Oh, then I guess if they've linked GPL software into their core products then they're fuxx0red (to put it technically). Maybe that's why they're defending this suit?
Which is pretty much the point I was trying to make. If they had been ripping off Windows then they'd already be dead by now. They can always just come into compliance by releasing the source and hope for the best when it comes to the GPL.
huge resource imbalance makes it wrong for corporations to defend their copyrights?
Of course the fact that the record companies have much better legal representation makes it wrong for them to extort money through pre-settlement letters. The RIAA lawyers are better funded and better informed so it's wrong for them to abuse the legal process to force scared people, a large number of whom have done nothing wrong, to pay up. Their methodology is so flawed that even in cases where someone probably did share some tunes they don't have enough evidence to prove it was the defendant.
Judges in the USA have even gone on record and said exactly that, so hopefully the tide is turning.
No it's not the truth, it's a very bad troll (I mean, feeding your own post? No points for you!).
Are you arguing that/.ers would try to defend someone who ripped off MS code and shipped it in their own product? Or are you muddying up the water when it comes to the whole MPAA/RIAA situation which is itself objectionable for reasons wholly unrelated to whether or not violations took place in particular cases e.g. UMG v Lindor.
There's also alternative views on copyright held by people such as RMS in his Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks and a wide spectrum of other copyright reformists that post here. No position on copyright that I'm aware of is hypocritical in the fashion you describe.
Of course, it's always much easier to fling names around rather than engage with someone who has different ideas. I've at least tried that with you meaning I get the moral high ground and I get to call you a stupid idiot troll.
The fine being, if FSF can show wilful infringement, $150,000 per work. I think (IANAL, obviously) that applies per infringement (i.e. each time it was downloaded from their website / shipped on a router). There are at least 8 programmes named in the FSFs complaint, so that's a potential $1.2m dollars per infringement. Not a fine any company can just brush off.
But make no mistake: Cisco will not be obligated to release anything under the GPL. They always have the option to simply cease distribution of the works in question entirely. Which one is easier for them may be in question, but that's entirely their decision.
Presumably if they don't release they'll also be forced to pay full statutory damages for each infringement, i.e. each time GPL linked code was downloaded. Those kinds of damages are designed to bankrupt companies, they may very well end up in the situation whereby they've got to choose between being bankrupted or just giving away their software.
FSF have already filed suit meaning they're well past the cease-and-desist stage.
They can be forced to stop distributing their products, they can be sued for damages, but under no circumstance can they be forced to turn over code-- though that might be the easiest way to settle the lawsuit.
And also the easiest way to stay in business. If you wind up as a large scale GPL violator then the only sane option is likely to be releasing the code. If it's basically a choice between not distributing the code and going out of business or releasing the code and hoping it's all OK then a company can only really do the latter.
That's fine for hardware companies like Cisco and Nokia who mainly derive value from their hardware but I'm sure it'd kill a proprietary software company.
It conflates the results of several independent tests to form the view that XP is somehow best. It also bandies about meaningless numbers like one OS being x% faster than another without giving any hint of the metric.
Unless you piss off your old customers in the process. Then you're making lots of new customers who quickly get pissed off and join your old customers who are still bitching about how you screwed them over.
When the whole market knows how crap you are then you go bankrupt, although not without first squirreling away large sums of money to run away with!
You could give yourself a hand with a vagina like hole in the palm, for example. You could learn how to open it with thought or manipulate it in other ways and it'd also be useful for holding random things like your phone rather than putting it down, picking something else up, moving that, putting it down and then picking your original item up.
These types of mind-controlled prosthesis are just the beginning. When we know how to link mechanical devices to our brains we can start using alternative limbterfaces (just coined that one!) and training ourselves to use those instead of our familiar arms and legs.
As others have pointed out, your cocaine prohibition is illogical. I'm just going to point out that, actually, cocaine isn't as addictive as is made out and you really can get away with dipping into it every few weeks or so.
Firstly, it places a great strain on your heart so cocaine is a young persons game. As long as it's not cut with something like amphetamine you won't start ranting on about yourself or bouncing around with a memory like a fish. If you see someone taking coke and exhibiting those symptoms, it's most likely been cut.
Cocaine makes you feel like it's the middle of the day, you're wide awake and your at the hight of your perceptive powers. If you're actually in that state you really won't feel much different, in fact I've seen people use very pure cocaine (the cut being small and inactive) and then ask when it's going to start working because they don't feel any different.
Cocaine is a subtle drug that is often ruined and made more dangerous by its adulterants, but that's prohibition for you.
If you let anyone take any antibiotic then the problem is that they'll get a real infection then only take the antibiotic until they feel better. That means the last few remnants of the infection will probably gain resistance and you'll transmit a resistant strain before your body gets rid of the last of it.
That's why antibiotics need to be controlled by doctors, so you can have a little lecture telling you how important it is to finish the whole damned course!
I think a lot of the crime related to the drug industry relates to the fact that drug entrepreneurs cannot depend on the police to defend their property rights with respect to the goods they sell, and are forced to handle their own security.
Which is why even in the UK serious dealers are armed. You can have dealers who you wouldn't think would be anywhere near illegal firearms but, because of the legal climate, they need it. At the very least their business associates need to know that they're armed and for their own sake they need to give out that image.
Guns in the UK are like nukes, you need to have one and give the impression that you'll use it. That's the only way to be secure, that and not dealing with crazy/desperate people who may really use them. Of course, ending prohibition would end that too.
I've known more than a few people who took too much acid and experienced permanent brain damage.
BS. LSD doesn't cause any harmful physical changes.
Do you mean LSD triggered a psychotic break? If so then that's truly sad as that does indeed happen but it also happens from shrooms at a similar rate. You can't be against LSD but not shrooms for that reason.
The unfortunate truth is that some people are just psychotic. Those sort of people seem drawn to drugs; every one I've met has had this impulse that if they just found the right combination of drugs then maybe they wouldn't be so crazy. I don't think there is any combination of chemicals currently in existence that'll do that for them, but that won't stop them looking.
You're completely correct. The idea that dealers try to up-sell is total BS.
Some dealers will sometimes give out first times for free. This will happen on a social basis in the same way that you might give someone a chocolate or a drink they've never had before. If you like it then you buy more.
Just about the only dealers who properly out samples like that are crack dealers. You have to be in pretty dodgy company to start with to end up hanging out with guys who wash up coke so if you walk into a room with a couple of hundred quid don't be surprised if they give you some crack and then, when you're high, offer to sell you lots more.
Most people would then wake up the next day and realise that even though they had the most awesome time ever it just wasn't worth all that money. Addicts like to follow a harder path though.
Cocaine is fairly safe as drugs go and not even that addictive. When you run out it's a total bummer but it's not as bad as an opiate withdrawl and even that isn't as bad as the flu.
Addiction is a choice. You can become physically dependant on something to the extent that it'll kill you to come off it (i.e. alcohol) or it'll just be incredibly uncomfortable to come off it (opiates, the worst part is the constant low-mood that can persist for months afterwards, not the initial shock) but to continue to take drugs you have to continue to make a series of non-trivial choices (getting money, ringing all your dealers, testing the quality of your supply to make sure you're not being ripped off). It's a whole lifestyle that consumes all your time.
Just legalise it all. It's the only sane solution.
You think the current crop of opiate and cocaine barons are bad? If alcohol was banned you would never dare walk the streets ever, the amount of money going to gangsters would be be unheard of in human history.
People like to focus on the lives lost by drugs but for some stupid reason they don't like to think about the lives lost because of the gangsters that are around because of prohibition. It's like how people pick the same set of numbers every week because they couldn't bear it if their numbers came up but, realistically, you have just as much chance to win each week regardless of your numbers. People don't kick themselves because they didn't change their numbers to the winning numbers or, even, because they didn't stop playing the damn lottery because there's almost no chance of winning.
People don't judge risk properly and that's why so many people are convinced drugs are dangerous and can't see how much more dangerous prohibition is.
MacOS X has become self-aware and started hacking minds. The so-called "humans" behind Psystar are in fact early model cyborgs who's first action after being hacked was to file suit; now they're in the public eye they can't just be taken down without causing a fuss.
No doubt section 9 will have to sort this whole mess out.
I remember coding on MacOS 7 and 8 between the ages of 16 to 18 at 6th form. They had the plug socket for each machine near to hand because the iMacs didn't (still don't?) have hard power switches and the lack of memory protection in the OS meant crappy little pascal programmes could bring down the whole machine. Methinks you're looking at the past through rose tinted specs as not even Vista hard crashes like that unless you have a serious POS driver installed.
Also re: the title. MacOS X 7? It was just MacOS back then!
This isn't a question of reverse engineering. The IBM PC was cloned when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS and then licensed DOS from Microsoft. To clone a Mac you'd have to reverse engineer their firmware (probably only as hard as Compaqs' effort) and then make your own MacOS clone (probably about as hard as Wine) because Apple aren't prepared to license MacOS to anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, then I guess if they've linked GPL software into their core products then they're fuxx0red (to put it technically). Maybe that's why they're defending this suit?
Which is pretty much the point I was trying to make. If they had been ripping off Windows then they'd already be dead by now. They can always just come into compliance by releasing the source and hope for the best when it comes to the GPL.
huge resource imbalance makes it wrong for corporations to defend their copyrights?
Of course the fact that the record companies have much better legal representation makes it wrong for them to extort money through pre-settlement letters. The RIAA lawyers are better funded and better informed so it's wrong for them to abuse the legal process to force scared people, a large number of whom have done nothing wrong, to pay up. Their methodology is so flawed that even in cases where someone probably did share some tunes they don't have enough evidence to prove it was the defendant.
Judges in the USA have even gone on record and said exactly that, so hopefully the tide is turning.
No it's not the truth, it's a very bad troll (I mean, feeding your own post? No points for you!).
Are you arguing that /.ers would try to defend someone who ripped off MS code and shipped it in their own product? Or are you muddying up the water when it comes to the whole MPAA/RIAA situation which is itself objectionable for reasons wholly unrelated to whether or not violations took place in particular cases e.g. UMG v Lindor.
There's also alternative views on copyright held by people such as RMS in his Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks and a wide spectrum of other copyright reformists that post here. No position on copyright that I'm aware of is hypocritical in the fashion you describe.
Of course, it's always much easier to fling names around rather than engage with someone who has different ideas. I've at least tried that with you meaning I get the moral high ground and I get to call you a stupid idiot troll.
If they loose then they will pay the fine
The fine being, if FSF can show wilful infringement, $150,000 per work. I think (IANAL, obviously) that applies per infringement (i.e. each time it was downloaded from their website / shipped on a router). There are at least 8 programmes named in the FSFs complaint, so that's a potential $1.2m dollars per infringement. Not a fine any company can just brush off.
But make no mistake: Cisco will not be obligated to release anything under the GPL. They always have the option to simply cease distribution of the works in question entirely. Which one is easier for them may be in question, but that's entirely their decision.
Presumably if they don't release they'll also be forced to pay full statutory damages for each infringement, i.e. each time GPL linked code was downloaded. Those kinds of damages are designed to bankrupt companies, they may very well end up in the situation whereby they've got to choose between being bankrupted or just giving away their software.
FSF have already filed suit meaning they're well past the cease-and-desist stage.
They can be forced to stop distributing their products, they can be sued for damages, but under no circumstance can they be forced to turn over code-- though that might be the easiest way to settle the lawsuit.
And also the easiest way to stay in business. If you wind up as a large scale GPL violator then the only sane option is likely to be releasing the code. If it's basically a choice between not distributing the code and going out of business or releasing the code and hoping it's all OK then a company can only really do the latter.
That's fine for hardware companies like Cisco and Nokia who mainly derive value from their hardware but I'm sure it'd kill a proprietary software company.
Not an issue? So, where's your laptop with its infinite battery?
It conflates the results of several independent tests to form the view that XP is somehow best. It also bandies about meaningless numbers like one OS being x% faster than another without giving any hint of the metric.
Avoid.
Unless you piss off your old customers in the process. Then you're making lots of new customers who quickly get pissed off and join your old customers who are still bitching about how you screwed them over.
When the whole market knows how crap you are then you go bankrupt, although not without first squirreling away large sums of money to run away with!
You could give yourself a hand with a vagina like hole in the palm, for example. You could learn how to open it with thought or manipulate it in other ways and it'd also be useful for holding random things like your phone rather than putting it down, picking something else up, moving that, putting it down and then picking your original item up.
These types of mind-controlled prosthesis are just the beginning. When we know how to link mechanical devices to our brains we can start using alternative limbterfaces (just coined that one!) and training ourselves to use those instead of our familiar arms and legs.
As others have pointed out, your cocaine prohibition is illogical. I'm just going to point out that, actually, cocaine isn't as addictive as is made out and you really can get away with dipping into it every few weeks or so.
Firstly, it places a great strain on your heart so cocaine is a young persons game. As long as it's not cut with something like amphetamine you won't start ranting on about yourself or bouncing around with a memory like a fish. If you see someone taking coke and exhibiting those symptoms, it's most likely been cut.
Cocaine makes you feel like it's the middle of the day, you're wide awake and your at the hight of your perceptive powers. If you're actually in that state you really won't feel much different, in fact I've seen people use very pure cocaine (the cut being small and inactive) and then ask when it's going to start working because they don't feel any different.
Cocaine is a subtle drug that is often ruined and made more dangerous by its adulterants, but that's prohibition for you.
If you let anyone take any antibiotic then the problem is that they'll get a real infection then only take the antibiotic until they feel better. That means the last few remnants of the infection will probably gain resistance and you'll transmit a resistant strain before your body gets rid of the last of it.
That's why antibiotics need to be controlled by doctors, so you can have a little lecture telling you how important it is to finish the whole damned course!
I think a lot of the crime related to the drug industry relates to the fact that drug entrepreneurs cannot depend on the police to defend their property rights with respect to the goods they sell, and are forced to handle their own security.
Which is why even in the UK serious dealers are armed. You can have dealers who you wouldn't think would be anywhere near illegal firearms but, because of the legal climate, they need it. At the very least their business associates need to know that they're armed and for their own sake they need to give out that image.
Guns in the UK are like nukes, you need to have one and give the impression that you'll use it. That's the only way to be secure, that and not dealing with crazy/desperate people who may really use them. Of course, ending prohibition would end that too.
I've known more than a few people who took too much acid and experienced permanent brain damage.
BS. LSD doesn't cause any harmful physical changes.
Do you mean LSD triggered a psychotic break? If so then that's truly sad as that does indeed happen but it also happens from shrooms at a similar rate. You can't be against LSD but not shrooms for that reason.
The unfortunate truth is that some people are just psychotic. Those sort of people seem drawn to drugs; every one I've met has had this impulse that if they just found the right combination of drugs then maybe they wouldn't be so crazy. I don't think there is any combination of chemicals currently in existence that'll do that for them, but that won't stop them looking.
You're completely correct. The idea that dealers try to up-sell is total BS.
Some dealers will sometimes give out first times for free. This will happen on a social basis in the same way that you might give someone a chocolate or a drink they've never had before. If you like it then you buy more.
Just about the only dealers who properly out samples like that are crack dealers. You have to be in pretty dodgy company to start with to end up hanging out with guys who wash up coke so if you walk into a room with a couple of hundred quid don't be surprised if they give you some crack and then, when you're high, offer to sell you lots more.
Most people would then wake up the next day and realise that even though they had the most awesome time ever it just wasn't worth all that money. Addicts like to follow a harder path though.
Cocaine is fairly safe as drugs go and not even that addictive. When you run out it's a total bummer but it's not as bad as an opiate withdrawl and even that isn't as bad as the flu.
Addiction is a choice. You can become physically dependant on something to the extent that it'll kill you to come off it (i.e. alcohol) or it'll just be incredibly uncomfortable to come off it (opiates, the worst part is the constant low-mood that can persist for months afterwards, not the initial shock) but to continue to take drugs you have to continue to make a series of non-trivial choices (getting money, ringing all your dealers, testing the quality of your supply to make sure you're not being ripped off). It's a whole lifestyle that consumes all your time.
Just legalise it all. It's the only sane solution.
You think the current crop of opiate and cocaine barons are bad? If alcohol was banned you would never dare walk the streets ever, the amount of money going to gangsters would be be unheard of in human history.
People like to focus on the lives lost by drugs but for some stupid reason they don't like to think about the lives lost because of the gangsters that are around because of prohibition. It's like how people pick the same set of numbers every week because they couldn't bear it if their numbers came up but, realistically, you have just as much chance to win each week regardless of your numbers. People don't kick themselves because they didn't change their numbers to the winning numbers or, even, because they didn't stop playing the damn lottery because there's almost no chance of winning.
People don't judge risk properly and that's why so many people are convinced drugs are dangerous and can't see how much more dangerous prohibition is.
Really doesn't. Opiates are opiates, and heroin was widely used before prohibition was introduced in the 20th century.
MacOS X has become self-aware and started hacking minds. The so-called "humans" behind Psystar are in fact early model cyborgs who's first action after being hacked was to file suit; now they're in the public eye they can't just be taken down without causing a fuss.
No doubt section 9 will have to sort this whole mess out.
I remember coding on MacOS 7 and 8 between the ages of 16 to 18 at 6th form. They had the plug socket for each machine near to hand because the iMacs didn't (still don't?) have hard power switches and the lack of memory protection in the OS meant crappy little pascal programmes could bring down the whole machine. Methinks you're looking at the past through rose tinted specs as not even Vista hard crashes like that unless you have a serious POS driver installed.
Also re: the title. MacOS X 7? It was just MacOS back then!
won't someone think of fucking the consumer?
There, fixed that for you.
~Microsoft
So does that mean Microsoft are just a bunch of whores?
Gates and Ballmer plying their trade... oh christ what an image! Thank god it's Friday, I'm gonna have to down all this vodka to get rid of that one!
This isn't a question of reverse engineering. The IBM PC was cloned when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS and then licensed DOS from Microsoft. To clone a Mac you'd have to reverse engineer their firmware (probably only as hard as Compaqs' effort) and then make your own MacOS clone (probably about as hard as Wine) because Apple aren't prepared to license MacOS to anyone else.
I hate it when people reply to the first non first post post just to get extra visibility, it's one of the worst forms of karma whoring.
Thankfully it's got a funny mod but still, it looks annoying.
I appreciate this game has major issues but there's no need to exaggerate, it makes your other points seem invalid.