And then you will have polarization to China and other non aligned powers.
Please do try to do that with Brazil, for example. You won't like the results, I guarantee.
The clerk didn't know, and even if he did the state department does not enforce embargo law for local sales as it is CLEARLY said in the text:
*********
Sabet told WSBTV that the iPad was intended as a gift to her cousin in Iran, but said she didn't mention that to the clerk.
"It's a slippery slope," he said. "If someone is speaking Arabic are employees going to stop them and say 'are you from Syria?' and deny them service? Or if they're speaking Spanish, are they gonna say are you from Cuba?"
Sabet said when she called Apple’s corporate customer relations an employee apologized told her she could buy an iPad online.
A State Department representative told WSBTV it's illegal to travel with the electronics to Iran without federal permission, but that he was not aware Apple was enforcing the law, reported WSBTV
*******
Apple has no legal obligation to enforce the law, it is going beyond its duty in order to discriminate its clients.
False. Here on Brazil we have absolutely no law regarding selling products to Iran or Cuba or any other country in US blacklist, still we have a lot of Apple Stores and nobody asks people where they came from when buying in them.
If she had directly stated to the clerk that she intend to commit a crime with the item she wanted to buy (which she did NOT in this case, by the way) the clerk should inform her that her action would be a crime and deny the sell. On the other hand, if, after been informed she says: "Ok I won't use it to this end anymore but I still want to buy the item", he has no legal excuse not to sell her the item anymore. To KNOW something and to SUSPECT something are two different things. If you allow people to discriminate on suspicions you open the door for all kinds of abuses (like this one).
Airport security is another story. They have been known to piss on the constitution and human rights for a long time now. They are beyond and above the law for all practical matters.
The seller is not liable by any stretch of law for any action an american citizen who bought a product INSIDE US does with what he or she bought. The person who bought the product is the one liable for his actions if she decides to do anything illegal with it.
What protections? I am not aware OSX has any DRM to be broken. And they certainly didn't do any pirate copy of the software. Psystar just hacked some drivers into OSX, which I am pretty sure is not covered by DCMA. AFAIK, this case it was a pure EULA violation and no DCMA violation claim was made by Apple.
EULA is a contract. It draws its legals base from an agreement between the parts involved. Certainly one of the parts needs to have some rights over whatever is being used by the other (be it copyright, ownership, etc), but to break the EULA you don't need to violate these rights, which was exactly what happened in PsyStar's case. PsyStar didn't copy Apple's product, they bought every one of the licenses they used. They didn't violate any copyright from Apple, but still they didn't obey the EULA they have agreed upon when they licensed the software.
So, yes, I am pretty sure the case wasn't about copyright, patents or anything remotely associated with suing someone for making a product in the same shape as yours.
That was about customization of MacOS in non Apple Machines and Apple's abusive EULA. PsyStar bough licenses from Apple and used them in a way that broke the EULA. It had nothing to do with copyright.
As far as I know (and I can be wrong on that) Apple has never won any copyright case yet. The maximum it achieved with its patent trolling was temporary injunctions in some markets like Germany and Australia.
There is a MAJOR responsibility-dodging group regarding this matter: Women. If anyone is to blame for the lack of female representatives in CS is the females themselves.
The idea is to have routers everywhere and exit nodes in the places where it is more difficult for big brother to reach. Having exit points in high profile targets like political parties (as in the Pirate Party), and countries where the law still protect the right to privacy to a good extent is the ideal topology.
Mapping I/O is a VERY bad way to understand the behavior of an electronic circuit with billions of gates, and the human brain is considerably more complex than that. Even if you don't care about the inner workings and only want to predict the outside behavior of this "circuit", considering tests do not take nanoseconds but at the very least weeks, you probably can't map any significant amount of a single human brain I/Os before the end of the universe. That is certainly not the way to go...
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Very little is known compared to what there is to know. "Much" is a bad word to use in any argument and specially here. By saying "much" you imply that what is known is not insignificant compared to what is yet to be known, which is not true, and that it is enough to reach conclusions like the one in this article, which I strongly disagree with.
Knowing more than we knew yesterday is certainly the right path to understand something [b]eventually[/b]. Jumping to conclusions based in statistical data without having sufficient understanding of the mechanisms that generated this data is wild guessing and not science. That is the realm of today's Psychology and the motive why Academics in this field can't really agree to basically anything, and the same thing may be said about medical research to a lesser degree.
Cosmologists don't go and make affirmations like: "The universe was probably created in the Big Bang.", not even: "There is evidence the universe was created in the Big Bang.". That is frivolous and not science at all. Responsible scientists in areas were ther eis too much unknown, like this just say: "There is a theory called the Big Bang that explains, to a degree, what we have observed. We can't really reach any conclusion at this point if this theory is indeed what happened, but we are investigating this and other possibilities.". The same should apply to medicine and even more to psychology.
Oh, and generally speaking guesses about how other people feel about the subject should have absolute no place in any serious discussion. Nobody in this discussion is acting like he is "personally attacked", and even if someone was that is nobody else's business and it don't make his point more or less valid in the slightest. In this case we just are vehement in our arguments, which is perfectly fine. Anything else you may see is inside your head only, in the same way most of the things these researchers judge to be true probably are in theirs.
The problem is: nobody really understands the machine yet. Which makes most of the "studies" in this area, including this one, just wild assumptions over statistics.
Considering how impractical it is to know what people are thinking with any reasonable degree of certainty, especially along a large enough timespan to do any remotely scientific study on the subject I consider my assumption very reasonable. If you can prove me wrong I am all ears though.
Yes you commit more mistakes when you think more about things. Guess what, you also reach a lot more correct conclusions. The best way to avoid making mistakes is not doing anything at all. Same principle.
What I am saying is that if you install (or update) "on demand" you won't have to wait any significant amount of time more in the first time you use the application and a lot less if you account all following uses in comparison with the cloud versions. Storage space for applications is irrelevant these days. Storage space for data, if a problem (which usually is not for office applications) can be solved with remote storage and remote synch even when using local applications.
Given the small size of the applications compared with current transfer speeds, there is no clear advantage in time spent, or even availability, in using cloud services, and all the disadvantages I mentioned before still exist.
Just to make it clear. It takes a few seconds to install or update any application I wish in my mobile phone, which is about the same time it takes to start to open, connect and start to use any cloud based application.
Most end users use a small number of applications and seldom have the need to update them. Even if you had to install the applications in a large number of devices you would still have to consume a lot less of bandwidth than you would by using the cloud versions and in the long run you would waste more time by using them.
Even if, for some weird motive, you can't know which application you will need installed in your devices beforehand, it is a trivial matter just to install the last version when you need to use it, and most of the times it won't use much more bandwidth than using the remote version for any meaningful amount of time.
And please, don't tell me that the space applications use is relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
And then you will have polarization to China and other non aligned powers. Please do try to do that with Brazil, for example. You won't like the results, I guarantee.
The clerk didn't know, and even if he did the state department does not enforce embargo law for local sales as it is CLEARLY said in the text:
*********
Sabet told WSBTV that the iPad was intended as a gift to her cousin in Iran, but said she didn't mention that to the clerk.
"It's a slippery slope," he said. "If someone is speaking Arabic are employees going to stop them and say 'are you from Syria?' and deny them service? Or if they're speaking Spanish, are they gonna say are you from Cuba?"
Sabet said when she called Apple’s corporate customer relations an employee apologized told her she could buy an iPad online.
A State Department representative told WSBTV it's illegal to travel with the electronics to Iran without federal permission, but that he was not aware Apple was enforcing the law, reported WSBTV
*******
Apple has no legal obligation to enforce the law, it is going beyond its duty in order to discriminate its clients.
False. Here on Brazil we have absolutely no law regarding selling products to Iran or Cuba or any other country in US blacklist, still we have a lot of Apple Stores and nobody asks people where they came from when buying in them.
If she had directly stated to the clerk that she intend to commit a crime with the item she wanted to buy (which she did NOT in this case, by the way) the clerk should inform her that her action would be a crime and deny the sell. On the other hand, if, after been informed she says: "Ok I won't use it to this end anymore but I still want to buy the item", he has no legal excuse not to sell her the item anymore. To KNOW something and to SUSPECT something are two different things. If you allow people to discriminate on suspicions you open the door for all kinds of abuses (like this one). Airport security is another story. They have been known to piss on the constitution and human rights for a long time now. They are beyond and above the law for all practical matters.
The seller is not liable by any stretch of law for any action an american citizen who bought a product INSIDE US does with what he or she bought. The person who bought the product is the one liable for his actions if she decides to do anything illegal with it.
No they wouldn't be liable, and the proof of that is that consumer services told her she could indeed buy and apologized to her in the end.
Read the fucking article. Apple DID sell to her in the end. So no, Apple is NOT forbidden by law to sell.
Easy answer: if they could they would label all of these activities you listed as "theft".
I may be wrong, but as far as I understand DCMA only covers copy protection. All the jailbrake/root available would be illegal otherwise, and it is not: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/
What protections? I am not aware OSX has any DRM to be broken. And they certainly didn't do any pirate copy of the software. Psystar just hacked some drivers into OSX, which I am pretty sure is not covered by DCMA. AFAIK, this case it was a pure EULA violation and no DCMA violation claim was made by Apple.
EULA is a contract. It draws its legals base from an agreement between the parts involved. Certainly one of the parts needs to have some rights over whatever is being used by the other (be it copyright, ownership, etc), but to break the EULA you don't need to violate these rights, which was exactly what happened in PsyStar's case. PsyStar didn't copy Apple's product, they bought every one of the licenses they used. They didn't violate any copyright from Apple, but still they didn't obey the EULA they have agreed upon when they licensed the software.
So, yes, I am pretty sure the case wasn't about copyright, patents or anything remotely associated with suing someone for making a product in the same shape as yours.
That was about customization of MacOS in non Apple Machines and Apple's abusive EULA. PsyStar bough licenses from Apple and used them in a way that broke the EULA. It had nothing to do with copyright.
As far as I know (and I can be wrong on that) Apple has never won any copyright case yet. The maximum it achieved with its patent trolling was temporary injunctions in some markets like Germany and Australia.
There is a MAJOR responsibility-dodging group regarding this matter: Women. If anyone is to blame for the lack of female representatives in CS is the females themselves.
Apparently here in Brazil you are indeed not entitled to royalties in this case anymore. Fortunately.
I bet in US they are though...
The idea is to have routers everywhere and exit nodes in the places where it is more difficult for big brother to reach. Having exit points in high profile targets like political parties (as in the Pirate Party), and countries where the law still protect the right to privacy to a good extent is the ideal topology.
Mapping I/O is a VERY bad way to understand the behavior of an electronic circuit with billions of gates, and the human brain is considerably more complex than that. Even if you don't care about the inner workings and only want to predict the outside behavior of this "circuit", considering tests do not take nanoseconds but at the very least weeks, you probably can't map any significant amount of a single human brain I/Os before the end of the universe. That is certainly not the way to go...
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Very little is known compared to what there is to know. "Much" is a bad word to use in any argument and specially here. By saying "much" you imply that what is known is not insignificant compared to what is yet to be known, which is not true, and that it is enough to reach conclusions like the one in this article, which I strongly disagree with.
Knowing more than we knew yesterday is certainly the right path to understand something [b]eventually[/b]. Jumping to conclusions based in statistical data without having sufficient understanding of the mechanisms that generated this data is wild guessing and not science. That is the realm of today's Psychology and the motive why Academics in this field can't really agree to basically anything, and the same thing may be said about medical research to a lesser degree.
Cosmologists don't go and make affirmations like: "The universe was probably created in the Big Bang.", not even: "There is evidence the universe was created in the Big Bang.". That is frivolous and not science at all. Responsible scientists in areas were ther eis too much unknown, like this just say: "There is a theory called the Big Bang that explains, to a degree, what we have observed. We can't really reach any conclusion at this point if this theory is indeed what happened, but we are investigating this and other possibilities.". The same should apply to medicine and even more to psychology.
Oh, and generally speaking guesses about how other people feel about the subject should have absolute no place in any serious discussion. Nobody in this discussion is acting like he is "personally attacked", and even if someone was that is nobody else's business and it don't make his point more or less valid in the slightest. In this case we just are vehement in our arguments, which is perfectly fine. Anything else you may see is inside your head only, in the same way most of the things these researchers judge to be true probably are in theirs.
The problem is: nobody really understands the machine yet. Which makes most of the "studies" in this area, including this one, just wild assumptions over statistics.
Certainly not the kind of mistakes referred in the article...
Considering how impractical it is to know what people are thinking with any reasonable degree of certainty, especially along a large enough timespan to do any remotely scientific study on the subject I consider my assumption very reasonable. If you can prove me wrong I am all ears though.
Yes you commit more mistakes when you think more about things. Guess what, you also reach a lot more correct conclusions. The best way to avoid making mistakes is not doing anything at all. Same principle.
What I am saying is that if you install (or update) "on demand" you won't have to wait any significant amount of time more in the first time you use the application and a lot less if you account all following uses in comparison with the cloud versions. Storage space for applications is irrelevant these days. Storage space for data, if a problem (which usually is not for office applications) can be solved with remote storage and remote synch even when using local applications. Given the small size of the applications compared with current transfer speeds, there is no clear advantage in time spent, or even availability, in using cloud services, and all the disadvantages I mentioned before still exist.
Just to make it clear. It takes a few seconds to install or update any application I wish in my mobile phone, which is about the same time it takes to start to open, connect and start to use any cloud based application.
Most end users use a small number of applications and seldom have the need to update them. Even if you had to install the applications in a large number of devices you would still have to consume a lot less of bandwidth than you would by using the cloud versions and in the long run you would waste more time by using them. Even if, for some weird motive, you can't know which application you will need installed in your devices beforehand, it is a trivial matter just to install the last version when you need to use it, and most of the times it won't use much more bandwidth than using the remote version for any meaningful amount of time. And please, don't tell me that the space applications use is relevant.