Do not try to understand the "why" of IE6, that's impossible, simply try to realize the truth. There is no "why." Only then will you see that it is not IE6 that conforms but only your code
I agree there. I run into way too many situations when "just get it done" becomes "why doesn't it work?" Oddly, my "just do it right" doesn't have these issues. Programmers never look at these things from a business standpoint, as evidenced by comments in code that say things like "loop through values 0 to 1000" above a for loop instead of "examine all widgets for bugs." It shows a lack of foresight and larger perspective to produce shoddy or lucky code and it always shows in the comments.
I'm guessing they take the total volume over the last 15 minutes and average, meaning that you max out at an average of 70% utilization of the pipe regardless of what games you play
OK, on further research I'll concede that. I still think that there's a fundamental difference in what Amdhal did and what pyStar is doing, not least of which is the mechanism used to transfer the license. It would be one thing if pyStar was just making OSX-compatible hardware (which would be the exact equivalent of Amdhal), or if they were just patching the software on a install-by-install basis, but they're not. They are selling copies of their own derivative OS and buying an equal number of the original OS from Apple. It's like buying a book, copying all the pages you like, adding a few new ones, destroying the original and selling the new one. It's still infringing the copyright to sell the copy, even if it is legal to resell the original.
Or are you suggesting that Psystar didn't actually buy the copies of OS X that they sold to their customers?
Actually, from all I've read pyStar is selling copies of their own hacked version of the OS and just buying enough of the CDs from Apple to offset the number they sell. Most of the legitimate CDs are never even unwrapped and the original OS is certainly never resold to a customer.
Not defending the EULA, but pyStar doesn't take purchased copies, install them, then change them to make them work with third party hardware. They decompiled Apples OS, made significant alterations to make it work on their hardware and that's what they sell copies of. The only thing that even approaches legality there is that pyStar buys legitimate copies of the OS from Apple in equal quantity to what they sell. I have no problem with making software that changes the OS or emulates the hardware or making hardware that acts like Mac hardware, but if you take software make changes and sell them it's an infringement of copyright, even if you buy copies of the original software to offset your sales.
I am interested to know whether your opinion changes if you did have to sign a paper contract with the language of the EULA in it at the point of sale? Do you still think that you can do "FUCK ALL WHATEVER THE HELL" you'd like to do or would you be bound by the terms of the contract and the remedies therein?
You're just not correct there, sorry. Several recent cases bear out the first sale doctrine applies to the licensing of software. The issue is more that the first sale doctrine is bandied about like a silver bullet among the GPL communities as a means of removing all restrictions on the usage of software which the first sale doctrine, and 17 USC 106-122 really don't do. Most people who post "17-117" and "first-sale doctrine" only read propaganda, not law and so don't really know what legal basis they are relying upon.
No license is granted for non-apple computers and all other rights are withheld so in a word no.
This is the only section that grants and right to run the OS so you can't run the OS unless you do it in violation of the license. The EULA grants you the rights it does not limit them.
The G5 hasn't been sold for 3 years. The G4 is closer to 6. Lifecycle of a new computer maxes at 4 years, then the "users" become "hobbyists." Most of the reason they can make thos "tweaks" to "reduce size and improve speed" come from not having to account for the older chipset and concentrating on making the code better
It's not the same. The telcos are given huge subsidies and exemptions to build those networks. the only reason for this is an expectation that with the monopoly that they are being given they will keep prices "reasonable." The Government (read the taxpayers) paid for the infrastructure, the FCC is given the authority to regulate it for that reason. ALL this does is promote competition and that's good for the consumer and the producer.
Or is it just Palm being completely idiotic as usual ?
Actually Palm is being extremely smart here. By acting like an iPhone they are diluting the iPhone brand and making their own users feel like their device is "Just as good" as an iPhone even if it isn't. It's a pretty blatant and disgusting attempt at leaching onto the popularity of Apples brand.
On a side note it wouldn't surprise me if Woolworths is the biggest apple computer reseller in Australia through DSE, Tandy and BigW brands. My MBP was brought through one of their stores.
That's kind of the case-in-point right there. The biggest reason for Apple to file suit is that Woolworths is already selling Apple products, meaning that there is already a competition issue. How long before it's the "Woolworth's Apple" computer store and Apple looses it's right to control its brand?
You know I'll bet she can't use most biometric scanners. They all check for a pulse to prevent scene like the one in Demolition Man. Though since she's an administrative assistant it probably won't matter
The article (the second link) specifically mentions that the flow rate increases when the return rate increases meaning that yes, it can keep up, and may even out-perform her old heart in terms of flow.
Slashdot Mirror
Do not try to understand the "why" of IE6, that's impossible, simply try to realize the truth. There is no "why." Only then will you see that it is not IE6 that conforms but only your code
I agree there. I run into way too many situations when "just get it done" becomes "why doesn't it work?" Oddly, my "just do it right" doesn't have these issues. Programmers never look at these things from a business standpoint, as evidenced by comments in code that say things like "loop through values 0 to 1000" above a for loop instead of "examine all widgets for bugs." It shows a lack of foresight and larger perspective to produce shoddy or lucky code and it always shows in the comments.
Three percent of the world uses Linux. Would you still be trivializing if Microsoft found a way of disabling the internet connection of that 3%?
Mod parent up: funny as hell
I'm guessing they take the total volume over the last 15 minutes and average, meaning that you max out at an average of 70% utilization of the pipe regardless of what games you play
OK, on further research I'll concede that. I still think that there's a fundamental difference in what Amdhal did and what pyStar is doing, not least of which is the mechanism used to transfer the license. It would be one thing if pyStar was just making OSX-compatible hardware (which would be the exact equivalent of Amdhal), or if they were just patching the software on a install-by-install basis, but they're not. They are selling copies of their own derivative OS and buying an equal number of the original OS from Apple. It's like buying a book, copying all the pages you like, adding a few new ones, destroying the original and selling the new one. It's still infringing the copyright to sell the copy, even if it is legal to resell the original.
Or are you suggesting that Psystar didn't actually buy the copies of OS X that they sold to their customers?
Actually, from all I've read pyStar is selling copies of their own hacked version of the OS and just buying enough of the CDs from Apple to offset the number they sell. Most of the legitimate CDs are never even unwrapped and the original OS is certainly never resold to a customer.
Not defending the EULA, but pyStar doesn't take purchased copies, install them, then change them to make them work with third party hardware. They decompiled Apples OS, made significant alterations to make it work on their hardware and that's what they sell copies of. The only thing that even approaches legality there is that pyStar buys legitimate copies of the OS from Apple in equal quantity to what they sell. I have no problem with making software that changes the OS or emulates the hardware or making hardware that acts like Mac hardware, but if you take software make changes and sell them it's an infringement of copyright, even if you buy copies of the original software to offset your sales.
I am interested to know whether your opinion changes if you did have to sign a paper contract with the language of the EULA in it at the point of sale? Do you still think that you can do "FUCK ALL WHATEVER THE HELL" you'd like to do or would you be bound by the terms of the contract and the remedies therein?
You're just not correct there, sorry. Several recent cases bear out the first sale doctrine applies to the licensing of software. The issue is more that the first sale doctrine is bandied about like a silver bullet among the GPL communities as a means of removing all restrictions on the usage of software which the first sale doctrine, and 17 USC 106-122 really don't do. Most people who post "17-117" and "first-sale doctrine" only read propaganda, not law and so don't really know what legal basis they are relying upon.
That the law upholds it does make it true. It just doesn't make anyone abide by it
No license is granted for non-apple computers and all other rights are withheld so in a word no.
This is the only section that grants and right to run the OS so you can't run the OS unless you do it in violation of the license. The EULA grants you the rights it does not limit them.
"...use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer"
Seriously now, learn to read
No, what IBM was forced to do was to allow other operating systems to run on their hardware. Apple already does this
The G5 hasn't been sold for 3 years. The G4 is closer to 6. Lifecycle of a new computer maxes at 4 years, then the "users" become "hobbyists." Most of the reason they can make thos "tweaks" to "reduce size and improve speed" come from not having to account for the older chipset and concentrating on making the code better
I would personally be happy to view an add every hour or so if they gave me a free top-of the line laptop to do it on
It's not the same. The telcos are given huge subsidies and exemptions to build those networks. the only reason for this is an expectation that with the monopoly that they are being given they will keep prices "reasonable." The Government (read the taxpayers) paid for the infrastructure, the FCC is given the authority to regulate it for that reason. ALL this does is promote competition and that's good for the consumer and the producer.
Or is it just Palm being completely idiotic as usual ?
Actually Palm is being extremely smart here. By acting like an iPhone they are diluting the iPhone brand and making their own users feel like their device is "Just as good" as an iPhone even if it isn't. It's a pretty blatant and disgusting attempt at leaching onto the popularity of Apples brand.
On a side note it wouldn't surprise me if Woolworths is the biggest apple computer reseller in Australia through DSE, Tandy and BigW brands. My MBP was brought through one of their stores.
That's kind of the case-in-point right there. The biggest reason for Apple to file suit is that Woolworths is already selling Apple products, meaning that there is already a competition issue. How long before it's the "Woolworth's Apple" computer store and Apple looses it's right to control its brand?
Google sidewiki does that
You know I'll bet she can't use most biometric scanners. They all check for a pulse to prevent scene like the one in Demolition Man. Though since she's an administrative assistant it probably won't matter
The article (the second link) specifically mentions that the flow rate increases when the return rate increases meaning that yes, it can keep up, and may even out-perform her old heart in terms of flow.
Better than my friend who just gets "kicked in the chest" when his pacemaker goes off. A nice text message has to beat that.
I think you'd stick to rescue breathing and hope the pump's monitoring devices aren't sounding alarms
Since when can SPARC coexist with any half-decent form of Linux (Mod me -1 offtopic, so sue me)