I agree that, with the exception of the hereditary rump in the Lords, none of these things actively interfere particularly with the democratic process, but the potential is there. It would be better to have rid of the lot.
Arguably, having one section of Government be based in heridity is a good thing, as it allows them to make their decisions based on what is right, rather than what will win votes.
I agree the system looks disagreeable on paper, but it seems to work reasonably well in practice.
While there were autocratic episodes (generally by those who turned away from the Church), the rule of the Empire was generally benign and the spiritual well-being of the people was much higher than now, when now much of Greece is experiencing an existential crisis from the empty values imported from the West.
The separation of Church and State does not remove the former's role as a spiritual leader, merely its ability to be a spiritual dictator.
If I spend a month recording music, then it's a month I haven't spent bolting antennas to buildings, and therefore it's a month I've worked that I haven't been paid for.
On the flipside, you (or your estate) can now charge anyone for the result of that one month of work until 95 years after your death. So, if it's popular, one month of work could quite conceivably mean you'll never have to work again. How is that fair to everyone else ?
I can understand why people riding the copyright gravy train don't want to get off, but to suggest the system isn't obscenely biased in favour of "content creators" is ridiculous on its face.
And here I was, thinking that people were endowed with certain inalienable rights nautrally. I guess I'm just getting old with this "natural rights" voodoo.
"Natural rights" sounds nice in a speech, but out in the real world there ain't no such thing.
Maybe, just maybe, Apple adopted the TPM module because they want to prevent people from running OS X on commodity hardware. That was the override and exclusive motivation behind the move.
Many would argue that *is* restricting their rights.
For example, I have an unused copy of OS X for Intel here. Why shouldn't I be allowed to (try) and run it on any computer I want ?
That's because you need a hardware dongle from Apple to run it.
It's really quite nice. Compared to Vista and its high prices, draconian EULA, separate purchase required for 64-bit support, and bloated system requirements, Leopard makes Vista look amateur.
It's nice to know that they still use the firmware heavily restricted optical drives. (For those of us who are regular Mac users, and still want to regularly watch multiregion DVDs.)
I've always wondered if, in countries where region-coding is considered anti-competitive (eg: Australia), you can use uo your 5 region changes and then legitimately return the laptop as "broken"...
The density of the 160GB 5400rpm model, which wasn't available in quantity when the first generation MBP came out, is high enough that performance is really, really close to the 100GB 7200rpm models. My MBP averages about 44MB/s write flat-out... the Seagate 5400.3, according to this, will do over 41. Read speeds are similarly close. If you're really pushing the disk subsystem so hard that you'll notice that difference, do yourself a favor and use the new FW800 port.
It's the latency benefit I'm more interested in that transfer rates.
I second the request for 1680x1050. (1920x1200 would just be too much on 15.4".) The faster video cards would probably cause heat issues; all the laptops available with them are thicker and heavier.
The heat issues from faster video cards could be easily handled (IMHO) with dynamic clock adjustment.
For the 12" the MacBook, unlike what we're used to with iBooks, is a legitimate performer unless you need 3D graphics. I'd like an even smaller model, and the option for discrete graphics in the black MB.
Unfortunately the Black MB does _not_ have a discrete video card. Why Apple didn't do that, with the perfect opportunity for distinction via the colour and otherwise inexplicable higher price - especially when they must have known there would be no 12" PB replacement - is a bit of a mystery.
What I really want can't be provided by Apple... a fast 320GB notebook drive. That would change my life.
I must admit I've never seen the point of huge amounts of local storage in a laptop (or any standalone PC, for that matter). If you want lots of space, you're far better off putting it into a separate machine.
* An option for a 7200rpm hard disk (except the "aircraft carrier" model
* A option for a faster video card
* Higher screen resolution
* A docking station
* A 12"-ish variant
Personally I consider these significant omissions for a machine touted as being a top-of-the-line "Professional" laptop.
On the flipside, it's *great* to see Apple throwing in 2G RAM standard, except in the bottom-end model.
On the wishlist, I'd _love_ to see a laptop that can drive two external screens.
(I'll probably still get work to buy me one, though, then I can get my OS X fix on someone else's tab.)
I don't have to give those explanations, because it's obvious that without IP the movie would either be made differently, or not at all. As for why it's obvious, well even the homeless know people are pirating movies, and in the history of the arts, there's never been funding for frivolous, hugely expensive entertainment productions for the masses. I'm giving you and others the benefit of intelligence.
You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your arguments that movies can only be made with the existence of IP. Not a bit. Not even a hint of logic, or a rational argument. All you've said (in various ways) is "without IP, big movies can't be made".
I *know* the reasoning you're using - the if people can download movies they won't see them in the cinemas - but it has been disproven numerous times. This is why any data showing the people who download movies never go to see them in the cinema would be helpful to your argument. Because *without* any such evidence, you're just waving your arms around yelling "it's true because I say it's true".
For the drugs, I have no doubt you know all about how when patents expire on drugs the profits drop as generics become available.
Yes. And you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your implications that a) the cost of developing a new drug cannot be recovered before generic brands hit the market and b) that sufficient drug research can come from sources other than for-profit private industry.
BS. I never said that's the only way it can work, and that's now how I mean my arguments to be taken.
I challenge you to reference any of your prior posts in this thread that have an argument that does *not* rely on proof by assertion.
I'm pointing out the effects a non-IP world would have on the IP-production industries in place today.
No, you're pointing out what *you* think will happen, without *anything* to support your conclusions.
That is not "reasonable". In fact, it totally screws many independent software developers. For example, if you have a piece of software with a driver that gets frequently updated, do they really expect you to get every one tested and signed by MS? This is their way of making money and locking out smaller software companies.
Maybe those small developers should write their code properly so such frequent updates aren't necessary ?
I don't see how it helps security, anyway. If something has gotten to the point where it's trying to install some infected driver, aren't you already screwed?
Only if it actually succeeds in doing so.
This is like saying "what is the point of write permissions ? Surely if something has gotten to the point where it's trying to write to a file, you're screwed anyway."
Does it really matter that the virus code isn't allowed to run in kernel mode?
True, but irrelevant. Microsoft prices the Xbox on the expectation that I'll buy lots of games for it, rather than use it as a media center PC. NBC "prices" broadcast TV at $0 on the expectation that I'll watch the commercials. There's no legal or ethical obligation to use a product as the manufacturer "expects".
And exactly the same applies to Windows 'updgrade versions'. Your are just as free to use them without an existing Windows license - or with an illegitimate one - as you are OS X.
You will be using it legally all right. You may be violating a valid civil contract imposed by a Eula. They are not the same thing! There is nothing illegal about violating a civil contract, though it may be unwise and expose you to civil penalties.
This may (or may not - depending on your locality, I'd imagine) be true, but it doesn't change the rationale behind OS X's pricing and licensing structure.
If you're running OS X, Apple expect you to be running it on a Mac and price appropriately. Given the number of people who run OS X, but not on Macs, is vanishingly small at this stage, arguing Apple don't price OS X as an upgrade is specious, at best.
That was 8 years ago and people were desperate to get off of 95.
No, they weren't. Indeed, the take-up of Windows 98 could only be described - generously - as "sluggish".
Slashdot, at the time, was overjoyed at how poorly received Windows 98 was, considering it another sign of Microsoft's downfall and using it as another example of how Linux on everyone's desktop was only 12 months away...
That's the big question. I'm looking at the EULA of my 'Retail box' copy of 10.4, and it says nothing about requiring a valid license from an older version of the Mac OS. Windows 'Upgrade' EULAs state this. They require a legally valid existing license for a prior version of Windows. The OS X license merely states that you must have an 'Apple-labeled' computer; but declines to define 'Apple-labeled'.
That's because it's implied. If you have a Mac, you have a MacOS license.
There is no equivalent to Windows. It's trivial to buy PCs without Windows. Thus, Microsoft have "full" versions for OS-less PCs and an 'upgrade' for PCs already running Windows.
All Macs are already running MacOS. Ergo, all retail versions are upgrades (if used legally).
He means if you install your store-bought copy of OS X (legally) then you've already paid for a MacOS license.
So if I go out and buy Mac OS X 104 I can't reformat my Macs hard drive and the install my brand new operating system? BTW this is a rhetorical question since I have done exactly that. Every single major version of the Mac OS X has been available as a full retail copy and does not require an existing version of the Mac OS X to actually install it.
That's irrelevant. The point is if you're installing OS X legally, you've already paid Apple for a previous version of OS X.
Seems rather bizarre for him to go back 10 years when Netscape creamed Internet Explorer in terms of user-base. Wasn't it only later that they decided to bundle IE with Windows for free (version 3?), and therefore dominate the market by default?
No, it was later when IE4 came out and creamed Navigator in pretty much every way imaginable that people started downloading it in droves to use instead.
IE defeated Navigator with IE4, *before* it was integrated into the OS.
There could have been a whole host of interesting answers - no for technical reasons, no for legal reasons, no for idelogical reasons. Instead we got a crappy answer from a manager not a human:(
Just because the answer was "no, because it makes no business sense" does not make it any less accurate or reasonable than "no, because other OSes can't do $FOO".
Specifically for blockbuster movies, I did mention Terminator 4. I'm not going to cite studies or surveys attempting to prove the National Endowment for the Arts wouldn't fund it if it were up to them, because there are no studies.
Right. Except you didn't explain a) why Terminator 4 couldn't have been made regardless, nor b) why not having Terminator 4 would be a bad thing, nor c) why the same movie simply couldn't have been made cheaper.
With respect to drug research and software development, I also gave my logic as to why.
No, you didn't. All you did was this:
If IP isn't respected, it won't be profittable for corporations to spend multi-millions discovering new drugs [...]
(Or various equivalents thereof.)
Which is, basically, just saying "that's the way it is now, so that's the only way it can be". Or, to get back to what I was saying originally, "it's true because I say it is" - ie: proof by assertion.
This does not present a convincing argument. It's like this rock I have that keeps tigers away.
This is slashdot, not your debate class.
I've never participated in "debate class". Quite frankly I find formalized debating to be little more than intellectual masturbation, with zero focus on actually *identifying and addressing problems* and, hence, roughly zero usefulness in the real world.
Assertions backed by general logic with less-than-bulletproof evidence is the usual.
Except you haven't even gotten that far. You haven't provided any rough logic, let alone anything formal. You haven't provided evidence that might pass a quick, informal glance, let alone actual examination. You've barely even provided _reasoning_, because everything that vaguely leans towards justification for your assertions is a straw man. Basically, all you've said is (paraphrasing):
"The world would fall apart without draconian IP laws because I think that's the only way it can work."
The only logic there is circular. Kind of like that old mainstay "the law is right because breaking the law is wrong".
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that, with the exception of the hereditary rump in the Lords, none of these things actively interfere particularly with the democratic process, but the potential is there. It would be better to have rid of the lot.
Arguably, having one section of Government be based in heridity is a good thing, as it allows them to make their decisions based on what is right, rather than what will win votes.
I agree the system looks disagreeable on paper, but it seems to work reasonably well in practice.
While there were autocratic episodes (generally by those who turned away from the Church), the rule of the Empire was generally benign and the spiritual well-being of the people was much higher than now, when now much of Greece is experiencing an existential crisis from the empty values imported from the West.
The separation of Church and State does not remove the former's role as a spiritual leader, merely its ability to be a spiritual dictator.
Do you know how much money artists make from recordings? It's in the order of a few pennies in the pound. The rest goes to the record companies.
That's why I wrote "content creators". Note the ""s.
My argument (and point) does not change simply because of who happens to "own" the copyright.
If I spend a month recording music, then it's a month I haven't spent bolting antennas to buildings, and therefore it's a month I've worked that I haven't been paid for.
On the flipside, you (or your estate) can now charge anyone for the result of that one month of work until 95 years after your death. So, if it's popular, one month of work could quite conceivably mean you'll never have to work again. How is that fair to everyone else ?
I can understand why people riding the copyright gravy train don't want to get off, but to suggest the system isn't obscenely biased in favour of "content creators" is ridiculous on its face.
And here I was, thinking that people were endowed with certain inalienable rights nautrally. I guess I'm just getting old with this "natural rights" voodoo.
"Natural rights" sounds nice in a speech, but out in the real world there ain't no such thing.
Maybe, just maybe, Apple adopted the TPM module because they want to prevent people from running OS X on commodity hardware. That was the override and exclusive motivation behind the move.
Many would argue that *is* restricting their rights.
For example, I have an unused copy of OS X for Intel here. Why shouldn't I be allowed to (try) and run it on any computer I want ?
Mac OS X requires no serial number or activation.
That's because you need a hardware dongle from Apple to run it.
It's really quite nice. Compared to Vista and its high prices, draconian EULA, separate purchase required for 64-bit support, and bloated system requirements, Leopard makes Vista look amateur.
FUD.
It's nice to know that they still use the firmware heavily restricted optical drives. (For those of us who are regular Mac users, and still want to regularly watch multiregion DVDs.)
I've always wondered if, in countries where region-coding is considered anti-competitive (eg: Australia), you can use uo your 5 region changes and then legitimately return the laptop as "broken"...
BookEndz makes some port replicators, but they're really not that impressive.
Particularly considering the price. That's some serious money for a device that could only described as "barely adequate".
The density of the 160GB 5400rpm model, which wasn't available in quantity when the first generation MBP came out, is high enough that performance is really, really close to the 100GB 7200rpm models. My MBP averages about 44MB/s write flat-out... the Seagate 5400.3, according to this, will do over 41. Read speeds are similarly close. If you're really pushing the disk subsystem so hard that you'll notice that difference, do yourself a favor and use the new FW800 port.
It's the latency benefit I'm more interested in that transfer rates.
I second the request for 1680x1050. (1920x1200 would just be too much on 15.4".) The faster video cards would probably cause heat issues; all the laptops available with them are thicker and heavier.
The heat issues from faster video cards could be easily handled (IMHO) with dynamic clock adjustment.
For the 12" the MacBook, unlike what we're used to with iBooks, is a legitimate performer unless you need 3D graphics. I'd like an even smaller model, and the option for discrete graphics in the black MB.
Unfortunately the Black MB does _not_ have a discrete video card. Why Apple didn't do that, with the perfect opportunity for distinction via the colour and otherwise inexplicable higher price - especially when they must have known there would be no 12" PB replacement - is a bit of a mystery.
What I really want can't be provided by Apple... a fast 320GB notebook drive. That would change my life.
I must admit I've never seen the point of huge amounts of local storage in a laptop (or any standalone PC, for that matter). If you want lots of space, you're far better off putting it into a separate machine.
That the MBP doesn't have:
* An option for a 7200rpm hard disk (except the "aircraft carrier" model
* A option for a faster video card
* Higher screen resolution
* A docking station
* A 12"-ish variant
Personally I consider these significant omissions for a machine touted as being a top-of-the-line "Professional" laptop.
On the flipside, it's *great* to see Apple throwing in 2G RAM standard, except in the bottom-end model.
On the wishlist, I'd _love_ to see a laptop that can drive two external screens.
(I'll probably still get work to buy me one, though, then I can get my OS X fix on someone else's tab.)
I don't have to give those explanations, because it's obvious that without IP the movie would either be made differently, or not at all. As for why it's obvious, well even the homeless know people are pirating movies, and in the history of the arts, there's never been funding for frivolous, hugely expensive entertainment productions for the masses. I'm giving you and others the benefit of intelligence.
You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your arguments that movies can only be made with the existence of IP. Not a bit. Not even a hint of logic, or a rational argument. All you've said (in various ways) is "without IP, big movies can't be made".
I *know* the reasoning you're using - the if people can download movies they won't see them in the cinemas - but it has been disproven numerous times. This is why any data showing the people who download movies never go to see them in the cinema would be helpful to your argument. Because *without* any such evidence, you're just waving your arms around yelling "it's true because I say it's true".
For the drugs, I have no doubt you know all about how when patents expire on drugs the profits drop as generics become available.
Yes. And you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your implications that a) the cost of developing a new drug cannot be recovered before generic brands hit the market and b) that sufficient drug research can come from sources other than for-profit private industry.
BS. I never said that's the only way it can work, and that's now how I mean my arguments to be taken.
I challenge you to reference any of your prior posts in this thread that have an argument that does *not* rely on proof by assertion.
I'm pointing out the effects a non-IP world would have on the IP-production industries in place today.
No, you're pointing out what *you* think will happen, without *anything* to support your conclusions.
That is not "reasonable". In fact, it totally screws many independent software developers. For example, if you have a piece of software with a driver that gets frequently updated, do they really expect you to get every one tested and signed by MS? This is their way of making money and locking out smaller software companies.
Maybe those small developers should write their code properly so such frequent updates aren't necessary ?
I don't see how it helps security, anyway. If something has gotten to the point where it's trying to install some infected driver, aren't you already screwed?
Only if it actually succeeds in doing so.
This is like saying "what is the point of write permissions ? Surely if something has gotten to the point where it's trying to write to a file, you're screwed anyway."
Does it really matter that the virus code isn't allowed to run in kernel mode?
It does when you're talking about rootkits.
True, but irrelevant. Microsoft prices the Xbox on the expectation that I'll buy lots of games for it, rather than use it as a media center PC. NBC "prices" broadcast TV at $0 on the expectation that I'll watch the commercials. There's no legal or ethical obligation to use a product as the manufacturer "expects".
And exactly the same applies to Windows 'updgrade versions'. Your are just as free to use them without an existing Windows license - or with an illegitimate one - as you are OS X.
You will be using it legally all right. You may be violating a valid civil contract imposed by a Eula. They are not the same thing! There is nothing illegal about violating a civil contract, though it may be unwise and expose you to civil penalties.
This may (or may not - depending on your locality, I'd imagine) be true, but it doesn't change the rationale behind OS X's pricing and licensing structure.
If you're running OS X, Apple expect you to be running it on a Mac and price appropriately. Given the number of people who run OS X, but not on Macs, is vanishingly small at this stage, arguing Apple don't price OS X as an upgrade is specious, at best.
IE7 will be installed almoust every windows machine because it will come as security update.
Thus far, IE requires a "genuine" version of Windows to install, so it certainly isn't going to be delivered like that.
That was 8 years ago and people were desperate to get off of 95.
No, they weren't. Indeed, the take-up of Windows 98 could only be described - generously - as "sluggish".
Slashdot, at the time, was overjoyed at how poorly received Windows 98 was, considering it another sign of Microsoft's downfall and using it as another example of how Linux on everyone's desktop was only 12 months away...
That's the big question. I'm looking at the EULA of my 'Retail box' copy of 10.4, and it says nothing about requiring a valid license from an older version of the Mac OS. Windows 'Upgrade' EULAs state this. They require a legally valid existing license for a prior version of Windows. The OS X license merely states that you must have an 'Apple-labeled' computer; but declines to define 'Apple-labeled'.
That's because it's implied. If you have a Mac, you have a MacOS license.
There is no equivalent to Windows. It's trivial to buy PCs without Windows. Thus, Microsoft have "full" versions for OS-less PCs and an 'upgrade' for PCs already running Windows.
All Macs are already running MacOS. Ergo, all retail versions are upgrades (if used legally).
Please elaborate on how the "retail" box is what most people thing as an "upgrade."
It requires you already own a MacOS license to use it (legally).
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
He means if you install your store-bought copy of OS X (legally) then you've already paid for a MacOS license.
So if I go out and buy Mac OS X 104 I can't reformat my Macs hard drive and the install my brand new operating system? BTW this is a rhetorical question since I have done exactly that. Every single major version of the Mac OS X has been available as a full retail copy and does not require an existing version of the Mac OS X to actually install it.
That's irrelevant. The point is if you're installing OS X legally, you've already paid Apple for a previous version of OS X.
Seems rather bizarre for him to go back 10 years when Netscape creamed Internet Explorer in terms of user-base. Wasn't it only later that they decided to bundle IE with Windows for free (version 3?), and therefore dominate the market by default?
No, it was later when IE4 came out and creamed Navigator in pretty much every way imaginable that people started downloading it in droves to use instead.
IE defeated Navigator with IE4, *before* it was integrated into the OS.
Ever tried to update your copy of WinXP with Firefox?
Start -> Control Panel -> Automatic Updates.
Alternatively, download all the hotfixes from microsoft.com manually and run them.
Not happening. So really your choice is to have IE alone, or to have IE and the browser of your choice that you use most of the time.
In other words you only use IE when you want to, or when functional requirements demand it.
*WOW*. That means IE is *just like every other piece of software*.
There could have been a whole host of interesting answers - no for technical reasons, no for legal reasons, no for idelogical reasons. Instead we got a crappy answer from a manager not a human :(
Just because the answer was "no, because it makes no business sense" does not make it any less accurate or reasonable than "no, because other OSes can't do $FOO".
I can't even start to fathom what the mind that thinks this is like.
That would be the mind of an ideal capitalist.
Specifically for blockbuster movies, I did mention Terminator 4. I'm not going to cite studies or surveys attempting to prove the National Endowment for the Arts wouldn't fund it if it were up to them, because there are no studies.
Right. Except you didn't explain a) why Terminator 4 couldn't have been made regardless, nor b) why not having Terminator 4 would be a bad thing, nor c) why the same movie simply couldn't have been made cheaper.
With respect to drug research and software development, I also gave my logic as to why.
No, you didn't. All you did was this:
(Or various equivalents thereof.)
Which is, basically, just saying "that's the way it is now, so that's the only way it can be". Or, to get back to what I was saying originally, "it's true because I say it is" - ie: proof by assertion.
This does not present a convincing argument. It's like this rock I have that keeps tigers away.
This is slashdot, not your debate class.
I've never participated in "debate class". Quite frankly I find formalized debating to be little more than intellectual masturbation, with zero focus on actually *identifying and addressing problems* and, hence, roughly zero usefulness in the real world.
Assertions backed by general logic with less-than-bulletproof evidence is the usual.
Except you haven't even gotten that far. You haven't provided any rough logic, let alone anything formal. You haven't provided evidence that might pass a quick, informal glance, let alone actual examination. You've barely even provided _reasoning_, because everything that vaguely leans towards justification for your assertions is a straw man. Basically, all you've said is (paraphrasing):
"The world would fall apart without draconian IP laws because I think that's the only way it can work."
The only logic there is circular. Kind of like that old mainstay "the law is right because breaking the law is wrong".