And you, sir, are just plain retarded. Your arguments are just as "logical" as those of a petulant five-year-old.
Repetition of piss-poor analogies is not logic.
I notice you have just made me a "foe." When you lose arguments in real life, do you cross your friends' names off your book covers or just cry into mommy's apron?
Your original comparison was a cellphone signal (these days, encrypted, and on a licensed frequency) to an unencrypted transmission on an unlicensed frequency.
They're not at all the same thing, you goddamned retard.
Not irrelevant. If you live in a town with no free wifi access, and you magically get a signal from a source that isn't yours - you can safely assume its from a private source.
Yes, it may be from a private source, but it's their responsibility to control access to it.
If you magically get an unprotected 802.11 signal from a source that isn't yours while you're standing on public (or your own) property (this retard was on somebody else's private property), you are very much entitled to use it, but you'd be retarded to depend on it.
If your system is set to grab the best available signal, regardless of the signals source - you're a jackass.
Perhaps, but if your system is set to broadcast an unprotected wireless signal and then you bitch about people using it, you're a gigantic jackass.
Thats a weak response. Thats like saying if I let you use my cell phone for free that I have to give any jackass who wants to use it a go also.
No, it isn't at all anything like that. See, in order to let me use your cellphone, you actually have to give me something. In order for me to use your wireless network on public property, I have to be on public property, and you have to be retarded enough not to have secured it.
If you broadcast unprotected wireless to an area where I can be legally, I am well within my rights to use it. It's an unlicensed frequency band.
That's addressed in the article you can't be bothered to read.
No, it really isn't. I just read it. Three times.
The article says that you don't need the kernel source to pirate Mac OS X for Intel, but doesn't go ahead to suggest any other plausible explanations for it having been closed.
And then it has its own gem of speculation:
Apple's efforts to stop piracy of Mac OS X hinge largely upon the introduction of new Intel Macs that are so desirable and affordable that most users will chose buy a Mac rather than steal bootleg copies of Mac OS X to fiddle with on their existing hardware.
I'm glad that Mr. Eran is smart enough to know what Apple's plans are to stop piracy and that no longer supplying Intel xnu source isn't at all part of it!
Suppose Apple wants to release a virtualization system for Mac OS X. The changes would be CPU specific, and would almost certainly only be released for Intel, as that's the only place anyone wants the changes. If Mac OS X is to run under the virtualization system, that is, as a client under a hosted system similar to Xen, then it would need changes throughout the XNU kernel.
Virtualization, if Apple puts it in Mac OS X, will appear not in Tiger, but in Lion, which branched internally long before the last Intel xnu release.
There are various proposed reasons, from technologies that affect XNU they want to announce at a later date, to the anti-piracy stuff you comment upon. Until Apple makes a real, public, statement one way or another, it's not really justified to say anything other than "As of now, XNU for Intel is proprietary." It's not absolutely certain it's the pirates that "caused" this.
It's not absolutely certain, no.
Here's what is certain, though:
1) xnu was, at one point, open for both Intel and PPC. 2) Downloading it was listed as a step in some guides for getting Mac OS X to work on non-Apple Intel hardware. 3) Intel xnu is no longer open, PPC xnu is.
You don't have to be Kreskin to figure this one out.
A friend of mine just had auto insurance rates go up because of credit card debt. Tell me how that affects your driving record?
Insurance isn't so much about punishing you for bad behavior as it is about trying to price itself based on what you're likely to do during the policy term. There's a lot of research that has shown this to be overwhelmingly a sound practice. From Insurance Information Institute:
Insurance scores are confidential rankings based on credit history information. They are a measure of how a person manages his or her financial affairs. People who manage their finances well tend to also manage other important aspects of their lives responsibly, such as driving a car. Combined with factors such as geographical area, previous crashes, age and gender, insurance scores enable auto insurers to price more accurately, so that people less likely to file a claim pay less for their insurance than people who are more likely to file a claim. For homeowners insurance, insurers use other factors combined with credit such as the home's construction, location and proximity to water supplies for fighting fires.
Insurance scores predict the average claim behavior of a group of people with essentially the same credit history. A good score is typically above 760 and a bad score is below 600. People with low insurance scores tend to file more claims. But there are exceptions. Within that group, there may be individuals who have stellar driving records and have never filed a claim just as there are teenager drivers who have never had a crash although teenagers as a group have more accidents than people in other age groups.
Most people benefit from insurance scoring because most consumers manage their debt well and therefore have good credit scores. Credit-related activities within the last 12 months are given most weight.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that most customers probably expected the current SA to cover more than just installation and support of XP and now that it doesn't I'm not sure that the SA was such a good deal, compared to paying to deployment support outside an SA agreement.
Customers are responsible for making informed decisions about licensing purchases. "Scheduled to ship in August, 2006" and "We promise it will ship in August, 2006" are two different things altogether.
Anybody allowed near an IT budget had better know the difference between What Marketing Says and The Engineering Reality.
If your purchase/renewal of Software Assurance in December, 2004 was predicated solely on Vista's release in 2006, you made the wrong decision, and have nobody but yourself to blame for it.
License keys and media kits are one thing - the support needed during the installation is quite another. SA includes numerous support options and is one of the key reasons to selecting this type of licensing (IMO) and that part will be gone once the SA agreement expires.
If support is a "key reason" for your selection of SA, why would you want to lose support for your existing WinXP installation by letting your SA lapse out of protest just because they didn't ship Vista when they pinky promised?
Slashdot Mirror
And you, sir, are just plain retarded. Your arguments are just as "logical" as those of a petulant five-year-old.
Repetition of piss-poor analogies is not logic.
I notice you have just made me a "foe." When you lose arguments in real life, do you cross your friends' names off your book covers or just cry into mommy's apron?
Your original comparison was a cellphone signal (these days, encrypted, and on a licensed frequency) to an unencrypted transmission on an unlicensed frequency.
They're not at all the same thing, you goddamned retard.
If you're interning on the Hill, you're not doing it because you want the money.
You're doing it because you want to work there when you graduate.
If you magically get an unprotected 802.11 signal from a source that isn't yours while you're standing on public (or your own) property (this retard was on somebody else's private property), you are very much entitled to use it, but you'd be retarded to depend on it.
Perhaps, but if your system is set to broadcast an unprotected wireless signal and then you bitch about people using it, you're a gigantic jackass.
No, it isn't at all anything like that. See, in order to let me use your cellphone, you actually have to give me something. In order for me to use your wireless network on public property, I have to be on public property, and you have to be retarded enough not to have secured it.
If you broadcast unprotected wireless to an area where I can be legally, I am well within my rights to use it. It's an unlicensed frequency band.
Some of us use operating systems that aren't quite so retarded.
Cellphones don't use unlicensed frequency bands. They also employ authentication for billing purposes.
Got any other easily-refuted non-arguments?
Great. And you can make that argument at your habeas corpus hearing.
Which happens some time after you've already been arrested.
Maybe you should look into what habeas corpus is before you try to make people think you're smart.
But it's also not $7/hour.
Congressional interns don't get paid. They get college credit.
Interns don't get paid.
Also, I forgot to mention that piracy of Intel Mac OS X was enabled by xnu Intel source.
The article says that you don't need the kernel source to pirate Mac OS X for Intel, but doesn't go ahead to suggest any other plausible explanations for it having been closed.
And then it has its own gem of speculation:
I'm glad that Mr. Eran is smart enough to know what Apple's plans are to stop piracy and that no longer supplying Intel xnu source isn't at all part of it!
Don't like it?
Choose a different insurer or become an Assigned Risk.
Apple doesn't run its development operation quite like Linus Let's-Change-The-Entire-VM-Subsystem-In-The-Stabl
Why close Tiger Intel xnu?
They may re-open it in the future, and they may not, but it's almost certain that it became closed in the first place because of piracy.
Give me one other plausible explanation for only closing Intel and not PPC as well.
Just one.
Here's what is certain, though:
1) xnu was, at one point, open for both Intel and PPC.
2) Downloading it was listed as a step in some guides for getting Mac OS X to work on non-Apple Intel hardware.
3) Intel xnu is no longer open, PPC xnu is.
You don't have to be Kreskin to figure this one out.
Insurance isn't so much about punishing you for bad behavior as it is about trying to price itself based on what you're likely to do during the policy term. There's a lot of research that has shown this to be overwhelmingly a sound practice. From Insurance Information Institute:
Only one Darwin component closed: the intel port of xnu (the kernel).
It only closed because it was being primarily used to enable people to use stolen software on hardware for which it wasn't licensed.
It only takes a few idiots shitting in the pool to make the lifeguard kick everybody out.
Customers are responsible for making informed decisions about licensing purchases. "Scheduled to ship in August, 2006" and "We promise it will ship in August, 2006" are two different things altogether.
Anybody allowed near an IT budget had better know the difference between What Marketing Says and The Engineering Reality.
If your purchase/renewal of Software Assurance in December, 2004 was predicated solely on Vista's release in 2006, you made the wrong decision, and have nobody but yourself to blame for it.
If support is a "key reason" for your selection of SA, why would you want to lose support for your existing WinXP installation by letting your SA lapse out of protest just because they didn't ship Vista when they pinky promised?
I would like to thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.
You truly are an asset to the Open Source community, and your erudition will take you far in life.