Why should Apple share a market it already dominates?
Because it makes the possibility of losing the court action go away, and they like us, know that in open competition with Creative, Apple will clean their clock on quality, features, brand recognition and style alone. So their market domination isn't under threat from competition.
The only way this can be really bad for Apple, is if they go to court and lose. So their best strategy is to make that possibility go away.
That doesn't make any sense. Such a deal would only help Creative and hurt Apple
Nonsense. It would save them from injunction (that would harm their cashflow), a long drawn out court battle (and the encumbent legal fees) and it would save them the chance of losing ( a bet-the-company type proposition).
It's not, though. The bit Linus does is Linux. What Stallman calls GNU/Linux is what distributions distribute. i.e. Linux (a kernel) + GNU (a shell / compilation toolchain) + X (a window system) + a desktop environment + a bunch of servers + 93 scripting languages, all under different licenses + a whole bunch of other things.
But the original poster said he couldn't see why humans had evolved to enjoy art, and that that disproved evolution. I was merely pointing out a plausible mechanism by which evolution would produce a species capable of appreciating art; thereby by disproving the OP's disproof of evolution.
Evolution is an extraordinarily successful scientific theory -- it explains so many things about speciation that almost nobody knowledgeable actually disputes it any more, and those that do tend to do so on theological grounds.
As much as any scientific theory can be considered fact, evolution is now considered fact. There's debate about the minutiae and the mechanism, but there's general agreement about the fact that random mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms that produce species.
And that means that the burden of proof has shifted to the alternative theories. If you believe in ID or creationism, you'll need to show its more successful than evolution in describing and explaining biological diversity.
that section is crafted to create an illusion of protection
Ah! That explains why your headgear kept showing up on my metal detectors. Never has a slashdot poster had a more accurate moniker.
You think a lawyer won't read that paragraph to a judge and say "Your Honour, has the prosecution proved that my client has the key?" You're an idiot. Stop recycling everything your little chums in the student union tell you, and learn some basic reading comprehension.
A section 49 notice is a document signed by a judge, authorising the police to do something. What's a warrant, smartass? (Besides something that the NSA/Bush Administration has decided doesn't apply to them).
Since there is no reliable method to prove that a blob of random data does contain ecrypted contents, if it were up to prosecutors to prove it, the law in its entirety would be moot.
Go read Section 53(3)b, oh pretend lawyer of the internet.
You're a liar. RIPA is very specific where the burden of proof lies. It's in Section 53(3)b (although I don't know what use that would be to you, as you're clearly spouting off about an Act that you have not read.
For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if- (a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and (b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thank God. Someone who is at least familiar with the Act.
I'm sick of following up every thread pointing out that they need a "Section 49 notice", which is the equivalent of a search warrant, to demand an encryption key.
What happens if some blob of data on the computer is deemed "encrypted" by the Glorious Defenders from Assorted Boogeymen?
Well, they go to court, and they have to try and convince a jury of your peers that they are correct, beyond a reasonable doubt. The same way every single other law operates. If they can support their assertions with sufficient convincing evidence you go to prison, if not, you don't.
Besides, there are already horribly injust mechanisms for detaining people in Britain without the need for a trial. Thats what we should be getting worked up about (although the Human Rights Act is doing for them, fortunately).
But this far more measured Act (which involves warrants, Section 49 orders, actual trials, and the need for evidence and all that) is what slashdotters choose to get worked up about. And why? Because it involves computers.
Well, given thats exactly what RIPA says, I guess you agree with this legislation. It's section 49. Its not technically a warrant, its a Section 49 notice:
49. - (1) This section applies where any protected information-
(a) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of a statutory power to seize, detain, inspect, search or otherwise to interfere with documents or other property, or is likely to do so;
"Statutory power" means anyone who's already empowered to take your stuff, which basically comes down to policemen/secret service with warrants, and a few other highly rare cases (the Army if a state of emergency has been declared, etc...)
Despite the slashdot spin, it's not about everyone turning their keys over the the Govt as a matter of course, its about the police/courts/judiciary's rights to demand that a suspect turn over the key for encrypted data believed to be material to a case.
But don't let the facts get in the way of lazy stereotyping...
If I've incriminating documents in a safe, the police are going to ask for the key. If they don't get it, they're going to break in, and I'll be arrested for obstruction of justice. I don't recall everyone being up in arms about the police, having obtained the proper warrants, coming into my house and breaking into my safe.
Besides the fact that this involves computers, why is this different?
Ahh, but suppose you have five slightly different organisms, labelled A-E. Is it possible (and this is a genuine question), that both A and E could produce live offspring with C, but not each other? In which case you could say that A and C are a common species, and C and E are a common species, but A and E aren't?
In short, is species-hood transitive?
PS : I don't know the answer, but if the "evolution is a continuum" argument is correct, it seems that you should.
What makes you think there's a need for art and culture? Humans didn't evolve a desire art anymore than kittens evolved an enjoyment of playing with wool. It's the vestige, an accidental by-product, of some things we did find evolutionarily advantageous : intelligence, language, society and imagination.
The old iBooks had crappy ATI cards. They sucked, but at least there was dedicated graphics.
Only 3D-gamers actually need dedicated graphics cards. For everything else, integrated graphics are more than functional enough. And gamers are not Macs major market, simply because there are relatively few games available for it, compared to Wintel machines.
If I want a games machine, I'll buy an XBox or a Playstation. As it is, I want a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way this can be really bad for Apple, is if they go to court and lose. So their best strategy is to make that possibility go away.
It's not, though. The bit Linus does is Linux.
What Stallman calls GNU/Linux is what distributions distribute. i.e. Linux (a kernel) + GNU (a shell / compilation toolchain) + X (a window system) + a desktop environment + a bunch of servers + 93 scripting languages, all under different licenses + a whole bunch of other things.
... they settle out of court, sign mutual patent cross-licensing, and then carve up the media player market between themselves.
There's enough their for all to wet their beaks.
No, I can't prove it.
But the original poster said he couldn't see why humans had evolved to enjoy art, and that that disproved evolution. I was merely pointing out a plausible mechanism by which evolution would produce a species capable of appreciating art; thereby by disproving the OP's disproof of evolution.
Evolution is an extraordinarily successful scientific theory -- it explains so many things about speciation that almost nobody knowledgeable actually disputes it any more, and those that do tend to do so on theological grounds.
As much as any scientific theory can be considered fact, evolution is now considered fact. There's debate about the minutiae and the mechanism, but there's general agreement about the fact that random mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms that produce species.
And that means that the burden of proof has shifted to the alternative theories. If you believe in ID or creationism, you'll need to show its more successful than evolution in describing and explaining biological diversity.
You think a lawyer won't read that paragraph to a judge and say "Your Honour, has the prosecution proved that my client has the key?" You're an idiot. Stop recycling everything your little chums in the student union tell you, and learn some basic reading comprehension.
I'm done with you.
A section 49 notice is a document signed by a judge, authorising the police to do something.
What's a warrant, smartass? (Besides something that the NSA/Bush Administration has decided doesn't apply to them).
Thank God. Someone who is at least familiar with the Act.
I'm sick of following up every thread pointing out that they need a "Section 49 notice", which is the equivalent of a search warrant, to demand an encryption key.
Thank you for not being another idiot.
Everyone everywhere lives on an island. It's just that some islands are bigger than others.
Nope. Wrong.
Go read Section 49 of the Act, and find out what a Section 49 notice is.
No technically its not exactly the same as a warrant, but its pretty close.
Don't believe the spin.
Besides, there are already horribly injust mechanisms for detaining people in Britain without the need for a trial. Thats what we should be getting worked up about (although the Human Rights Act is doing for them, fortunately).
But this far more measured Act (which involves warrants, Section 49 orders, actual trials, and the need for evidence and all that) is what slashdotters choose to get worked up about. And why? Because it involves computers.
Frankly, thats pretty pathetic.
Nope. Wrong.
Go read section 49 of the Act. Don't believe what you read on slashdot.
Despite the slashdot spin, it's not about everyone turning their keys over the the Govt as a matter of course, its about the police/courts/judiciary's rights to demand that a suspect turn over the key for encrypted data believed to be material to a case.
But don't let the facts get in the way of lazy stereotyping...
Woohooo! I deduced the existence of something! Go me! :)
Seriously, thanks.
If I've incriminating documents in a safe, the police are going to ask for the key. If they don't get it, they're going to break in, and I'll be arrested for obstruction of justice. I don't recall everyone being up in arms about the police, having obtained the proper warrants, coming into my house and breaking into my safe.
Besides the fact that this involves computers, why is this different?
Ahh, but suppose you have five slightly different organisms, labelled A-E. Is it possible (and this is a genuine question), that both A and E could produce live offspring with C, but not each other? In which case you could say that A and C are a common species, and C and E are a common species, but A and E aren't?
In short, is species-hood transitive?
PS : I don't know the answer, but if the "evolution is a continuum" argument is correct, it seems that you should.
Robin Williams' body hair explained.
If I want a games machine, I'll buy an XBox or a Playstation. As it is, I want a computer.
Yeah, but in the book he gets to screw Brodie's wife. How realistic is that?