you can buy a Classic Mac for R$ 10, and ask to upgrade your Mac OS 6 with OSX. AND THEY CAN'T REFUSE. That's the point. As I told on my other post, an upgrade sale here is just a rebate you receive for owning a previous version... to do otherwise would be "venda casada".
You don't want to use products from any vendors who support the "Trusted Computing Initiative"? Then you're going to be in a world of hurt. Here are just some of their members (listed on the Trusted Computing Group's home page here: http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/about/members/:
CPU vendors: AMD, Intel
BIOS vendors: American Megatrends, Inc. (AMI), Phoenix (who bought Award a few years ago)
Hard drive vendors: Fujitsu, Hitachi, Maxtor, Seagate, Western Digital
Flash drive vendors: Lexar, M-Systems
Chipset and graphics vendors: ATI, Nvidia, Intel
Network card vendors: Broadcom, National Semiconductor, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.
So you think you can build a system without parts from any of those vendors? It may be more difficult to avoid "Trusted Computign" than you think.
The answer is simple: at the moment one starts to sell only TCPA/enabled or worse, TCPA/mandatory, products, you dump them -- if enough people does this, we will have sunk TCPA by beating where it hurts: $$$. If all of them go that direction, start building stuff from old stuff. We already have enough hardware to many of our processing needs, and we can always combine our garbage in interesting/creative new ways. Don't buy a new HDTV, and if you have enough leverage on your friends/family, don't let them buy it if it's TCPA-like controlled. Tell them it has the mark of the devil from Revelations if you need to (because, you know, in the broad sense it does).
I have today a Western Digital 120G drive. It has many of my TV shows recorded on it, and if TCPA is mandatory in the next 500G drive, guess what -- I'll shop around for 5 to 20 more 120G drives and a RAID controller.
All your questions about "venda casada" are interesting and intelligent, but there are a lot of them, so I'll begin with an explanation: our caselaw considers "venda casada" when you refuse to sell one integral item without another -- but you would sell them separately, and your concurrence sell them separately.
The classic example of "venda casada" is: I won't sell you bricks unless you buy mortar from me.
Your "workaround" (selling the pieces each more expensively than the product) is also considered by caselaw "venda casada" -- What you can do is to remove the individual pieces from the market, bundle them together, but even that way you must sell the more expensive piece for at most the piece of the bundle and the less expensive piece for close to zero if you do that and your competitors sell them separatedly. In the case of Apple, I've been told by a consumer rights lawyer that a judge could force Apple to sell OSX for me for ~R$ 500 (~US$ 200) -- the usual price point here of Windows XP. I would be forced to show up in court, most certainly, two times at least... and maybe pay a good lawyer R$ 1000-2000 if we lose (which should not happen, but can also happen) (if we win, Apple will pay the lawyer's fees). So, to your questions:
About notepad/minesweeper/pieces of an operating system: Microsoft would consider them "parts of the whole", like the second verse of "Sactisfaction", and they could refuse to unbundle. But as, with some adaptations, OSX/would/ run on regular x86 machines, this argument should not hold in court.
About software upgrades: under our legislation, they are considered "rebate under special circumstances", ie, you win a rebate over the price of the "full" version of the software if you already own a previous version and accept the "upgrade" version of the CD.
About the sparkling plugs: yeah, it's not "bundling" selling the sparkling plugs with the car, but it would be unless you also sell them without car (and that's what Apple is doing: she bundles OSX with the Macs, and she's refusing to sell OSX alone)
Oh, and about "software modifications": the general caselaw goes here about "you can do whatever you want with software you purchase a license with -- inside the number of copies / number of users terms of the license, because any other clause is most certainly abusive under the consumers' defense code". If you bought from Oracle a license to use 3 server copies and 200 client connections for Oracle/Linux and decide to run those sever copies under NetBSD Linux emulation, you're safe -- even if you have to hexedit your copy of Oracle in the process. BTW, the same consumers' defense lawyer told me that he doesn't know if the "per-processor clause" of Oracle's licenses could be considered abusive or not...
And finally, about the same paragraph, "operating system" is our legal term for "platform" (as I'm told) so yes, adapt OSX to run under beige-boxen is considered most certainly covered by the art. 39, I -- but my lawyer friend tells me that, if you want to do this in a big corporation here in Brasil (ie, lots of machines) you should really hire a lawyer and get a court injunction first... But if you want to do this at home, you feel free. And if you want to explain people all over the net how to do this, you are on the safe side, too.
And, as such, they are entitled to make whatever they want with the _one_ copy they have rights to? Just a tought. Feel free to ignore me. Ah, and if I go to an Apple store here in Brasil and they don't sell me OSX for Intel w/o a Mac they can't sell it at all... it's called "venda casada" ("married sale") and it's illegal down here.
They would have much more clients on iTMS if they just offered FairPlay or whatchmacallit to the other manufacturers... They already profit big, and they could be profiting bigger -- and they are blind for not seeing something so obvious.
(it's what I'm doing) start sticking with free software and hardware that supports and preferably sponsors free software. change vendors if your vendor goes treacherous-computing direction. import/smuggle hardware is tcpa is mandated by legislation, while writing a letter to your legislator saying that tcpa is a restriction on free trade and outright nazism. because it is.
The main reason people want a hacked OS is because they are cheap bastards. By definition they aren't interested in spending money. Trying to sell them something that they are already stealing is not an effective tactic.
Nope. Main people they want a hacked OS is because the un-hacked OS does not run on their machines and for the moment they are not interested in new hardware, thank you, just in new software. People who say "no, I don't want the Super Size combo" and "yes, I know two apple pies is just fifty cents more than one, but I will only eat one, thank you". Is that so hard to understand? And, yes, _when_ said people try out the OS and they see "hmm. this is neat, bet it would be faster/prettier on Apple's hardware", what do you think will be the next hardware they'll shop for? Build it, and they will come.
You know what? The proof that this argument is bogus resides in Apple itself and its iTMS. People went in flocks to buy regularly what they couldn't have with CDs (loose tracks) and they could have irregularly (MP3s via P2P).
And besides, "stealing" does not fit on your phrase above. It's impossible to steal software/movies/music. "Stealing" means "subtracting something from others"; when you (irregularly) copy software/movies/music, you may (OR MAY NOT) be "copyright infringing", but you are never "stealing".
In other words, Apple owns OS X, and has created rules about how you can use it. Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, even if you ran out and purchased bought two MacBook Pros and owned tons of Apple stock, thanks to the DMCA.
That should read "Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, at least not under US law and other insane jurisdicitons with (also insane) DMCA-like regulations".
Law 9609/98 (Brasilian "Computer Programs Intelectual Property Act"), art 6: "It is NOT infringement to the rights of the author of a computer program: (...) IV - to integrate it, maintaining its characteristics, to an operating or application system, if it's technically indispensable to the use of the software, and it's promoted by the user". IOW: if you bought your copy of MacOS X, you can hack it to use on your computer.
Law 8078/90 (Brasilian "Consumer Defense Code"), art 39: "It is prohibited, to any supplier of products and services: I - to condition the supply of any product or service to the supply of another product or service" (this is called in Brasilian Consumer Law "venda casada" == "married sale", where one product/service only goes where the other goes). IOW: If I want to buy MacOS X, Apple cannot refuse to sell it to me, even if I don't own a Mac.
QUOTE (from google "define:", entries not related to killing edited out)
kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"
unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always coincident. It may be legal to kill, but still murder in the moral sense. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it is simply murder by the state. Proponents of limited government argue that moral murder is never legal murder unless and until the government meets the limits and standards required of it, such as due process, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, trial by jury, appellate review, etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. The collective noun for crows. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(disambiguation)
The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. www.securityoncampus.org/schools/research/doe/9740 2-a.html
The unlawful killing of a human being with deliberate intent to kill: (1) murder in the first degree is characterized by premeditation; (2) murder in the second degree is characterized by a sudden and instantaneous intent to kill or to cause injury without caring whether the injury kills or not. brandonlclark.com/glossary.html
Includes homicide, non-negligent manslaughter, and voluntary homicide. Does not include attempted murder (which is classified as felony assault), negligent homicide, involuntary homicide, or vehicular manslaughter (which are classified as "other violent offenses"). www.pretrialrelease.com/pretrial-release-terms.htm
the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of a person securityproducts.tripod.com/Glossary.html refers to the killing of another person www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/dps/logs/logdefin.shtml
is the intentional taking of someone's life. Manslaughter is an accidental killing or a killing in the heat of passion. Murder is punishable by life in the penitentiary, manslaughter by 20 years. www.msda9.com/grandjury/gjterms.htm
The crime of homicide committed either intentionally or with wicked disregard for the consequences. hjem.get2net.dk/safsaf/glossary.html
is the intentional killing of a human being. It includes causing serious physical injury leading to the death of a human being. For example, if a person attacks another person with a hammer, intending only to injure rather than kill, the attacker can be prosecuted for murder if the attack results in the victims death. www.wierlaw.com/glossary_criminal_law.htm
ENDQUOTE.
I agree with all of the above. Killing an enemy soldier is murder, except when said enemy soldier is trying to kill someone and there is no way to stop him but use deadly force... Besides, if you don't want Iraqi people to shoot at you, you should stay clear of Iraq. Yeah, mod me flamebait/troll for that.
Actually, the first computers I poked at were a Prologica PC-500 (the Brasilian TRS-80, the year was 1981 and I was in 5th grade) and some unix behemoth on the US which I used thru the Telex machine in my dad's office. In 1985, when I began high school, I worked in a bank for a year and saved enough to buy a PC-400 (that was the Brasilian TRS CoCo, 6809-based). On _that_ computer I did a lot of stuff. It had two 32kb memory banks, which one had to switch manually in assembly, to take advantage of the extra memory. Its BASIC interpreter was fairly hackable if you knew what you were doing.
That you never had a conversation (especially a bar-talk) with Italian descendents. In my family, we move continuously (both) our hands to maintain a conversation, for twelve hours or more.
Most folks with (any, not necessarily geeky) skills don't like to work/live on the fringes of the law... unless they think they are fighting an immoral law.
Ok, let me start by saying that I really don't know if you are right or not... but I think not. Do you think PCs are more common at homes or at corporations? In every corporation I worked, patches are installed automagically by the network admin. In every home I know of non-techs, it's the opposite -- patches are NEVER installed.
>> Henceforth, the STL does not work under C++/CLI. Nor does Boost. > That's a different matter, as implementations often need to use compiler-specific tricks.
Nope. Both the STL (as in STLport) and Boost will do fine in any ISO-compliant compiler without resorting to compiler-specific wizardry.
Long answer: NO. C++/CLI does not have multiple inheritance; it does have generics, which are templates without the metaprogramming possibilities -- because it does not have templates. Henceforth, the STL does not work under C++/CLI. Nor does Boost.
It does have annotations on classes and methods, reference/value class dichotomy, garbage collection built-in (as opposed to library-based), finalizers (one strange kind of destructor), its generics have type restrictions (like the new templates planned for C++0x -- of which I'm not a big fan)
It's as different from C++ as is C# or Java, really.
Slashdot Mirror
you can buy a Classic Mac for R$ 10, and ask to upgrade your Mac OS 6 with OSX. AND THEY CAN'T REFUSE. That's the point. As I told on my other post, an upgrade sale here is just a rebate you receive for owning a previous version... to do otherwise would be "venda casada".
I have today a Western Digital 120G drive. It has many of my TV shows recorded on it, and if TCPA is mandatory in the next 500G drive, guess what -- I'll shop around for 5 to 20 more 120G drives and a RAID controller.
Let's try them for size:
/would/ run on regular x86 machines, this argument should not hold in court.
All your questions about "venda casada" are interesting and intelligent, but there are a lot of them, so I'll begin with an explanation: our caselaw considers "venda casada" when you refuse to sell one integral item without another -- but you would sell them separately, and your concurrence sell them
separately.
The classic example of "venda casada" is: I won't sell you bricks unless you buy mortar from me.
Your "workaround" (selling the pieces each more expensively than the product) is also considered by caselaw "venda casada" -- What you can do is to remove the individual pieces from the market, bundle them together, but even that way you must sell the more expensive piece for at most the piece of the bundle and the less expensive piece for close to zero if you do that and your competitors sell them separatedly. In the case of Apple, I've been told by a consumer rights lawyer that a judge could force Apple to sell OSX for me for ~R$ 500 (~US$ 200) -- the usual price point here of Windows XP. I would be forced to show up in court, most certainly, two times at least... and maybe pay a good lawyer R$ 1000-2000 if we lose (which should not happen, but can also happen) (if we win, Apple will pay the lawyer's fees). So, to your questions:
About notepad/minesweeper/pieces of an operating system: Microsoft would consider them "parts of the whole", like the second verse of "Sactisfaction", and they could refuse to unbundle. But as, with some adaptations, OSX
About software upgrades: under our legislation, they are considered "rebate under special circumstances", ie, you win a rebate over the price of the "full" version of the software if you already own a previous version and accept the "upgrade" version of the CD.
About the sparkling plugs: yeah, it's not "bundling" selling the sparkling plugs with the car, but it would be unless you also sell them without car (and that's what Apple is doing: she bundles OSX with the Macs, and she's refusing to sell OSX alone)
Oh, and about "software modifications": the general caselaw goes here about "you can do whatever you want with software you purchase a license with -- inside the number of copies / number of users terms of the license, because any other clause is most certainly abusive under the consumers' defense code". If you bought from Oracle a license to use 3 server copies and 200 client connections for Oracle/Linux and decide to run those sever copies under NetBSD Linux emulation, you're safe -- even if you have to hexedit your copy of Oracle in the process. BTW, the same consumers' defense lawyer told me that he doesn't know if the "per-processor clause" of Oracle's licenses could be considered abusive or not...
And finally, about the same paragraph, "operating system" is our legal term for "platform" (as I'm told) so yes, adapt OSX to run under beige-boxen is considered most certainly covered by the art. 39, I -- but my lawyer friend tells me that, if you want to do this in a big corporation here in Brasil (ie, lots of machines) you should really hire a lawyer and get a court injunction first... But if you want to do this at home, you feel free. And if you want to explain people all over the net how to do this, you are on the safe side, too.
And, as such, they are entitled to make whatever they want with the _one_ copy they have rights to? Just a tought. Feel free to ignore me. Ah, and if I go to an Apple store here in Brasil and they don't sell me OSX for Intel w/o a Mac they can't sell it at all... it's called "venda casada" ("married sale") and it's illegal down here.
*I* use kubuntu. But I know of several non-hacker types who would use OSX instead (of *ubuntu) but will start using *ubuntu to flee windows' plagues.
They would have much more clients on iTMS if they just offered FairPlay or whatchmacallit to the other manufacturers... They already profit big, and they could be profiting bigger -- and they are blind for not seeing something so obvious.
How a company that is profiting exactly with "I want to buy and not just copy" (iTMS) fails to understand that.
(it's what I'm doing)
start sticking with free software and hardware that supports and preferably sponsors free software. change vendors if your vendor goes treacherous-computing direction. import/smuggle hardware is tcpa is mandated by legislation, while writing a letter to your legislator saying that tcpa is a restriction on free trade and outright nazism. because it is.
The main reason people want a hacked OS is because they are cheap bastards. By definition they aren't interested in spending money. Trying to sell them something that they are already stealing is not an effective tactic.
Nope. Main people they want a hacked OS is because the un-hacked OS does not run on their machines and for the moment they are not interested in new hardware, thank you, just in new software. People who say "no, I don't want the Super Size combo" and "yes, I know two apple pies is just fifty cents more than one, but I will only eat one, thank you". Is that so hard to understand? And, yes, _when_ said people try out the OS and they see "hmm. this is neat, bet it would be faster/prettier on Apple's hardware", what do you think will be the next hardware they'll shop for? Build it, and they will come.
You know what? The proof that this argument is bogus resides in Apple itself and its iTMS. People went in flocks to buy regularly what they couldn't have with CDs (loose tracks) and they could have irregularly (MP3s via P2P).
And besides, "stealing" does not fit on your phrase above. It's impossible to steal software/movies/music. "Stealing" means "subtracting something from others"; when you (irregularly) copy software/movies/music, you may (OR MAY NOT) be "copyright infringing", but you are never "stealing".
In other words, Apple owns OS X, and has created rules about how you can use it. Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, even if you ran out and purchased bought two MacBook Pros and owned tons of Apple stock, thanks to the DMCA.
That should read "Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, at least not under US law and other insane jurisdicitons with (also insane) DMCA-like regulations".
Law 9609/98 (Brasilian "Computer Programs Intelectual Property Act"), art 6: "It is NOT infringement to the rights of the author of a computer program: (...) IV - to integrate it, maintaining its characteristics, to an operating or application system, if it's technically indispensable to the use of the software, and it's promoted by the user". IOW: if you bought your copy of MacOS X, you can hack it to use on your computer.
Law 8078/90 (Brasilian "Consumer Defense Code"), art 39: "It is prohibited, to any supplier of products and services: I - to condition the supply of any product or service to the supply of another product or service" (this is called in Brasilian Consumer Law "venda casada" == "married sale", where one product/service only goes where the other goes). IOW: If I want to buy MacOS X, Apple cannot refuse to sell it to me, even if I don't own a Mac.
Others include Linux (regina).
They are both quotations from the same book.
QUOTE (from google "define:", entries not related to killing edited out)
0 2-a.html
m
kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"
unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always coincident. It may be legal to kill, but still murder in the moral sense. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it is simply murder by the state. Proponents of limited government argue that moral murder is never legal murder unless and until the government meets the limits and standards required of it, such as due process, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, trial by jury, appellate review, etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. The collective noun for crows.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(disambiguation)
The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.
www.securityoncampus.org/schools/research/doe/974
The unlawful killing of a human being with deliberate intent to kill: (1) murder in the first degree is characterized by premeditation; (2) murder in the second degree is characterized by a sudden and instantaneous intent to kill or to cause injury without caring whether the injury kills or not.
brandonlclark.com/glossary.html
Includes homicide, non-negligent manslaughter, and voluntary homicide. Does not include attempted murder (which is classified as felony assault), negligent homicide, involuntary homicide, or vehicular manslaughter (which are classified as "other violent offenses").
www.pretrialrelease.com/pretrial-release-terms.ht
the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of a person
securityproducts.tripod.com/Glossary.html
refers to the killing of another person
www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/dps/logs/logdefin.shtml
is the intentional taking of someone's life. Manslaughter is an accidental killing or a killing in the heat of passion. Murder is punishable by life in the penitentiary, manslaughter by 20 years.
www.msda9.com/grandjury/gjterms.htm
The crime of homicide committed either intentionally or with wicked disregard for the consequences.
hjem.get2net.dk/safsaf/glossary.html
is the intentional killing of a human being. It includes causing serious physical injury leading to the death of a human being. For example, if a person attacks another person with a hammer, intending only to injure rather than kill, the attacker can be prosecuted for murder if the attack results in the victims death.
www.wierlaw.com/glossary_criminal_law.htm
ENDQUOTE.
I agree with all of the above. Killing an enemy soldier is murder, except when said enemy soldier is trying to kill someone and there is no way to stop him but use deadly force... Besides, if you don't want Iraqi people to shoot at you, you should stay clear of Iraq. Yeah, mod me flamebait/troll for that.
Actually, the first computers I poked at were a Prologica PC-500 (the Brasilian TRS-80, the year was 1981 and I was in 5th grade) and some unix behemoth on the US which I used thru the Telex machine in my dad's office.
In 1985, when I began high school, I worked in a bank for a year and saved enough to buy a PC-400 (that was the Brasilian TRS CoCo, 6809-based). On _that_ computer I did a lot of stuff. It had two 32kb memory banks, which one had to switch manually in assembly, to take advantage of the extra memory. Its BASIC interpreter was fairly hackable if you knew what you were doing.
That you never had a conversation (especially a bar-talk) with Italian descendents. In my family, we move continuously (both) our hands to maintain a conversation, for twelve hours or more.
the USofA is not the only good place to live. And there are countries with sane copyright legislations.
Most folks with (any, not necessarily geeky) skills don't like to work/live on the fringes of the law... unless they think they are fighting an immoral law.
Ok, let me start by saying that I really don't know if you are right or not... but I think not. Do you think PCs are more common at homes or at corporations? In every corporation I worked, patches are installed automagically by the network admin. In every home I know of non-techs, it's the opposite -- patches are NEVER installed.
>> Henceforth, the STL does not work under C++/CLI. Nor does Boost.
> That's a different matter, as implementations often need to use compiler-specific tricks.
Nope. Both the STL (as in STLport) and Boost will do fine in any ISO-compliant compiler without resorting to compiler-specific wizardry.
does everything an iPod-with-video does, better, but lacks more HD space (4 versus 60)
here
C++/CLI is no more C++ than C# or Java or J++ or D.
C++/CLI cannot compile ISO C++. You can mix both languages in the same project but the languages are radically different. See my other posts.
> Does c++.net run ansi c++ code? Then its C++
Long answer: NO. C++/CLI does not have multiple inheritance; it does have generics, which are templates without the metaprogramming possibilities -- because it does not have templates. Henceforth, the STL does not work under C++/CLI. Nor does Boost.
It does have annotations on classes and methods, reference/value class dichotomy, garbage collection built-in (as opposed to library-based), finalizers (one strange kind of destructor), its generics have type restrictions (like the new templates planned for C++0x -- of which I'm not a big fan)
It's as different from C++ as is C# or Java, really.
The difference between the cases you all made is simple:
0. C++ (at one time, at least) EXTENDS C
1. moc/Qt EXTENDS C++
2. C++Builder "properties" and VCL EXTENDS C++
but
2. C++/CLI LIMITS C++ (no multiple inheritance, no metaprogramming, etc etc) -- more than it extends it (.net class libraries)