Inflammatory responses to your post aside, I think you bring up a good point. Although the intent of the actual text appears to allow the author of said works to benefit, I think it's obvious they found it somewhat distasteful to discuss it as purely enacted for commercial reasons. I agree that limited copyright is absolutely beneficial to both the industry and the individual. I think congress would have been better served to do a few studies to determine the sweet spot for someone to get a ROI from a work before it should be released to the public. Instead they just listened to only one side, and the law now reflects that.
They didn't uphold the intent of the constitution, but rather their bottom lines.
That is exactly what this new molecule does. The beetle actually freezes at minus 18 degrees Fahrenheit, and survives all the way down to minus 100. The chemical make up up the molecule is similar to the makeup of a cell membrane. Apparently if it was made up of mostly proteins like more common anti-freeze molecules, it would be too large according to TFA.
"UAF graduate student and project collaborator Todd Sformo found that the Alaska Upis beetle, which has no common name, first freezes at about minus 18.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the lab and survives temperatures down to about 104 degrees below zero Fahrenheit."
"A possible advantage of this novel molecule comes from it having the same fatty acid that cells membranes do. This similarity, says Barnes, may allow the molecule to become part of a cell wall and protect the cell from internal ice crystal formation. Antifreeze molecules made of proteins may not fit into cell membranes."
If they can identify and create an equivalent molecule compatible with human cell walls, that makes cryogenic suspension very feasible.
The phone that Verizon offers is subsidized by Verizon. If one of these must-have phones comes out that isn't a 'Verizon' phone but it runs on their network, as well as AT&T (i.e. a Google phone), it adds pressure to the market to follow.
(Sorry about that, I meant An'droid')
On a side note, I didn't know about Verizon charging for extra 'features' like visual voice mail (seems they are still nickleing everyone to death, which is why I left them years ago). That always struck me a as a function of the OS, not the network. That feature is free on the iPhone.
I don't know what you're referring to RE: the picture with their cell phone. Is the camera app on those phones slow or something?
That and the fact that you aren't 'buying' anything, except for the physical media. You are licensing the software. You cannot do with it as you would, especially to the point that the owner of said license comes knocking. Non OEM Windows software has many restrictions. People hate it, but it's perfectly within their rights. You can't install it on more than one machine. If you upgrade hardware, you will have to call in and recertify your purchase. If you are using an upgrade, you must have a previously installed upgradable version of Windows installed. Your key cannot be used to install another version of Windows, etc, etc, ad-nauseum.
This is not a car that you buy, you own, and you can do with as you please. This is a license. It gives you certain rights to use the software, as dictated by the vendor, and not much else.
Per the license, you cannot modify it without permission and you cannot resell it without permission from Apple.
Do they care if individuals do this? No, as they have little impact on anything Apple does. If a business does this, and tries to profit off of Apples' IP? Without a doubt, the shit will hit the fan.
I'm an iPhone user, but I really hope this takes off. There are some interesting features in the Droid and competition is always a good thing. On top of that, separating the phone from the provider is a Win in my book. Yes, it will remove the overt control from the provider, but it will also have the effect of eliminating contract termination fees, and it could also potentially bring about better standards that ALL cell providers would be forced to follow as well as better pricing in the long run if they are no longer subsidizing the phones.
I would agree with most of your points, except that I would clarify that 'free market' without regulation (i.e. Competetion) is the cause of the U.S. lackluster performance in telecommunications. Free Market does have obvious benefits, but you can't let the wolves guard the hen-house, except in our case, we have two really big wolves, and a lot of chickens.
I really wish they would separate content from providers.
You listed two items there. The other important one was bypassing the DRM built into OS X (namely the custom EFI) to prevent it's install contrary to the License allowances.
Owning the physical disk doesn't grant much when the 'wanted' bits are the software on it. The disk allows you certain rights as long as they don't violate the license on the software. You could trash the disk, but you couldn't copy it a server and start imaging PC's with it. The same applies to modifying the software on the disc without license from Apple.
Psystar is your example. They were found guilty of bypassing DRM, violating the license agreement, and for trademark infringement.
They were never licensed to sell OS X. I'm surprised people in here are confusing 'buying' software with Licensing. You may not like it, but it's an ugly reality. Just possessing the software doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.
Buy a PC from Dell, or HP with Windows on it, and you can't legally transfer that OS to another PC. All OEM's do this. Most hardware manufacturers bundle their own OS with their hardware, from cars, microwaves, cable boxes, routers, mp3 players, DVR's, etc. Just because you may be able to get whatever software they bundle with their hardware working on some other piece of equipment, doesn't mean they must then sell you a license to do so. You can't force them to produce, manufacture, or license something against their will.
As to your point of tying Mac's to OSX, wouldn't the same apply to every other PC Manufacturer out there? Take laptops for instance. They bundle mobile graphic drivers specific to the hardware. It isn't necessary to run them, as any stock driver would work, but they purposely prevent you from using generic nVidia drivers for instance. You can't force HP to release their HP Customer Support software to Dell because it runs on an Intel Architecture. It might piss someone off, but you have no right to dictate what someone puts on their hardware, or who they decide to license their software to, as long as it isn't anti-competitive. Don't like it? Don't buy it. It's just that simple. There are too many alternatives out there for this to be any sort of anti-competitive stance. Microsoft, who already has a vast majority of OS desktop and laptop market, basically tried to force vendors to do their bidding by leveraging their market dominance. They were caught, and had their wrist slapped as a result.
Apple in contrast, is a little guy by comparison. Don't like something they are doing? Don't buy their products. There are a multitude of hardware manufacturer's out there, and a multitude of OS and OS variants, some free and some at a cost.
It's Apple's software, they can license it to whoever they choose. Would they come after Joe Windows User who decides to buy OS X, hack it, and install it on his Dell? Unlikely. If Joe then decides to do this and start selling his PC's for a profit as "OpenMacs"?
IMO, If they want to truly encourage competition, they need to separate content providers from access providers. That will free up access providers to do what they should be doing best. Competing for business at the lowest rate possible. It would also remove some of the political bullshit and insane antics that new entry's in the market have to go through just to be able to drop a single line.
I experienced similar issues. You can get Mplayer OSX working, but need to change the output to CoreVideo or Quartz/Quicktime. It still doesn't compare to the performance of VLC. I have zero interest in it's Lan capabilities.
VLC has languished on Mac for a few years now. You still can't get Lanczos (trying to enable it will just get you audio with no video). It's been that way for over a year with no fixes in sight.
I find it odd that there are so many new Mac users but projects like this one are dying on the vine. I love coding, but I don't know C. Most of my experience is in LotusScript and VB (yeah, don't laugh...).
It will be a shame if it dies on the Mac. If you're familiar with some coding, how hard is it to make the jump to another language?
Understandable, but the information in the second link (yes I know I should never read TFA) seems a bit more threatening.
"told her Facebook friends that she was "looking forward to Monday's embalming therapy.... Give me room, lots of aggression to be taken out with a trocar [a sharp surgical instrument used in embalming]."
Now she's banned from campus because three instructors in the mortuary science program felt threatened after being made aware of her Facebook posts, prompting a police investigation.
According to the police report, Amanda Tatro, 29, followed her first posting with one that read: "I still want to stab a certain someone in the throat with a trocar though. Hmmm... perhaps I will spend the evening updating my 'Death List #5' and making friends with the crematory guy. I do know the code..."
If you are a student or a teacher at such a university, wouldn't you rather they err on the side of caution? At least until an investigation is completed?
Thank you. I was not getting the point of this, as the arguments that Intel doesn't have to support AMD's features was simply making more sense. From the initial posts it sounded like Intel simply wasn't supporting features that were untested on AMD chips.
This changes things in a more fundamental way. If I'm understanding you correctly, this isn't a matter of Intel not supporting a feature, but purposely crippling a feature even after detecting that the chip would support it.
School has always been like a prison, they just removed the gilded part. Why AC? Your post was insightful.
I think the issue here is that people would rather err on the side of caution. You can't walk up to someone on the street and say "I'm gonna kill you" without consequences. They are illegal and a felony. Why would anyone think the same thing over the phone, or via e-mail would be any less so?
Not obvious if everyone keeps overlooking it, and a good point to bring up. All of the major hardware vendors off Windows bundled to the hardware, and I'm sure most will tell you it's non-transferable. Even Microsoft Windows itself will throw up if you put it on a different piece of hardware due to it's 'Genuine Disadvantage' program.
If you buy a boxed copy of Windows, you pay a premium above and beyond what a manufacturer will pay, and you can transfer it to any PC you want, as long as it's only on one PC at a time. Software bundled on an OEM PC is not the same, as it will typically state the license is non-transferable. People typically ignore it as they haven't started tying keys to some sort of serial number, but I'm sure they'll probably try this at some point.
Agreed. This whole argument might look interesting at first glance, but they can't force Dell to stop selling PC's with Windows, or Ford Motor Company to bundle GM auto diagnostics with their cars, it has no merit. Apple is a PC Manufacturer in a closed hardware system. They do not license OS X for resale. If you don't like them, don't buy them (or smash them with a hammer if that suits you).
Microsoft doesn't even make PC's. They are primarily a software company (gaming and zune aside), and all of their popular software, including the OS, is licensed for resale. OS X is not.
Psystar took another companies OS, hacked the EFI so that it would boot on non-Apple hardware and then sold it, bundled with an 'OpenMac', for a profit. Cheesy name aside, the hardware wasn't the issue. The primary issues was Psystar taking another companies OS, reselling it without license, bypassing DMCA, and violating the license agreement.
I wish the web site would show conventional images and contrast that with what Hershel see's. Being a laymen, it's hard to gauge exactly how exciting this type of news is when you don't have a basis to compare with.
Mod this guy up. It's insightful on a few different levels. One for noting that AT&T had these issues before the iPhone came along and the other for noting that the problem is with the network and not the phone. You don't oversell your capacity. I was with AT&T and have been for about 8 years. The network hasn't changed. It was spotty then and it's spotty now. The last I heard most businesses don't complain when they have too many customers. They don't blame their problems on their customers either.
It just seems insane to me that a company would make their customers out to be problems.
On a personal note, I think this is just bait that AT&T is hoping will take, so that they can get on metered plans, just like Comcast threatened to do earlier this year.
The policy specifically states that if someone asks for your password to contact Security. The Manager and Directory over security were the people asking for his passwords. The policy specifically states that all systems authentications be stored in a Security Managed database. He refused to give them to security and he was terminated for insubordination.
The guy was creepy. When he was arrested, his PC contained pages and pages of usernames and passwords. He had $10,000 in cash on him when he was arrested, and a loaded 9mm.
No one on here wants to hear those details. He was a saint. A true hero. Whatever, mark the info above as Trolling (not even sure how that applies, as those are public records from the case as well as the official SF security policy), but it is what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Inflammatory responses to your post aside, I think you bring up a good point. Although the intent of the actual text appears to allow the author of said works to benefit, I think it's obvious they found it somewhat distasteful to discuss it as purely enacted for commercial reasons. I agree that limited copyright is absolutely beneficial to both the industry and the individual. I think congress would have been better served to do a few studies to determine the sweet spot for someone to get a ROI from a work before it should be released to the public. Instead they just listened to only one side, and the law now reflects that.
They didn't uphold the intent of the constitution, but rather their bottom lines.
That is exactly what this new molecule does. The beetle actually freezes at minus 18 degrees Fahrenheit, and survives all the way down to minus 100. The chemical make up up the molecule is similar to the makeup of a cell membrane. Apparently if it was made up of mostly proteins like more common anti-freeze molecules, it would be too large according to TFA.
"UAF graduate student and project collaborator Todd Sformo found that the Alaska Upis beetle, which has no common name, first freezes at about minus 18.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the lab and survives temperatures down to about 104 degrees below zero Fahrenheit."
"A possible advantage of this novel molecule comes from it having the same fatty acid that cells membranes do. This similarity, says Barnes, may allow the molecule to become part of a cell wall and protect the cell from internal ice crystal formation. Antifreeze molecules made of proteins may not fit into cell membranes."
If they can identify and create an equivalent molecule compatible with human cell walls, that makes cryogenic suspension very feasible.
Excellent post. Mod parent up please.
The phone that Verizon offers is subsidized by Verizon. If one of these must-have phones comes out that isn't a 'Verizon' phone but it runs on their network, as well as AT&T (i.e. a Google phone), it adds pressure to the market to follow.
(Sorry about that, I meant An'droid')
On a side note, I didn't know about Verizon charging for extra 'features' like visual voice mail (seems they are still nickleing everyone to death, which is why I left them years ago). That always struck me a as a function of the OS, not the network. That feature is free on the iPhone.
I don't know what you're referring to RE: the picture with their cell phone. Is the camera app on those phones slow or something?
That and the fact that you aren't 'buying' anything, except for the physical media. You are licensing the software. You cannot do with it as you would, especially to the point that the owner of said license comes knocking. Non OEM Windows software has many restrictions. People hate it, but it's perfectly within their rights. You can't install it on more than one machine. If you upgrade hardware, you will have to call in and recertify your purchase. If you are using an upgrade, you must have a previously installed upgradable version of Windows installed. Your key cannot be used to install another version of Windows, etc, etc, ad-nauseum.
This is not a car that you buy, you own, and you can do with as you please. This is a license. It gives you certain rights to use the software, as dictated by the vendor, and not much else.
Per the license, you cannot modify it without permission and you cannot resell it without permission from Apple.
Do they care if individuals do this? No, as they have little impact on anything Apple does. If a business does this, and tries to profit off of Apples' IP? Without a doubt, the shit will hit the fan.
I'm an iPhone user, but I really hope this takes off. There are some interesting features in the Droid and competition is always a good thing. On top of that, separating the phone from the provider is a Win in my book. Yes, it will remove the overt control from the provider, but it will also have the effect of eliminating contract termination fees, and it could also potentially bring about better standards that ALL cell providers would be forced to follow as well as better pricing in the long run if they are no longer subsidizing the phones.
I would agree with most of your points, except that I would clarify that 'free market' without regulation (i.e. Competetion) is the cause of the U.S. lackluster performance in telecommunications. Free Market does have obvious benefits, but you can't let the wolves guard the hen-house, except in our case, we have two really big wolves, and a lot of chickens.
I really wish they would separate content from providers.
You listed two items there. The other important one was bypassing the DRM built into OS X (namely the custom EFI) to prevent it's install contrary to the License allowances.
Owning the physical disk doesn't grant much when the 'wanted' bits are the software on it. The disk allows you certain rights as long as they don't violate the license on the software. You could trash the disk, but you couldn't copy it a server and start imaging PC's with it. The same applies to modifying the software on the disc without license from Apple.
Psystar is your example. They were found guilty of bypassing DRM, violating the license agreement, and for trademark infringement.
They were never licensed to sell OS X. I'm surprised people in here are confusing 'buying' software with Licensing. You may not like it, but it's an ugly reality. Just possessing the software doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.
Buy a PC from Dell, or HP with Windows on it, and you can't legally transfer that OS to another PC. All OEM's do this. Most hardware manufacturers bundle their own OS with their hardware, from cars, microwaves, cable boxes, routers, mp3 players, DVR's, etc. Just because you may be able to get whatever software they bundle with their hardware working on some other piece of equipment, doesn't mean they must then sell you a license to do so. You can't force them to produce, manufacture, or license something against their will.
As to your point of tying Mac's to OSX, wouldn't the same apply to every other PC Manufacturer out there? Take laptops for instance. They bundle mobile graphic drivers specific to the hardware. It isn't necessary to run them, as any stock driver would work, but they purposely prevent you from using generic nVidia drivers for instance. You can't force HP to release their HP Customer Support software to Dell because it runs on an Intel Architecture. It might piss someone off, but you have no right to dictate what someone puts on their hardware, or who they decide to license their software to, as long as it isn't anti-competitive. Don't like it? Don't buy it. It's just that simple. There are too many alternatives out there for this to be any sort of anti-competitive stance. Microsoft, who already has a vast majority of OS desktop and laptop market, basically tried to force vendors to do their bidding by leveraging their market dominance. They were caught, and had their wrist slapped as a result.
Apple in contrast, is a little guy by comparison. Don't like something they are doing? Don't buy their products. There are a multitude of hardware manufacturer's out there, and a multitude of OS and OS variants, some free and some at a cost.
It's Apple's software, they can license it to whoever they choose. Would they come after Joe Windows User who decides to buy OS X, hack it, and install it on his Dell? Unlikely. If Joe then decides to do this and start selling his PC's for a profit as "OpenMacs"?
You betcha...
I missed that. Where was it?
Page 6 contains info on the fact that he was phishing pages of usernames and passwords. They found them on his computer.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/venezia/childs/tcoppositiontoreduce_bail.pdf
IMO, If they want to truly encourage competition, they need to separate content providers from access providers. That will free up access providers to do what they should be doing best. Competing for business at the lowest rate possible. It would also remove some of the political bullshit and insane antics that new entry's in the market have to go through just to be able to drop a single line.
I experienced similar issues. You can get Mplayer OSX working, but need to change the output to CoreVideo or Quartz/Quicktime. It still doesn't compare to the performance of VLC. I have zero interest in it's Lan capabilities.
VLC has languished on Mac for a few years now. You still can't get Lanczos (trying to enable it will just get you audio with no video). It's been that way for over a year with no fixes in sight.
I find it odd that there are so many new Mac users but projects like this one are dying on the vine. I love coding, but I don't know C. Most of my experience is in LotusScript and VB (yeah, don't laugh...).
It will be a shame if it dies on the Mac. If you're familiar with some coding, how hard is it to make the jump to another language?
Understandable, but the information in the second link (yes I know I should never read TFA) seems a bit more threatening.
"told her Facebook friends that she was "looking forward to Monday's embalming therapy. ... Give me room, lots of aggression to be taken out with a trocar [a sharp surgical instrument used in embalming]."
Now she's banned from campus because three instructors in the mortuary science program felt threatened after being made aware of her Facebook posts, prompting a police investigation.
According to the police report, Amanda Tatro, 29, followed her first posting with one that read: "I still want to stab a certain someone in the throat with a trocar though. Hmmm ... perhaps I will spend the evening updating my 'Death List #5' and making friends with the crematory guy. I do know the code ..."
If you are a student or a teacher at such a university, wouldn't you rather they err on the side of caution? At least until an investigation is completed?
Thank you. I was not getting the point of this, as the arguments that Intel doesn't have to support AMD's features was simply making more sense. From the initial posts it sounded like Intel simply wasn't supporting features that were untested on AMD chips.
This changes things in a more fundamental way. If I'm understanding you correctly, this isn't a matter of Intel not supporting a feature, but purposely crippling a feature even after detecting that the chip would support it.
School has always been like a prison, they just removed the gilded part. Why AC? Your post was insightful.
I think the issue here is that people would rather err on the side of caution. You can't walk up to someone on the street and say "I'm gonna kill you" without consequences. They are illegal and a felony. Why would anyone think the same thing over the phone, or via e-mail would be any less so?
Not obvious if everyone keeps overlooking it, and a good point to bring up. All of the major hardware vendors off Windows bundled to the hardware, and I'm sure most will tell you it's non-transferable. Even Microsoft Windows itself will throw up if you put it on a different piece of hardware due to it's 'Genuine Disadvantage' program.
If you buy a boxed copy of Windows, you pay a premium above and beyond what a manufacturer will pay, and you can transfer it to any PC you want, as long as it's only on one PC at a time. Software bundled on an OEM PC is not the same, as it will typically state the license is non-transferable. People typically ignore it as they haven't started tying keys to some sort of serial number, but I'm sure they'll probably try this at some point.
They weren't licensed to resell OS X anyway. Apple doesn't license OS X for resale.
True. When you end up at the bottom of the list for service, reliability, and satisfaction, it's probably time to evaluate if you've oversold ;)
Agreed. This whole argument might look interesting at first glance, but they can't force Dell to stop selling PC's with Windows, or Ford Motor Company to bundle GM auto diagnostics with their cars, it has no merit. Apple is a PC Manufacturer in a closed hardware system. They do not license OS X for resale. If you don't like them, don't buy them (or smash them with a hammer if that suits you).
Microsoft doesn't even make PC's. They are primarily a software company (gaming and zune aside), and all of their popular software, including the OS, is licensed for resale. OS X is not.
Psystar took another companies OS, hacked the EFI so that it would boot on non-Apple hardware and then sold it, bundled with an 'OpenMac', for a profit. Cheesy name aside, the hardware wasn't the issue. The primary issues was Psystar taking another companies OS, reselling it without license, bypassing DMCA, and violating the license agreement.
I wish the web site would show conventional images and contrast that with what Hershel see's. Being a laymen, it's hard to gauge exactly how exciting this type of news is when you don't have a basis to compare with.
Mod this guy up. It's insightful on a few different levels. One for noting that AT&T had these issues before the iPhone came along and the other for noting that the problem is with the network and not the phone. You don't oversell your capacity. I was with AT&T and have been for about 8 years. The network hasn't changed. It was spotty then and it's spotty now. The last I heard most businesses don't complain when they have too many customers. They don't blame their problems on their customers either.
It just seems insane to me that a company would make their customers out to be problems.
On a personal note, I think this is just bait that AT&T is hoping will take, so that they can get on metered plans, just like Comcast threatened to do earlier this year.
The policy specifically states that if someone asks for your password to contact Security. The Manager and Directory over security were the people asking for his passwords. The policy specifically states that all systems authentications be stored in a Security Managed database. He refused to give them to security and he was terminated for insubordination.
The guy was creepy. When he was arrested, his PC contained pages and pages of usernames and passwords. He had $10,000 in cash on him when he was arrested, and a loaded 9mm.
No one on here wants to hear those details. He was a saint. A true hero. Whatever, mark the info above as Trolling (not even sure how that applies, as those are public records from the case as well as the official SF security policy), but it is what it is.