Not really, because the free alternatives all sucked. At least, that's what most of the chatter on Mac community forums, VersionTracker, etc. said. Ultimately sales were low because virtual desktops haven't been adopted by the general computer user.
Actually, patents are supposed to be non-obvious solutions to problems (definition from this patent lawyer's IP FAQ):
A patent is an exclusive right granted for a technical invention which, as required in most countries, offers a novel and non-obvious technical solution to a problem.
So, at the company I work for, the patent commitee will accept submissions for most anything, but will filter out the crap that they know is not unique or interesting. And, patent reviewers at the USPTO are supposed to make sure that things are "non-obvious", but I guess that rarely happens.
the masses (read: the geeks) have finally accepted Mac OS X as a competent operating system
As a geek, I would love it if the masses were also geeks, but that is not the case. As a developer who worked at a company that wrote a virtual desktop implementation for Mac OS X, we thought for sure that we would make tons of money off of Linux -> Mac OS X switchers, but our sales were, unfortunately, much lower than we expected.
So, while it seems obvious that Linux geeks would be flocking to Mac OS X, the ratio of *NIX geeks vs. numbers of normal users might be a lot smaller than you think...
Oh, and just to start a flame war, here's a Venn Diagram on why Mac OS X kick's Linux desktops' asses.
Whatever the merits of that point, it has zero to do with nano- anything.
It does if the reason they're called "nano-tex" fabrics is because teflon has been used to coat the fibers "at a sub-micron level". I believe that had you read the article, you would see that the protesters are worried that studies on the absorbability of the teflon have not been done, and that concerns them.
While this is true, the bigger problem right now is endianness. There are lots of developers on the Mac that don't pay any attention to the endianness of their binary data; why should they, the endianness isn't going to change, right? While some of the changes could be trivial, some graphics formats, like TIFF, are a specific endianness, and it would be a pain to have to redo graphics intensive code to deal with these things. Now, I know that people are going to say, "Well, if you're not using NSImage, you get what you deserve", you have to look at the TIFFRepresentation method of NSImage: it returns an NSData, containing, that's right, the binary data of the image file. And, that's just one example.
So, I think that switching endianness might be a bigger deal than what people think, and fixing these bugs are tedious and time-consuming.
If Wiley was stupid enough to think that most people wouldn't see "iCon" and read it the same way as they read "iMac" and "iBook", then I don't know if they should be publishing this book, as they are seriously out of touch with the subject matter. It was only when I read that the book was largely positive to realize that it was supposed to be "icon" and not "iCon" (or, "internet con").
Try it with other words, and it takes a second to even recognize what the word is (reading them aloud is cheating, unless you stress the 'i'): iDea, iRate, iCicle, iAmbic.
"the act of taking something [exclusive distribution rights, in this case] from someone [the copyright owner] unlawfully". In your case:
"an action [illegal copying] which deprives a person [the copyright holder] of something which they possess [exclusive distribution rights]." Works for me.
No, not depriving someone of possible revenue, but actual revenue generated by the owner's property. This is different from revenue loss due to competition in that you are giving away for free something that you do not own the rights to, while the owner is trying to sell that same work.
Also, then, by your definition "identity theft" is not theft. But, if I copy your identity and use it illegally, is that theft or not? I haven't deprived you of your identity, or prevented you from using it; I'm just using your identity even though I don't own your identity, and I am using it with possible detrimental effects to you.
I think j-turkey pointed out a more cogent problem: we didn't define theft. Please refer to his post, and my subsequent response for more detail.
Well, you've got a good point. However, the definition that states "the act of taking something [exclusive distribution rights, in this case] from someone [the copyright owner] unlawfully" does seem to fit. Do you agree?
Infringing on copyright law is *not theft*. You have not deprived the original owner of any property, and thus have violated no property rights.
You are limiting the definition of the word "property" to a physical object, then? Webster, however, defines it thusly:
[From: 1913 Webster]
3. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing; ownership; title.
4. That to which a person has a legal title, whether in his possession or not; thing owned; an estate, whether in lands, goods, or money; as, a man of large property, or small property.
WordNet's definition is even more clear:
2: something owned; any tangible or intangible possession that is owned by someone;
Note the use of the word "intangible" in that definition.
The problem with your narrow definition is that when you make an illegal copy of a copyrighted work and distribute it without permission, you will take revenue away from the rightful owner of that work, if they are selling it. This is because there will be some subset of people who a) would normally purchase that work but b) would rather get it free of charge, and if there is no degradation of quality and the means to obtain a free copy are available, will do so.
So, while you have no right to distribute illegal copies of a particular work, the creator of that work has every right to limit the distribution, especially as they are trying to make a living off of distributing that work. Calling it theft is reasonable because you are "taking" money away from the owner; or, you are "taking" the distribution rights away from the owner. Either way, it is theft.
The problem is that not all Linux kernel sources are licensed in the way that you have (with the any later version addendum). In fact, not all kernel sources are even under the GPL; here is an example of a file that's under the MPL (Mozilla Public License) and GPLv2 (only). Then there are the files (example provided) that simply state the license as GPLv2 without the "or later".
In other words, the Linux kernel has many, many copyright holders, and many, many different variations of the license language in the source files. If Linus had only accepted files with a certain license language, that would be one thing, but I think he was more worried about the technical aspects than the religious war aspects of the kernel.
In short, you can't just promote the kernel to GPLv3, and I, for one, don't really see what the outcome is really going to be...
Wait, what is your CFLAGS set to? I'm still compiling my Gentoo system on my 300 MHz Celeron A system (I tried oc'ing it to 450 MHz, but my peltier fried itself, so it wasn't cooled sufficiently, and I'd get random bus errors) from 2 months ago. But, if you give me your CFLAGS setting, I'll kill the current compile and try again. I'd love Firefox to open instantly on that machine!
Everyone knows that having a low Erdos-Bacon number is more valuable than having a high one, so the proof of this is trivial. Oh, wait, computer networks? Never mind.
They weren't doing this for the public good. They were doing it to steal Apple's thunder.
The only nit-pick that I have with your response is that they didn't just do it to steal Apple's thunder, but to make a profit. Think Secret sells ads, and the more clicks they get, the more they make, just like any other for-profit, ad-selling website. They post reliable information (in this case, trade secrets) in order to make money, and they solicit that information from people in the know through "anonymous" voicemail/email drops. This solicitation for profit is against the law, and rightly so. I don't get why people think this is ok; if you induce someone to break the law, you are breaking the law.
I put anonymous in quotes because they always state the reliability of their sources, and if those sources were truly anonymous how would you have any idea of the reliability? It's quite clear to me that they get names and verify that the person could know the information they claim to know.
(Well, I do have another nitpick:
$ echo 'definately' | ispell -a @(#) International Ispell Version 3.1.20 (but really Aspell.33.7.1 alpha) & definately 5 0: definitely, defiantly, deviantly, definably, definable
This notion sheds a whole different light on the updates Lucas does to the original trilogy: they're patches. Sorta like Microsoft patches, in that each patch makes the system worse, overall, rather than better.
Actually, if you noticed that new PowerBooks were released today, with a feature that removes the need for SideTrack: See the section named "Ready to Scroll". Apparently you can use 2 fingers in a variety of gestures that are programable. I don't have one of these, but I bet there will be a lot of info on how this works coming out soon.
Having said that, I second the recommendation for SideTrack. It's a great piece of software. And, while I think that it obviates the need for additional hardware buttons, at least one other person that I know said that he'd not switch unless there were the option of at least 2 hardware buttons. I don't see it happening anytime soon, but I know there are people to who SideTrack/two-finger-scrolling will not be a solution.
So, basically, if you're driving a '57 Chevy that's being propelled by the shockwave of a blazar at.999c and you turn on your headlights, you'd still illuminate the same distance as if you were standing still. That's very comforting...
Munchkin is a great tongue-in-cheek board game for the RPGer in your social circle or family. It's a card game (not CCG) with quite a lot of expansion packs. Basically, you try to clear a dungeon & if a friend gets in the way or is going to win first, you screw them over.
Duh! The government. Your "solution" to taxes is to give your money away first before the feds can get it. That's like avoiding a mugging by giving your wallet away.
I guess I don't understand the resistence to spending money on making the country better for everyone. You know: "promote the general welfare" and all? Give everyone a chance?
What is amazing to me is that after the turn of the century and before the depression, a metric fuck-ton of the nation's capital was concentrated in the top 1%, and life for the lowest 50% was notoriously bad. If the New Deal hadn't been enacted, what would life be like now? Would you even be considering to get rid of all taxes, so that the wealth could concentrate even more in those people who already have most of the money & power in this world? If so, why? I truly don't understand why you think that having money concentrate from a "free market" is better for everyone, and why it shouldn't be balanced by wealth distribution for the common good.
Providing a college education is not a <gasp> necessary function of government.
Federal grants can be used for community college; just check out a local community college and see if they are eligible for Pell grants. Since you can only get $4k/yr. from Pell grants, you wouldn't even be able to pay a full tuition at most 4-year colleges just through grants.
Again, what your saying is that people who are well off enough to afford to send their kids to college can do so, and that those kids will then get a good education and be able to get the highest paying jobs. This is a great mechanism to concentrate wealth to the few, who then are able to get politcal power and dominate the American society. How is this equitable or just?
Who said anything about corporations?
If not the done by the government, it will be done by private buisness, right? Unless you want everyone to be home-schooled, some group of people are going to be responsible for educating your kids. In a free market, I would guess that people who have billions of dollars will be able to dominate the market, as they have the means to invest in an infrastructure for the buisness of education. And, as they will be motivated by profit, I don't think they will be motivated to give the best possible education.
As much as I dislike corporations, I don't fall prey to the delusion that government is somehow better.
But the government is directly accountable to the people, because you can always vote them out. Free-markets encourage monopolies and trusts, as was proven by the early 1900's; monopolies will not be directly accountable to anyone, as you will have no choice on how schools are run. Why would buisness run schooling be better for everyone?
t's almost like the war on drugs. No, it's EXACTLY like the war on drugs. The more money we through at the problem, the bigger the problem becomes. For the past sixty years we've been foolishly subsidizing illiteracy.
Where is your proof that education is getting worse here in the US? I'd like to see some support for your claims, because I don't believe them.
A private education system will not be perfect. No one anywhere is claiming that.
OK, but why would it even be better? I just don't see any evidence for that. And, if people can't afford private education, and thus get little-to-no education, how could it possibly be better for them and their children?
What I think is that you want to stick your head in the sand, collect as much money as you possibly can, and disregard the facts that because of the way that wealth was redistributed in the 40's, 50's & 60's, massive infrastructure changes were made that help buisnesses and workers in this country, improving life for everyone. You seem to want to go back to the robber-baron days of the turn of the century,
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, because the free alternatives all sucked. At least, that's what most of the chatter on Mac community forums, VersionTracker, etc. said. Ultimately sales were low because virtual desktops haven't been adopted by the general computer user.
Actually, patents are supposed to be non-obvious solutions to problems (definition from this patent lawyer's IP FAQ):
A patent is an exclusive right granted for a technical invention which, as required in most countries, offers a novel and non-obvious technical solution to a problem.
So, at the company I work for, the patent commitee will accept submissions for most anything, but will filter out the crap that they know is not unique or interesting. And, patent reviewers at the USPTO are supposed to make sure that things are "non-obvious", but I guess that rarely happens.
the masses (read: the geeks) have finally accepted Mac OS X as a competent operating system
As a geek, I would love it if the masses were also geeks, but that is not the case. As a developer who worked at a company that wrote a virtual desktop implementation for Mac OS X, we thought for sure that we would make tons of money off of Linux -> Mac OS X switchers, but our sales were, unfortunately, much lower than we expected.
So, while it seems obvious that Linux geeks would be flocking to Mac OS X, the ratio of *NIX geeks vs. numbers of normal users might be a lot smaller than you think...
Oh, and just to start a flame war, here's a Venn Diagram on why Mac OS X kick's Linux desktops' asses.
It does if the reason they're called "nano-tex" fabrics is because teflon has been used to coat the fibers "at a sub-micron level". I believe that had you read the article, you would see that the protesters are worried that studies on the absorbability of the teflon have not been done, and that concerns them.
While this is true, the bigger problem right now is endianness. There are lots of developers on the Mac that don't pay any attention to the endianness of their binary data; why should they, the endianness isn't going to change, right? While some of the changes could be trivial, some graphics formats, like TIFF, are a specific endianness, and it would be a pain to have to redo graphics intensive code to deal with these things. Now, I know that people are going to say, "Well, if you're not using NSImage, you get what you deserve", you have to look at the TIFFRepresentation method of NSImage: it returns an NSData, containing, that's right, the binary data of the image file. And, that's just one example.
So, I think that switching endianness might be a bigger deal than what people think, and fixing these bugs are tedious and time-consuming.
If Wiley was stupid enough to think that most people wouldn't see "iCon" and read it the same way as they read "iMac" and "iBook", then I don't know if they should be publishing this book, as they are seriously out of touch with the subject matter. It was only when I read that the book was largely positive to realize that it was supposed to be "icon" and not "iCon" (or, "internet con").
Try it with other words, and it takes a second to even recognize what the word is (reading them aloud is cheating, unless you stress the 'i'): iDea, iRate, iCicle, iAmbic.
Interesting. Thanks! Any pointers to the SC ruling that spells this out?
Ok, but as I said in the other post:
"the act of taking something [exclusive distribution rights, in this case] from someone [the copyright owner] unlawfully". In your case:
"an action [illegal copying] which deprives a person [the copyright holder] of something which they possess [exclusive distribution rights]." Works for me.
No, not depriving someone of possible revenue, but actual revenue generated by the owner's property. This is different from revenue loss due to competition in that you are giving away for free something that you do not own the rights to, while the owner is trying to sell that same work.
Also, then, by your definition "identity theft" is not theft. But, if I copy your identity and use it illegally, is that theft or not? I haven't deprived you of your identity, or prevented you from using it; I'm just using your identity even though I don't own your identity, and I am using it with possible detrimental effects to you.
I think j-turkey pointed out a more cogent problem: we didn't define theft. Please refer to his post, and my subsequent response for more detail.
Well, you've got a good point. However, the definition that states "the act of taking something [exclusive distribution rights, in this case] from someone [the copyright owner] unlawfully" does seem to fit. Do you agree?
You are limiting the definition of the word "property" to a physical object, then? Webster, however, defines it thusly:WordNet's definition is even more clear:Note the use of the word "intangible" in that definition.
The problem with your narrow definition is that when you make an illegal copy of a copyrighted work and distribute it without permission, you will take revenue away from the rightful owner of that work, if they are selling it. This is because there will be some subset of people who a) would normally purchase that work but b) would rather get it free of charge, and if there is no degradation of quality and the means to obtain a free copy are available, will do so.
So, while you have no right to distribute illegal copies of a particular work, the creator of that work has every right to limit the distribution, especially as they are trying to make a living off of distributing that work. Calling it theft is reasonable because you are "taking" money away from the owner; or, you are "taking" the distribution rights away from the owner. Either way, it is theft.
Courtesy of Penny Arcade!
The problem is that not all Linux kernel sources are licensed in the way that you have (with the any later version addendum). In fact, not all kernel sources are even under the GPL; here is an example of a file that's under the MPL (Mozilla Public License) and GPLv2 (only). Then there are the files (example provided) that simply state the license as GPLv2 without the "or later".
In other words, the Linux kernel has many, many copyright holders, and many, many different variations of the license language in the source files. If Linus had only accepted files with a certain license language, that would be one thing, but I think he was more worried about the technical aspects than the religious war aspects of the kernel.
In short, you can't just promote the kernel to GPLv3, and I, for one, don't really see what the outcome is really going to be...
Wait, what is your CFLAGS set to? I'm still compiling my Gentoo system on my 300 MHz Celeron A system (I tried oc'ing it to 450 MHz, but my peltier fried itself, so it wasn't cooled sufficiently, and I'd get random bus errors) from 2 months ago. But, if you give me your CFLAGS setting, I'll kill the current compile and try again. I'd love Firefox to open instantly on that machine!
Everyone knows that having a low Erdos-Bacon number is more valuable than having a high one, so the proof of this is trivial. Oh, wait, computer networks? Never mind.
Well, this makes sense, right, because it's not French music anymore, it's freedom music.
The only nit-pick that I have with your response is that they didn't just do it to steal Apple's thunder, but to make a profit. Think Secret sells ads, and the more clicks they get, the more they make, just like any other for-profit, ad-selling website. They post reliable information (in this case, trade secrets) in order to make money, and they solicit that information from people in the know through "anonymous" voicemail/email drops. This solicitation for profit is against the law, and rightly so. I don't get why people think this is ok; if you induce someone to break the law, you are breaking the law.
I put anonymous in quotes because they always state the reliability of their sources, and if those sources were truly anonymous how would you have any idea of the reliability? It's quite clear to me that they get names and verify that the person could know the information they claim to know.
(Well, I do have another nitpick:)
Other than that, good post.
It sounds to me like you've been reading labels from Dr. Bronner's soap. ("WE'RE ONE! ALL-ONE! EXCEPTIONS ETERNALLY? ABSOLUTELY NONE!")
Until the conspiracy between the US gov't and other world powers that prevents usage of zero point energy to give unlimited free energy for things like charging my cell phone, I won't be happy. That is, why use air when you can use "110 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant energy at the center of the Sun" to charge a battery?!
Unless, of course, it were cubium powered. Ignoring cubium indicts you evil!
This notion sheds a whole different light on the updates Lucas does to the original trilogy: they're patches. Sorta like Microsoft patches, in that each patch makes the system worse, overall, rather than better.
Actually, if you noticed that new PowerBooks were released today, with a feature that removes the need for SideTrack: See the section named "Ready to Scroll". Apparently you can use 2 fingers in a variety of gestures that are programable. I don't have one of these, but I bet there will be a lot of info on how this works coming out soon.
Having said that, I second the recommendation for SideTrack. It's a great piece of software. And, while I think that it obviates the need for additional hardware buttons, at least one other person that I know said that he'd not switch unless there were the option of at least 2 hardware buttons. I don't see it happening anytime soon, but I know there are people to who SideTrack/two-finger-scrolling will not be a solution.
So, basically, if you're driving a '57 Chevy that's being propelled by the shockwave of a blazar at .999c and you turn on your headlights, you'd still illuminate the same distance as if you were standing still. That's very comforting...
Munchkin is a great tongue-in-cheek board game for the RPGer in your social circle or family. It's a card game (not CCG) with quite a lot of expansion packs. Basically, you try to clear a dungeon & if a friend gets in the way or is going to win first, you screw them over.
Very fun, quick game.
Because of the news that voters picked "moral values" as a main reason they voted, an issue that overwhelmingly favored Bush:
I, for one, welcome our new fundamentalist christian overlords.
(Ha, ha, only serious.)
Duh! The government. Your "solution" to taxes is to give your money away first before the feds can get it. That's like avoiding a mugging by giving your wallet away.
I guess I don't understand the resistence to spending money on making the country better for everyone. You know: "promote the general welfare" and all? Give everyone a chance?
What is amazing to me is that after the turn of the century and before the depression, a metric fuck-ton of the nation's capital was concentrated in the top 1%, and life for the lowest 50% was notoriously bad. If the New Deal hadn't been enacted, what would life be like now? Would you even be considering to get rid of all taxes, so that the wealth could concentrate even more in those people who already have most of the money & power in this world? If so, why? I truly don't understand why you think that having money concentrate from a "free market" is better for everyone, and why it shouldn't be balanced by wealth distribution for the common good.
Providing a college education is not a <gasp> necessary function of government.
Federal grants can be used for community college; just check out a local community college and see if they are eligible for Pell grants. Since you can only get $4k/yr. from Pell grants, you wouldn't even be able to pay a full tuition at most 4-year colleges just through grants.
Again, what your saying is that people who are well off enough to afford to send their kids to college can do so, and that those kids will then get a good education and be able to get the highest paying jobs. This is a great mechanism to concentrate wealth to the few, who then are able to get politcal power and dominate the American society. How is this equitable or just?
Who said anything about corporations?
If not the done by the government, it will be done by private buisness, right? Unless you want everyone to be home-schooled, some group of people are going to be responsible for educating your kids. In a free market, I would guess that people who have billions of dollars will be able to dominate the market, as they have the means to invest in an infrastructure for the buisness of education. And, as they will be motivated by profit, I don't think they will be motivated to give the best possible education.
As much as I dislike corporations, I don't fall prey to the delusion that government is somehow better.
But the government is directly accountable to the people, because you can always vote them out. Free-markets encourage monopolies and trusts, as was proven by the early 1900's; monopolies will not be directly accountable to anyone, as you will have no choice on how schools are run. Why would buisness run schooling be better for everyone?
t's almost like the war on drugs. No, it's EXACTLY like the war on drugs. The more money we through at the problem, the bigger the problem becomes. For the past sixty years we've been foolishly subsidizing illiteracy.
Where is your proof that education is getting worse here in the US? I'd like to see some support for your claims, because I don't believe them.
A private education system will not be perfect. No one anywhere is claiming that.
OK, but why would it even be better? I just don't see any evidence for that. And, if people can't afford private education, and thus get little-to-no education, how could it possibly be better for them and their children?
What I think is that you want to stick your head in the sand, collect as much money as you possibly can, and disregard the facts that because of the way that wealth was redistributed in the 40's, 50's & 60's, massive infrastructure changes were made that help buisnesses and workers in this country, improving life for everyone. You seem to want to go back to the robber-baron days of the turn of the century,