the Sovereign, though strict time limits apply, and suing Her Majesty the Queen abrogates your right to a jury at Trial. But you can still do it. And you can still win. In the firm I work at, auto collision files often have the Queen named as a co-defendant or a third party. In fact, courts in Canada also hand out awards to people who've been imprisoned and later found innocent, they are some of the biggest awards handed out in the civil system.
So really, the concept of Sovereign immunity is only as entrenched as you want it to be, in a democratic country.
Slashdot Mirror
"Buy this basket of fruit for 500 pounds, and we'll throw in this computer for free!" I wonder if it sounded as ridiculous then as it does now?
That assumption is probably one of the things they are trying to prove, namely did Earth life originate off-planet? If they get a negative result because they don't find common ancestry, they've added some evidence against the panspermia theory.
Obligatory XKCD
Apple is making it impossible for anyone else to sell a computer that is compatible with OS X. The Microsoft anti-trust rulings these days all seem to stem from interoperability. There are existing rulings that suggest if you refuse to play well with others, you can be found guilty of antitrust violations.
Except, that in Mircosoft's case, they had a monopoly, and were using the monopoly + interoperability problems to increase their share in other markets. This is what they were convicted of, and it's a subtle point. MS wasn't convicted of being a monopolist, it was convicted of using its monopoly to gain share in other markets.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on either hardware or software, and in fact, Apple's inoperability issues are probably a brake on Apple's software market share. It's possible, even likely, that if they licensed OS X liberally for all hardware, they could sell more copies, at a higher price than they do now. It's even possible that Apple wouldn't lose much in the way of hardware sales. I can only speak anecdotally, but I for one would be inclined to stick with the whole bundle, as my experience with Macs since 10.4 has been very positive.
Heck, if Microsoft is going to be found guilty by bundling Media Player with Windows, I think Apple does far worse things when it comes to bundling, such as forcing me to purchase Apple hardware to run Apple software.
You do not have the inalienable right to run software on any machine you want. I wish we did, because then I could force all those game companies to make their software Mac or Linux compatible. Let me repeat this point, since this seems to be the core issue driving all the angsty bitching: you do not have the right to run any random software on whatever hardware you want.
That is what this new counter-suit will be about. Based on previous Microsoft rulings, I think Psystar has an argument. What may kill their case is the psuedo-legality of their current business practices. Will a court give Psystar a fair shake if they pre-judge them to be criminals trying to illegally profit off someone else's product?
The previous Microsoft rulings, while related, are not on point in some very important ways. Remember, Microsoft has the OS monopoly, not Apple, and Microsoft gained their OS monopoly by licensing the OS to any PC "clone" who cared to pay. Apple's bundling of the hardware and software isn't about making you pay more for the hardware, it's about controlling the experience, and hence the value of the brand. It's about being a luxury good, and not a commodity good. It's not about increasing market share (ie obtaining a monopoly) it's about making more money selling less units, and having happy customers who come back. In other words, it's about creating fanbois.
There is nothing illegal about hardware/os bundling: until MS came along, all os's were bundled with hardware, usually hardwired right in as roms. The reason Apple draws so much ire is because they have a product that you really really want -- the OS X -- but you don't want to buy the hardware. Well, tough shit.
If it's not your baby, the Chr score is way off, but I have to tell you as a long time hater-of-babies, when you have your own, its Charisma score is 18/100.
What's a DVD?
Stupid lady doesn't know shit about privacy or court opinions.
If she so worries about it, why doesn't she prevent the RIAA-equivalent in canada from enforcing monitoring ISPs traffic?
Dumb wh*re
Actually, she knows a lot about privacy, maybe less so about court opinions. She's trying to stop the RIAA equivalent and their ilk in Canada, but her office doesn't really have a lot of teeth outside of certain specific pieces of legislation.
I heard an interview she gave on CBC, not long ago. She really does know what she's talking about, and she really does care. It was somewhat refreshing to hear, actually.
Oh no, normal Belairs aren't a one-shot thing (though maybe they should be) it's only the reverse belair that is a one-shot.
Actually, I think the best alternative is the one proposed by the Privacy Commissioner. Keep the records public, mask key pieces of information. The rules could say that the names of all corporations cannot be obfuscated, thereby allowing transparency in corporate cases.
The specifics of such a scheme would need to be worked out, but I think it's not a bad idea.
The "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy as a matter of logic, not necessarily as a matter of empirical evidence.
If a government is known to create palatable laws as a way to introduce what would otherwise be less-palatable laws later, then there would be cause to believe that the slippery slope argument is valid in this case.
Empirical evidence trumps logic.
And apparently you have no sense of humour. Perfect for Slashdot.
Sir. You have mis-spelled "liek".
Daleks. That is all.
The permafrost is serviced by satellite internet, for the most part, which I suppose technically counts as high speed, though it's laggy and prone to long outages. The permafrost definitely needs to be counted.
It's true that much of the population is in the urban centres, but much of the rural population is covered, and that's an important point.
I myself live in a rural area (500 km north of Toronto, 150 km away from the nearest small city) and most of the area is covered with some form of broadband internet. Only those on the farms outside of the towns are not covered, and they'll all be covered in a year or two.
(I'm not implying that my anecdote is authoritative...just sayin' is all)
Broadcasting the Opening Ceremonies isn't news as far as I'm concerned. They aren't reporting on the event, they're broadcasting a show. There should be a distinction between entertainment and news reporting, and broadcasting the Opening Ceremonies follows pretty clearly into the Entertainment category.
And, if other posts above and below are any indication, the anchors made it pretty clear that there was some CG involved to get some of the shots. Graphics weren't used to deceive the television audience, they were used to give the audience a more immediate sense of what was actually happening. They didn't lie to anyone, they presented a truth that mere reporting would never had conveyed.
That's great, but really, it's the opening ceremonies of a sports event. There are much larger problems with the American media than a little bit of theatre in the Opening Ceremonies.
exactly. It's show business, people, not news reporting. This whole discussion is like a moviegoer saying "What?! you mean John McClane didn't really blow up a building, they used computer effects? It's a conspiracy!"
Isn't that great, that we're all Oregonians, then. Oh wait.
I know that for myself, I try to buy local where I can, but some things are just not available, due in part to the local geography. We have a short growing season here, and some things just aren't available locally, things like fruit, most vegetables, anything "organic" (there are farmers willing to grow organic food, but when they take it in to sell, it gets put in the same bins as all the rest of the food), et cetera. Meat is easy to get locally, but for most consumer goods it's "made in China" whether you like it or not.
As for urbanites, in my past experience the greatest barrier to buying locally is cost. Many, many low-income earners simply cannot afford to pay the premium prices for locally made products, and must shop at discount stores like Wal-mart.
I agree that we should all try, but there is much wrong with society that won't be cured just by shopping locally. Also, and somewhat off-topic, you won't convince many people to change their habits by being rude to them, or badgering them, or browbeating them. Just so you know.
That's funny, I've heard a lot of different people use the term "left-liberarian". Your ignorance is not my responsibility, but here's a gift for you anyway.
Political compass.
As a left-libertarian, I object to your lumping of all libertarians into anti-unionists. Clearly your example is one where less government control will make big improvements in the lot of ordinary people, which is, as you point out, the libertarian thesis of both the right and left.
Don't be sucked in by the weird American right-lib notion that there should only be enough government to give corporations the power/right to rape the people. That's only one form of libertarianism, despite what people here would have you believe. Personally, I'd like to see only enough government to protect the rights of people, and the first thing to go in my ideal world would be the rules that allow corporations to exploit their labour.
...or a breathalyser.
Do you mean:
I predict a total sausage fest [citation needed]
or
Geeks are great, once you get to know us [citation needed]
or both?
Just because I send you an email with a picture in it doesn't transfer the copyright of that material to you, nor does it give you a license to republish the material.
Er, actually, it does, or at least, it can.
Which is funny, because as a counter-example, here in Canada, a constitutional Monarchy and not a Republic, you are certainly entitled to sue the Sovereign, though strict time limits apply, and suing Her Majesty the Queen abrogates your right to a jury at Trial. But you can still do it. And you can still win. In the firm I work at, auto collision files often have the Queen named as a co-defendant or a third party. In fact, courts in Canada also hand out awards to people who've been imprisoned and later found innocent, they are some of the biggest awards handed out in the civil system.
So really, the concept of Sovereign immunity is only as entrenched as you want it to be, in a democratic country.
Or treason and sedition.