There is no reason you can't write a native iPhone app in languages other than ObjC. ObjC is a dynamic language and the runtime has a C interface. Python's ObjC bridge is over 15 years old and very mature, Apple ships it with OS X!
One can write Cocoa/UIKit applications in Python or Ruby and they use the exact same API as Obj-C. Any language with a C ABI compatible FFI (which is pretty much every language) is at least capable of doing the same, it's just that Python and Ruby have mature ObjC bridges. The Python-ObjC bridge has been around for over 15 years and is built into Mac OS X.
Sorry, but there is no technical reason why developers shouldn't be able to write applications in Python or Ruby, for instance.
Maybe now I'll be able to get properly prepared fresh eel instead of that frozen, precooked, and precut crap that's reheated in a toaster oven and covered with sesame seeds.
TSA screening is a search. Even though they are searching for things that are a threat to air safety, if they find anything else illegal they can hand you over to the cops. It's called finding something "incidental to a search." No judge will let you raise a 4th amendment defense to this since its already been decided. The state has an overriding interest in air security so they get a limited exception to the 4th amendment. Have a look at the decision in John Gilmore's "free to travel" appeal. He lost his 4th amendment challenge to simply showing your id (also considered a search.)
It's only a search warrant for some private place which must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The cops can't just grab anything they find. It must be described in the warrant. The cops get around this by adding drugs and weapons to any search warrant that isn't already looking for drugs and weapons.
WRONG. It is well known that sites like IsoHunt have significant noninfringing uses because significant refers to the quality of the use, not the quantity (see Grokster.) Obviously, torrent trackers are great for distributing noninfringing material cheaply, which is a significant use.
Significant noninfringing use, DMCA Safe Harbor, fair use, etc... none of that applies if your intent was to help people infringe and profit from it. The public record abounds with Fung's intent. Fung got up on TV and bragged about how the reason people were coming to his site was to get a free copy of The DaVinci Code. The "titles" for users in his online forum were all references to piracy. There's a lot more in the court documents.
Fung is going down because of his own thoughts and words, not because he was unable to prove that his site is good for things other than infringement.
If you want people to come together and socialize, the only time they can do it is during lunch. Before or after work, people want to tend to their lives. During working hours you want them to work. Therefore, the solution is to provide lunch. Everyone loves free food (make sure it's good and healthy) so that's going to put your people into a better mood right off the bat. Eating together is the most time honored and proven solution to building community. It's baked into our DNA. People won't even realize you're doing it for selfish reasons, unlike anything else you could do. There is also a very good chance that people will actually get work done (the kind that can be done over lunch.) When hiring, you'll enjoy more accepted offers from your top candidates.
The people that run companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, and many, many others are not stupid and not frivolous. They make a calculated decision to provide high quality food for their employees. It pays off.
Dobs are not "useless" for photography. People do manage to capture some pretty good images of the moon and planets with nice stable dobs that have tracking and a video camera. Check out Wes Higgin's images of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn captured with an 14.5" Starmaster Dob. Judging by his page, he is fairly seriously into lunar imaging. Far from useless...
Apparently, they really were working on DNF all this time. I thought for sure it was just a joke on the industry and a way to drum up publicity every couple of years while they worked/published real titles.
You don't need a license to run an authorized copy of software any more than you need a license to read a book. Running software is not an exclusive right protected by copyright.
Culture belongs to everyone. A couple hundred years ago we decided to give artists a monopoly over their work for a limited amount of time as an incentive to create. Since then, greedy people have corrupted that in an attempt to retain their monopoly for all time.
[Apple] has used lock-and-key technological measures to prevent Mac OS X from operating on non-Apple computers. This involved the use of a “kernel” extension, which is software that is executed and becomes part of the operating system on an Apple computer. The kernel extension would communicate with other kernel extensions to locate the decryption keys in the hardware, which then would unlock the encrypted files.
[...]
Psystar contends that Apple’s anticircumvention technology was ineffective because the decryption key for circumvention is publicly available on the internet
[...]
Here, when the decryption key was not employed, the encryption effectively worked to prevent access to Mac OS X. And that is all that is required.
This is news to me! I do not believe that there are any keys embedded in any shipping Intel Macs. In fact, I am pretty sure that OSX will install cleanly on any PC similarly equipped to a Mac and has EFI firmware. Even PCs without EFI, all you need is special bootloader to start executing the kernel, then OSX runs unmodified. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to install it from the retail DVD. I have seen it done on Dell Netbooks.
Googling for these mysterious keys turned up nothing.
I think you are on to it WRT the "order in which they did things."
The judgement says:
Psystar first bought a copy of Mac OS X and then installed it on an Apple Mac mini. Next, Psystar copied Mac OS X from the Mac mini onto a non-Apple computer. This non-Apple computer was used as an “imaging station.” Once on the imaging station, Mac OS X was modified. Psystar then replaced the Mac OS X “bootloader.” The bootloader runs when a computer first comes on and locates and loads portions of the operating system into random access memory. Without a bootloader, Mac OS X would not operate. Psystar also disabled and/or removed Mac OS X kernel extension files and replaced them with other kernel extension files. Psystar’s modifications enabled Mac OS X to run on non-Apple computers. The modified copy became the “master copy” that was used for mass reproduction and installation onto other Psystar computers.
17 USC 117 says
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
So, Psystar installed OSX from a DVD onto a Mac mini. That might be permitted under 117 except that Psystar made the copy not to use OSX on the Mac mini but for the sole purpose of creating an installed image for making additional copies. Then Psystar made a copy of the installed copy onto another computer. That is not permitted under 117. For one, I don't think you can make a copy of a copy made under 117. Two, they made the copy for the purpose of making more copies, not for the utilization of OSX in conjunction with a machine. I would guess that imaging machine ran Windows or some Linux distro and the copy of OSX was just an image to be used with whatever drive cloning software they were using.
So if Psystar had installed from DVD directly onto the customers computer and then adapted it to work better with their hardware then they might not be liable for direct infringement. Still left is contributory infringement from failing to provide an original DVD of the same software with the computer they sold and also circumvention of the technological measures that effectively control access to the work.
Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X
on
Psystar Crushed In Court
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The court rejected 117. Partially because Psystar's lawyers suck. (emphasis mine)
The question is whether Psystar can rely on section 117 to escape liability. It cannot. As Apple pointed out, Psystar waived any Section 117 essential step defense when it failed to plead it. Psystar counters that it has not waived Section 117 because that provision is a limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights rather than an affirmative defense. An earlier Ninth Circuit decision stated “Section 117 defines a narrow category of copying that is lawful per se” and “Section 107, by contrast, establishes a defense to an otherwise valid claim of copyright infringement.” Sega Enters. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1521 (9th Cir. 1992). Since then, the Ninth Circuit has expressly referred to Section 117 as a defense. See Wall Data Inc. v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 447 F.3d 769, 776 (9th Cir. 2006) (referring to Section 117 as an affirmative defense); Asset Mktg. Sys. v. Gagnon, 542 F.3d 748, 754 (9th Cir. 2008) (referring to Section 117 as a defense). As such, this order treats Section 117 as an affirmative defense.
Alternatively, if Section 117 is considered an affirmative defense, then Psystar argues it has pled it in its answer and raised the substance of its Section 117 argument in its interrogatory responses. Neither the answer nor interrogatory responses, however, refer to Section 117. And Psystar has not demonstrated any good cause for its failure to assert the defense after a year of litigation. Also, there has been no showing that its failure to do so will not prejudice Apple. As such, Psystar has waived the defense.
At all events, the assertion of Section 117 is so frivolous in the true context of how Psystar has used Mac OS X that a belated attempt to amend the pleadings would not be excused.
There is plenty of precedent, look up "strict scrutiny" which is applied to 4th amendment exceptions. That's why the TSA changed the rules instead of fighting. They knew they no chance of prevailing.
I wonder if fears of these sorts of attacks are why many major sites seems to be serving scripts and other static content from a completely different domain instead of a subdomain of the main site like an ostensibly sensible admin would do.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no reason you can't write a native iPhone app in languages other than ObjC. ObjC is a dynamic language and the runtime has a C interface. Python's ObjC bridge is over 15 years old and very mature, Apple ships it with OS X!
How would the existence of alternative app stores impede your ability to only buy guaranteed malware-free apps from Apple's app store?
One can write Cocoa/UIKit applications in Python or Ruby and they use the exact same API as Obj-C. Any language with a C ABI compatible FFI (which is pretty much every language) is at least capable of doing the same, it's just that Python and Ruby have mature ObjC bridges. The Python-ObjC bridge has been around for over 15 years and is built into Mac OS X.
Sorry, but there is no technical reason why developers shouldn't be able to write applications in Python or Ruby, for instance.
Maybe now I'll be able to get properly prepared fresh eel instead of that frozen, precooked, and precut crap that's reheated in a toaster oven and covered with sesame seeds.
TSA screening is a search. Even though they are searching for things that are a threat to air safety, if they find anything else illegal they can hand you over to the cops. It's called finding something "incidental to a search." No judge will let you raise a 4th amendment defense to this since its already been decided. The state has an overriding interest in air security so they get a limited exception to the 4th amendment. Have a look at the decision in John Gilmore's "free to travel" appeal. He lost his 4th amendment challenge to simply showing your id (also considered a search.)
It's only a search warrant for some private place which must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The cops can't just grab anything they find. It must be described in the warrant. The cops get around this by adding drugs and weapons to any search warrant that isn't already looking for drugs and weapons.
WRONG. It is well known that sites like IsoHunt have significant noninfringing uses because significant refers to the quality of the use, not the quantity (see Grokster.) Obviously, torrent trackers are great for distributing noninfringing material cheaply, which is a significant use.
Significant noninfringing use, DMCA Safe Harbor, fair use, etc... none of that applies if your intent was to help people infringe and profit from it. The public record abounds with Fung's intent. Fung got up on TV and bragged about how the reason people were coming to his site was to get a free copy of The DaVinci Code. The "titles" for users in his online forum were all references to piracy. There's a lot more in the court documents.
Fung is going down because of his own thoughts and words, not because he was unable to prove that his site is good for things other than infringement.
Judging by the big hunk of meat in my 'fridge, today is Steak and BJ Day. Pi day just isn't nearly as fun.
The irony of course is that Apple initially refused to approve fart apps.
Just be two of: tall, good-looking, rich, talented-musician/artist
If you want people to come together and socialize, the only time they can do it is during lunch. Before or after work, people want to tend to their lives. During working hours you want them to work. Therefore, the solution is to provide lunch. Everyone loves free food (make sure it's good and healthy) so that's going to put your people into a better mood right off the bat. Eating together is the most time honored and proven solution to building community. It's baked into our DNA. People won't even realize you're doing it for selfish reasons, unlike anything else you could do. There is also a very good chance that people will actually get work done (the kind that can be done over lunch.) When hiring, you'll enjoy more accepted offers from your top candidates.
The people that run companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, and many, many others are not stupid and not frivolous. They make a calculated decision to provide high quality food for their employees. It pays off.
Dobs are not "useless" for photography. People do manage to capture some pretty good images of the moon and planets with nice stable dobs that have tracking and a video camera. Check out Wes Higgin's images of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn captured with an 14.5" Starmaster Dob. Judging by his page, he is fairly seriously into lunar imaging. Far from useless...
I'm sorry, but his pics just aren't that great compared to other amateur imagers.
Compare Peter Shah's image of M42 with Rob Gendler's. Or how about this even more stunning one captured by Tony and Daphne Hallas with a 6" refractor at the Winter Star Party.
IMHO, Peter Shah's self promotion is more impressive than his images.
Apparently, they really were working on DNF all this time. I thought for sure it was just a joke on the industry and a way to drum up publicity every couple of years while they worked/published real titles.
Lots of new features, I thought the 2.X.Y versions where X is an even number are supposed to be "stable." There isn't even a 2.7 branch.
There is an exception to the patent monopoly for conducting research.
You don't need a license to run an authorized copy of software any more than you need a license to read a book. Running software is not an exclusive right protected by copyright.
Never heard of this Justin guy until this. Any publicity is good publicity... I'm sure the exec will get a bonus.
Or there exists code you need for one language that isn't available for the other...
Culture belongs to everyone. A couple hundred years ago we decided to give artists a monopoly over their work for a limited amount of time as an incentive to create. Since then, greedy people have corrupted that in an attempt to retain their monopoly for all time.
This is news to me! I do not believe that there are any keys embedded in any shipping Intel Macs. In fact, I am pretty sure that OSX will install cleanly on any PC similarly equipped to a Mac and has EFI firmware. Even PCs without EFI, all you need is special bootloader to start executing the kernel, then OSX runs unmodified. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to install it from the retail DVD. I have seen it done on Dell Netbooks.
Googling for these mysterious keys turned up nothing.
Is Apple lying to the court?
I think you are on to it WRT the "order in which they did things."
The judgement says:
17 USC 117 says
So, Psystar installed OSX from a DVD onto a Mac mini. That might be permitted under 117 except that Psystar made the copy not to use OSX on the Mac mini but for the sole purpose of creating an installed image for making additional copies. Then Psystar made a copy of the installed copy onto another computer. That is not permitted under 117. For one, I don't think you can make a copy of a copy made under 117. Two, they made the copy for the purpose of making more copies, not for the utilization of OSX in conjunction with a machine. I would guess that imaging machine ran Windows or some Linux distro and the copy of OSX was just an image to be used with whatever drive cloning software they were using.
So if Psystar had installed from DVD directly onto the customers computer and then adapted it to work better with their hardware then they might not be liable for direct infringement. Still left is contributory infringement from failing to provide an original DVD of the same software with the computer they sold and also circumvention of the technological measures that effectively control access to the work.
The court rejected 117. Partially because Psystar's lawyers suck. (emphasis mine)
There is plenty of precedent, look up "strict scrutiny" which is applied to 4th amendment exceptions. That's why the TSA changed the rules instead of fighting. They knew they no chance of prevailing.
Which is destroy them if we can't subjugate them, right?
I wonder if fears of these sorts of attacks are why many major sites seems to be serving scripts and other static content from a completely different domain instead of a subdomain of the main site like an ostensibly sensible admin would do.