If I'm watching [...] TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals,
I think I found your problem.
CNN is in 4th place right now. They are desperate. Last month, they were not in the list of the 30 most watched cable channels for the first time.
They're all terrible. Mostly it's simple facts: there isn't 2 hours of news most days, let alone 24. If you had really good reporters digging for weeks you could get some good content, but that would be really expensive. It's easier reporting on a 5 car crash on a freeway somewhere for 2 hours and asking various "professional" panelists "Could this be some kind of terrorist attack?"
I'd think the use of BitTorrent for things like World of Warcraft updates, for about 5 years, is more validation than someone hosting a pay-to-join tracker for legal content.
Aren't there already totally free trackers for legal content (like Linux ISOs, etc)?
Don't forget Intel. Intel (who pushed USB) put it in their chipsets. So you couldn't build a PC motherboard with a genuine Intel chipset without getting USB. You'd have to go with someone else, who put USB in their chipsets to compete with Intel (and I think Intel may have given away the design for a reference controllers).
USB was free (except for connector and a few discrete parts). FireWire had the same costs, plus a little licensing, plus the controller.
A search engine saying "Here's what you're looking for, click here" is not fair use. That's stealing.
A TV station saying "Local Newspaper said today that [entire text of the story, obviating the need to read it, but still sensationalizing it more]" IS fair use?
Yeah. I wonder why you are choosing that viewpoint.
That said, it's a free internet (for now). Give it a try. We'll be waiting breathless for the results.
If the purpose is to keep him off the street and the rest of us safe, he should get more time.
If the purpose is so he can learn he did wrong (penance), then he can't fix this, so he should be locked up permanently because he can't learn to control this. After all, it's not his fault.
Or if he can learn to control it, it's harder to control, so he should be in for more time since he'll have a harder time learning to be in control as much as a "normal" felon,
Look at that. it doesn't matter what the purpose is, he should be in jail longer.
So if Apple goes to download only for OS X updates and checks that you are on OS X before they sell it to you, then Apple can say "you can't use OS X on generic computers?"
You really think most of the people here arguing they should be able to use OS X however they want would be satisfied with that?
Most people here seem to be arguing against not only that, but against the idea of licensing.
I don't see any good proof that I don't have that right. Just a bunch of people saying I shouldn't. And, OS X isn't sold, only upgrades.
It can be anti-competitive, that's why there are anti-trust laws. But if we outlaw any behavior that could be anticompetitive if used by a company with 90% market share would grind the market to a halt.
Apple's (supposed) monopoly in one area is irrelevant in a different area. If I control the market for q-tips, that doesn't mean I can't sell something else. it's only illegal if I use my q-tip monopoly to force people to buy/not buy my new product/competitor products. Are you arguing that owning an iPod means I have to buy OS X?
Simply stating "I can do whatever I want" is abstinent. What you are suggestion for Monsanto would be monopoly abuse, and there are anti-trust laws for that. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on computers. Apple sells something like 10% of all computers. They don't control the market, and you aren't locked out of using computers if you don't buy OS X. Your example is not the same.
Why don't I have a right to control my own creation? Artists can control the images they make (with a few minor exceptions, like parody and criticism). Why shouldn't other professions be able to do the same thing?
It's an implied condition of sale. It's in the EULA. That's why it says something like "if you don't agree to this, you can return this software for a full refund". It's not like you lost your money.
I'm sorry, but you didn't buy OS X. You bought a license to an upgrade, and a magic piece of plastic. The upgrade requires OS X, which you can only get with a Macintosh.
Should I be able to force a company that manufactures turbos for Ford Mustangs to sell me one that will work with my Honda? It would only take minor changes, just like open market OS X would only require a few more drivers.
You can't force a company to sell a product to you. Even if there wasn't any licensing, Apple can put conditions on sales.
They do this. The license is available online. The box says that you must own an Apple Macintosh computer running OS 10.(X-1). There is a copy int eh box. When you try to install it, you get the EULA which says that if you don't agree you can return the product for a full refund.
You are not screwed if you buy it. You can get your money back no problem.
Apple isn't pulling any kind of Bait and Switch. The terms are there, numerous times, for you to read. The requirements are known. Apple doesn't advertise you can run OS X on any computer but a Macintosh. None of this should be a surprise to anyone.
But OS X isn't a book. You can't buy it without getting a Macintosh. It's a part of a whole, a part that's upgradable.
You are free to resell your Macintosh. You can throw it out a window. You can't sell just one part (OS X) to someone else, just like you can't sell a book without it's cover, or put your own cover on it and pretend it is yours (Psystar).
No one yells that Canon is violating the law because they won't let you install their firmware on Nikon cameras.
No one used to complain you couldn't run System 6 on your PC, or say Microsoft was ripping you off because you couldn't install DOS on your SE/30. The fact that Atari was different from Tandy was a given, and the OS was seen as a part of the whole. That's how Apple operates.
Just because some players in the market don't operate that way doesn't mean no one should be able to.
Apple doesn't sell OS X. Apple sells updates to OS X. If you don't have OS X, you can't use the boxed copy, don't buy it.
You can't pay $200 for a Adobe Create Suite 17 upgrade and not be able to use it yourself. How DARE Adobe requite me to buy their software first.. I bought the upgrade, I should be able to run the software. It's my boxed copy. First sale doctrine.
Apple doesn't sell OS X. They sell updates. This is an important distinction.
It simply has to be. There must be people who are doing it because it's cheaper than a real Mac. I'm not arguing they're losing $20,000,000 a year, but there is no way it's $0. I wouldn't be surprised if it was hundreds of Macs a year.
Why shouldn't I be able to specify what happens with the software I write? Why shouldn't I be able to specify "you must run this on my hardware" as a condition of sale?
You have no right to ignore my rights as the software creator. You were free to not buy my software.
Really. I'd like to see a good reason. All I've ever seen is "I bought it, I can do what I want". Basically "I want". That always ignores the other half, Apple's rights. Why shouldn't Apple have the ability to specify conditions of sale. You're free to accept or decline, it's a contract. Apple isn't a monopoly on the computer market, it's perfectly possible to use a computer without having to buy any Apple hardware/software.
But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course[...]
No it doesn't! You did. YOU want that, so YOU asked it. It isn't inherit to the facts. An inherent question would be "If Apple isn't support them Atom, then what chip will they use for [speculated product]?"
The statement in the summary is equivalent to:
Today ADM said it will no longer sell soybeans to people with the letter 'R' in their name. That raises the question - shouldn't ADM make soybeans that taste like root beer?
"Apple stops supporting something it never supported". What a story. Is anyone surprised? In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), this is an obvious thing to do. Why maintain support for something you don't use and is probably causing you some financial harm.
I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went NUTS. Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers.
No, wait, Apple never officially supported those (if they had existed), and Dell didn't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons, so no one was surprised.
How dare Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who aren't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen?
Come on. I know people on/. want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this really a surprise? This isn't much of a story, it's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article.
I have a series 3, it can record two shows at once. Unfortunately, thanks to network idiots, there are a few times a year when there are 3 (or this year 4) shows on during a single timeslot. It's rare, but it's obnoxious when it happens.
I want to watch some of the shows, but since it's such a pain to watch later, I'll often just give up on the show and keep watching the 2 that I can record.
That's happened to me with a couple of series. I'll want to keep watching it (or start watching it, such as Heros or Glee) but due to conflicts I can't record it. If I can't easily find it, I'll give up on it.
I've always wished that networks were allowed to replay prime-time shows at 1 or 2 AM when they have nothing else to air anyway. They'd get a few more viewers and ad views, and more people could keep up with the shows.
It's neat. I can see it being rather useful for our systems at work to de-duplicate our VMs (and perhaps our DB files, since we have replicated slaves). Network storage (where multiple users may have their own copies of static documents that they've never edited) could benefit, perhaps email storage as well.
Personally though, I don't think there is too much on my hard drive that would benefit from this. I would love for OS X to get the built in checksumming that ZFS has so it can detect silent corruption that may have happened during a bad boot/power loss etc when I try to read the file later.
It's pretty obvious that HFS+ will have to be replaced soon, and Apple is reportedly working on it (since they ditched ZFS). I'd really like the checksumming, at this point (having so much cheap storage and extra CPU cycles) it should be a gimme.
Slashdot Mirror
Or this.
No kidding. ClickToFlash is the equivalent for Safari on OS X. The web is so much nicer when you get to chose to display Flash content.
I think I found your problem.
CNN is in 4th place right now. They are desperate. Last month, they were not in the list of the 30 most watched cable channels for the first time.
They're all terrible. Mostly it's simple facts: there isn't 2 hours of news most days, let alone 24. If you had really good reporters digging for weeks you could get some good content, but that would be really expensive. It's easier reporting on a 5 car crash on a freeway somewhere for 2 hours and asking various "professional" panelists "Could this be some kind of terrorist attack?"
So, like what OS X had a year or two before Vista?
I'd think the use of BitTorrent for things like World of Warcraft updates, for about 5 years, is more validation than someone hosting a pay-to-join tracker for legal content.
Aren't there already totally free trackers for legal content (like Linux ISOs, etc)?
Don't forget Intel. Intel (who pushed USB) put it in their chipsets. So you couldn't build a PC motherboard with a genuine Intel chipset without getting USB. You'd have to go with someone else, who put USB in their chipsets to compete with Intel (and I think Intel may have given away the design for a reference controllers).
USB was free (except for connector and a few discrete parts). FireWire had the same costs, plus a little licensing, plus the controller.
So let me see if I've got this right.
A search engine saying "Here's what you're looking for, click here" is not fair use. That's stealing.
A TV station saying "Local Newspaper said today that [entire text of the story, obviating the need to read it, but still sensationalizing it more]" IS fair use?
Yeah. I wonder why you are choosing that viewpoint.
That said, it's a free internet (for now). Give it a try. We'll be waiting breathless for the results.
I've seen things when they get busy around here. I'd much rather go 70mph (or even 45mph) than the maybe 10 you can average during congestion.
To say nothing of cities with bigger traffic problems like DC, San Fran, or LA.
Yes, they do. Since they use older kernels and have... unique... needs, they aren't a huge contributor like RedHat, but they do a lot.
During 2.6.31, they were responsible for 6% of the changes to the kernel.
If the purpose is to keep him off the street and the rest of us safe, he should get more time.
If the purpose is so he can learn he did wrong (penance), then he can't fix this, so he should be locked up permanently because he can't learn to control this. After all, it's not his fault.
Or if he can learn to control it, it's harder to control, so he should be in for more time since he'll have a harder time learning to be in control as much as a "normal" felon,
Look at that. it doesn't matter what the purpose is, he should be in jail longer.
OK, let's say that this is true and it isn't this guy's fault that he's more likely to hurt/kill people (note: pure bunk).
So that means that he is more dangerous than the average felon, because he can control himself less.
Does that mean he should be put away for more time to protect society from his increased danger?
"Agression Genes": Because more dangerous genes means you need to be able to get to commit crimes you can't stop yourself from doing sooner!
So if Apple goes to download only for OS X updates and checks that you are on OS X before they sell it to you, then Apple can say "you can't use OS X on generic computers?"
You really think most of the people here arguing they should be able to use OS X however they want would be satisfied with that?
Most people here seem to be arguing against not only that, but against the idea of licensing.
I don't see any good proof that I don't have that right. Just a bunch of people saying I shouldn't. And, OS X isn't sold, only upgrades.
It can be anti-competitive, that's why there are anti-trust laws. But if we outlaw any behavior that could be anticompetitive if used by a company with 90% market share would grind the market to a halt.
Apple's (supposed) monopoly in one area is irrelevant in a different area. If I control the market for q-tips, that doesn't mean I can't sell something else. it's only illegal if I use my q-tip monopoly to force people to buy/not buy my new product/competitor products. Are you arguing that owning an iPod means I have to buy OS X?
Simply stating "I can do whatever I want" is abstinent. What you are suggestion for Monsanto would be monopoly abuse, and there are anti-trust laws for that. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on computers. Apple sells something like 10% of all computers. They don't control the market, and you aren't locked out of using computers if you don't buy OS X. Your example is not the same.
You're assuming you have the right in the first place. Bartering to grant you a privilege isn't slavery.
Why don't I have a right to control my own creation? Artists can control the images they make (with a few minor exceptions, like parody and criticism). Why shouldn't other professions be able to do the same thing?
It's an implied condition of sale. It's in the EULA. That's why it says something like "if you don't agree to this, you can return this software for a full refund". It's not like you lost your money.
I'm sorry, but you didn't buy OS X. You bought a license to an upgrade, and a magic piece of plastic. The upgrade requires OS X, which you can only get with a Macintosh.
Should I be able to force a company that manufactures turbos for Ford Mustangs to sell me one that will work with my Honda? It would only take minor changes, just like open market OS X would only require a few more drivers.
You can't force a company to sell a product to you. Even if there wasn't any licensing, Apple can put conditions on sales.
They do this. The license is available online. The box says that you must own an Apple Macintosh computer running OS 10.(X-1). There is a copy int eh box. When you try to install it, you get the EULA which says that if you don't agree you can return the product for a full refund.
You are not screwed if you buy it. You can get your money back no problem.
Apple isn't pulling any kind of Bait and Switch. The terms are there, numerous times, for you to read. The requirements are known. Apple doesn't advertise you can run OS X on any computer but a Macintosh. None of this should be a surprise to anyone.
But OS X isn't a book. You can't buy it without getting a Macintosh. It's a part of a whole, a part that's upgradable.
You are free to resell your Macintosh. You can throw it out a window. You can't sell just one part (OS X) to someone else, just like you can't sell a book without it's cover, or put your own cover on it and pretend it is yours (Psystar).
No one yells that Canon is violating the law because they won't let you install their firmware on Nikon cameras.
No one used to complain you couldn't run System 6 on your PC, or say Microsoft was ripping you off because you couldn't install DOS on your SE/30. The fact that Atari was different from Tandy was a given, and the OS was seen as a part of the whole. That's how Apple operates.
Just because some players in the market don't operate that way doesn't mean no one should be able to.
Apple doesn't sell OS X. Apple sells updates to OS X. If you don't have OS X, you can't use the boxed copy, don't buy it.
You can't pay $200 for a Adobe Create Suite 17 upgrade and not be able to use it yourself. How DARE Adobe requite me to buy their software first.. I bought the upgrade, I should be able to run the software. It's my boxed copy. First sale doctrine.
Apple doesn't sell OS X. They sell updates. This is an important distinction.
It simply has to be. There must be people who are doing it because it's cheaper than a real Mac. I'm not arguing they're losing $20,000,000 a year, but there is no way it's $0. I wouldn't be surprised if it was hundreds of Macs a year.
Why shouldn't I be able to specify what happens with the software I write? Why shouldn't I be able to specify "you must run this on my hardware" as a condition of sale?
You have no right to ignore my rights as the software creator. You were free to not buy my software.
Really. I'd like to see a good reason. All I've ever seen is "I bought it, I can do what I want". Basically "I want". That always ignores the other half, Apple's rights. Why shouldn't Apple have the ability to specify conditions of sale. You're free to accept or decline, it's a contract. Apple isn't a monopoly on the computer market, it's perfectly possible to use a computer without having to buy any Apple hardware/software.
No it doesn't! You did. YOU want that, so YOU asked it. It isn't inherit to the facts. An inherent question would be "If Apple isn't support them Atom, then what chip will they use for [speculated product]?"
The statement in the summary is equivalent to:
"Apple stops supporting something it never supported". What a story. Is anyone surprised? In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), this is an obvious thing to do. Why maintain support for something you don't use and is probably causing you some financial harm.
I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went NUTS. Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers.
No, wait, Apple never officially supported those (if they had existed), and Dell didn't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons, so no one was surprised.
How dare Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who aren't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen?
Come on. I know people on /. want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this really a surprise? This isn't much of a story, it's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article.
I have a series 3, it can record two shows at once. Unfortunately, thanks to network idiots, there are a few times a year when there are 3 (or this year 4) shows on during a single timeslot. It's rare, but it's obnoxious when it happens.
I want to watch some of the shows, but since it's such a pain to watch later, I'll often just give up on the show and keep watching the 2 that I can record.
That's happened to me with a couple of series. I'll want to keep watching it (or start watching it, such as Heros or Glee) but due to conflicts I can't record it. If I can't easily find it, I'll give up on it.
I've always wished that networks were allowed to replay prime-time shows at 1 or 2 AM when they have nothing else to air anyway. They'd get a few more viewers and ad views, and more people could keep up with the shows.
It's neat. I can see it being rather useful for our systems at work to de-duplicate our VMs (and perhaps our DB files, since we have replicated slaves). Network storage (where multiple users may have their own copies of static documents that they've never edited) could benefit, perhaps email storage as well.
Personally though, I don't think there is too much on my hard drive that would benefit from this. I would love for OS X to get the built in checksumming that ZFS has so it can detect silent corruption that may have happened during a bad boot/power loss etc when I try to read the file later.
It's pretty obvious that HFS+ will have to be replaced soon, and Apple is reportedly working on it (since they ditched ZFS). I'd really like the checksumming, at this point (having so much cheap storage and extra CPU cycles) it should be a gimme.