There is no credit card company on the planet that won't credit your money back if you have that kind of dispute with the retailer, especially if you have tracking on your package (by default on all shippers other than USPS, and a buck-something more with USPS). It does add a layer of hassle to the whole mess though.
Now, if you had mantioned the fact that online returns usually doesn't refund you the shipping costs (in either directions), then you'd have a strong argument. I guess I made it for you:)
You said you bought it a couple of weeks BEFORE it was announced. My post specifically says that the free upgrade is if you bought the hardware AFTER it was announced.
If you want your Apple hardware upgraded (i.e. better video card) you have to pay also. What does have anything to do with the OS? Last I checked you can't get firmware upgraded on your Ford.
(I see what you were trying to say - and I don't disagree - just pointing out your comparison is flawed. We've debating hardware versus software)
Good for them indeed! Didn't I say that myself? I just question anyone that claim that Apple is a (pure) hardware company. It isn't. They're playing both hands (since people take issue with the word "double dipping").
Having said that, other than the "good for them" part, your post makes no sense whatsoever. What does have retail versus wholesale have anything to do with anything?
I see the moderation system is working very well. I went to +5 to 1 Flaimebait. Weird. I don't see anything flaming about my post (nor did I intend for it to be a flame).
You get a free upgrate kit only if you bought your machine after they announced the software was coming out. The reason for that is that they don't want the users to wait to make their hardware purchases (and potentially change their mind about purchasing anything in the first place). Basically they're saying "we know we're coming out with something better shortly, but buy the hardware now anyway, we'll make sure you get the upgrade for free".
Yes, you get whatever version of the OS is on the box at the time you bought it. It's not different than the PC market in that regard. The point was, software upgrades are not free. They're not in the PC world either, but in the PC world the software comes from a different company than the hardware (Microsoft, usually). That's what I mean by double dipping: they make money on their hardware AND the software that runs on it, and of course, since there are no clones, they can leverage one over the other.
If that was completely true, I should be able to download Tiger from the Apple website to install on my Mac, right? Nope. I have to buy it, and it's not cheap. The truth of the matter is that Apple is double-dipping. They rip you off on the hardware, and then again on the software. Not saying it's wrong - after all if people are willing to pay, good for them.
The "No, thanks" option is supposed to go away at some point in the near future. Also Windows Update will not run without WGA in the near future as well.
As soon as I saw Forbes, and I saw the headline, I thought must be a Dan Lyons article. Sure enough, I click on the Forbes link (which I had sworn to never do again) and here comes his name.
Dan has had it against Linux since the beginning of the SCO mess. He has shown to be a rather poor investigative/journalistic skills and Groklaw (etc) has not been shy about it. So now it's a personal vendenta I think.
I don't care what Theo said to who. I would not publicize Dan Lyons' drivel. No need to send more ad revenue to Forbes.
I'll venture to say that in this day and age (after all the awareness in the media about fishing, and viruses, etc) that a majority of regular users have at least a virus scanner if not a software firewall. I'll also venture to say that most people also have Acrobat Reader (rather ubiquitous format on the net - even for non-geek stuff) and a CD burning app (since more likely their pc came with a burner). So no, I still disagree with you...
Regarding #3. You were able to install all the updates from a fresh install without MANY MANY reboots? That's news to me. Last time I did it (1.5 months ago) there were at least 6 different updates that must be installed by themselves (not with other updates) each one of which requires a reboot. I guess that SP2 slipstreamed disk makes loads of difference. Too bad not many end users can get one of those.
The *only* thing on his list that and a regular (non-geek) Windows User won't do/need is a ssh client. Everything else on his list are must haves for ALL users. Based on that, his point is quite valid.
Convicted monopolist or not, the point is valid. Microsoft couldn't bundle apps like Linux Distros do even if they wanted to. I think it's a bit unfair to hold this against them.
I've never heard of him, and I couldn't care less about what OS he uses. If he maintained apps, and they're open source, others will take over IF these apps have indeed any value.
Based on the language of his posts (call me old fashioned, but curse words don't impress me) I would say it's probably not much of a loss to the community. Linux doesn't need a public face (in as much as he is public, since again I've never heard of him) that can't express himself like an adult.
I've hopped around cell phone providers over the years (the only I've never tried is Sprint) and they all have a clause that you can cancel the contract and get 100% of your money back as long as you do so within x (3?) days. I could be wrong, but they're all required to do so by law. Even my gym membership had the same clause, and they told me it's required by law.
However, there's almost no way you can do that by glancing at the code.
Probably right, but you're playing with fire. Once you've seen something, it's hard to do it again the exact same way without even thinking about it. This, if it goes to court, could be found infringing. May not make sense, but that's the way courts (inconsistently, depending on which district) have been applying the law.
IANAL, but I've been adicted to Groklaw ever since SCO sued IBM. A while back these topics were discussed extensively, and case law discussed, etc.
Again, if you read my post this is not a FOSS or MS issue. The license used is irrelevant. That's basically how copyrights works. If a company gets sued for copyright infringment, they will compare the code, and it doesn't have to be verbatim copying. Obfuscation (i.e. changing variables, etc) won't save you from copyright infringment. There are tools out there that will find similarities between two seemingly different chunks of code.
There are other tests to determine if something is infringing. It can't be obvious. There are a bunch of standard Computer science algorithms (i.e. a bubble sort) that will get reimplemented a million times, there is no copyright infringment there.
Now you can't copyright ideas (you can unfortunately patent them) so if someone explains to you how something works and you go write it from scratch based on the description, you're in the clear. Even if at the end of the day the code accidentally look similar. That's the basis of a clean room implementation.
If you follow the SCO case on Groklaw, you'll get quite an education on this subject. I've been following it, it's been quite an eye opener.
Oh, and not to confuse you further - but different circuit courts on the US have been applying different "rules" for what is infringing and what is not. What I have been describing is probably the strictest (hardest to be found infringing) rules applied. Again, this is also Groklaw education.
Those are easy to answer, and the answer is not specific to the GPL. This is a matter of copyright law, and everyone in the US is subject to those rules. All of the above would constitute copyright infringment. If you "rewrite" a function through a clean room implementation (never seen the original code, it just happens to look the same due to the fact it does the same thing), then you're OK, unless you've infringed on a patent in the process.
Flash has its uses, and some website just won't work without the plugin. I know, you're gonna say just don't visit that site. But sometimes I either have to or really want to.
The bad thing about Flash is the lack of control. Especially annoying when advertisers started to use flash. I am happy with the Firefox/adblock solution of being able to block flash as needed. I have flash installed on Firefox and I don't remember seeing a flash ad in months.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no credit card company on the planet that won't credit your money back if you have that kind of dispute with the retailer, especially if you have tracking on your package (by default on all shippers other than USPS, and a buck-something more with USPS). It does add a layer of hassle to the whole mess though.
:)
Now, if you had mantioned the fact that online returns usually doesn't refund you the shipping costs (in either directions), then you'd have a strong argument. I guess I made it for you
but it's free :) Ford doesn't sell firmware upgrades. Apple sells OS upgrades.
You said you bought it a couple of weeks BEFORE it was announced. My post specifically says that the free upgrade is if you bought the hardware AFTER it was announced.
If you want your Apple hardware upgraded (i.e. better video card) you have to pay also. What does have anything to do with the OS? Last I checked you can't get firmware upgraded on your Ford.
(I see what you were trying to say - and I don't disagree - just pointing out your comparison is flawed. We've debating hardware versus software)
Good for them indeed! Didn't I say that myself? I just question anyone that claim that Apple is a (pure) hardware company. It isn't. They're playing both hands (since people take issue with the word "double dipping").
Having said that, other than the "good for them" part, your post makes no sense whatsoever. What does have retail versus wholesale have anything to do with anything?
I see the moderation system is working very well. I went to +5 to 1 Flaimebait. Weird. I don't see anything flaming about my post (nor did I intend for it to be a flame).
You get a free upgrate kit only if you bought your machine after they announced the software was coming out. The reason for that is that they don't want the users to wait to make their hardware purchases (and potentially change their mind about purchasing anything in the first place). Basically they're saying "we know we're coming out with something better shortly, but buy the hardware now anyway, we'll make sure you get the upgrade for free".
Neither do I. I was just questioning the original poster that said Apple was a (pure) hardware company.
Yes, you get whatever version of the OS is on the box at the time you bought it. It's not different than the PC market in that regard. The point was, software upgrades are not free. They're not in the PC world either, but in the PC world the software comes from a different company than the hardware (Microsoft, usually). That's what I mean by double dipping: they make money on their hardware AND the software that runs on it, and of course, since there are no clones, they can leverage one over the other.
The point is, if Apple was a pure hardware company, software updates/upgrades would be free. But it's not.
If that was completely true, I should be able to download Tiger from the Apple website to install on my Mac, right? Nope. I have to buy it, and it's not cheap. The truth of the matter is that Apple is double-dipping. They rip you off on the hardware, and then again on the software. Not saying it's wrong - after all if people are willing to pay, good for them.
The "No, thanks" option is supposed to go away at some point in the near future. Also Windows Update will not run without WGA in the near future as well.
Without even as much as a link to download what they did write - if anything. Yeah, good stuff.
As soon as I saw Forbes, and I saw the headline, I thought must be a Dan Lyons article. Sure enough, I click on the Forbes link (which I had sworn to never do again) and here comes his name.
Dan has had it against Linux since the beginning of the SCO mess. He has shown to be a rather poor investigative/journalistic skills and Groklaw (etc) has not been shy about it. So now it's a personal vendenta I think.
I don't care what Theo said to who. I would not publicize Dan Lyons' drivel. No need to send more ad revenue to Forbes.
I'll venture to say that in this day and age (after all the awareness in the media about fishing, and viruses, etc) that a majority of regular users have at least a virus scanner if not a software firewall. I'll also venture to say that most people also have Acrobat Reader (rather ubiquitous format on the net - even for non-geek stuff) and a CD burning app (since more likely their pc came with a burner). So no, I still disagree with you...
Regarding #3. You were able to install all the updates from a fresh install without MANY MANY reboots? That's news to me. Last time I did it (1.5 months ago) there were at least 6 different updates that must be installed by themselves (not with other updates) each one of which requires a reboot. I guess that SP2 slipstreamed disk makes loads of difference. Too bad not many end users can get one of those.
The *only* thing on his list that and a regular (non-geek) Windows User won't do/need is a ssh client. Everything else on his list are must haves for ALL users. Based on that, his point is quite valid.
Convicted monopolist or not, the point is valid. Microsoft couldn't bundle apps like Linux Distros do even if they wanted to. I think it's a bit unfair to hold this against them.
I've never heard of him, and I couldn't care less about what OS he uses. If he maintained apps, and they're open source, others will take over IF these apps have indeed any value.
Based on the language of his posts (call me old fashioned, but curse words don't impress me) I would say it's probably not much of a loss to the community. Linux doesn't need a public face (in as much as he is public, since again I've never heard of him) that can't express himself like an adult.
I've hopped around cell phone providers over the years (the only I've never tried is Sprint) and they all have a clause that you can cancel the contract and get 100% of your money back as long as you do so within x (3?) days. I could be wrong, but they're all required to do so by law. Even my gym membership had the same clause, and they told me it's required by law.
However, there's almost no way you can do that by glancing at the code.
Probably right, but you're playing with fire. Once you've seen something, it's hard to do it again the exact same way without even thinking about it. This, if it goes to court, could be found infringing. May not make sense, but that's the way courts (inconsistently, depending on which district) have been applying the law.
IANAL, but I've been adicted to Groklaw ever since SCO sued IBM. A while back these topics were discussed extensively, and case law discussed, etc.
Again, if you read my post this is not a FOSS or MS issue. The license used is irrelevant. That's basically how copyrights works. If a company gets sued for copyright infringment, they will compare the code, and it doesn't have to be verbatim copying. Obfuscation (i.e. changing variables, etc) won't save you from copyright infringment. There are tools out there that will find similarities between two seemingly different chunks of code.
There are other tests to determine if something is infringing. It can't be obvious. There are a bunch of standard Computer science algorithms (i.e. a bubble sort) that will get reimplemented a million times, there is no copyright infringment there.
Now you can't copyright ideas (you can unfortunately patent them) so if someone explains to you how something works and you go write it from scratch based on the description, you're in the clear. Even if at the end of the day the code accidentally look similar. That's the basis of a clean room implementation.
If you follow the SCO case on Groklaw, you'll get quite an education on this subject. I've been following it, it's been quite an eye opener.
Oh, and not to confuse you further - but different circuit courts on the US have been applying different "rules" for what is infringing and what is not. What I have been describing is probably the strictest (hardest to be found infringing) rules applied. Again, this is also Groklaw education.
Those are easy to answer, and the answer is not specific to the GPL. This is a matter of copyright law, and everyone in the US is subject to those rules. All of the above would constitute copyright infringment. If you "rewrite" a function through a clean room implementation (never seen the original code, it just happens to look the same due to the fact it does the same thing), then you're OK, unless you've infringed on a patent in the process.
Did you read my post? I use adblock (on Firefox). The point of my post was that as intended, Flash removes any control to the user.
Flash has its uses, and some website just won't work without the plugin. I know, you're gonna say just don't visit that site. But sometimes I either have to or really want to.
The bad thing about Flash is the lack of control. Especially annoying when advertisers started to use flash. I am happy with the Firefox/adblock solution of being able to block flash as needed. I have flash installed on Firefox and I don't remember seeing a flash ad in months.