The section of the EULA you're complaining about is printed on the outside of the box... The typeface is reasonably large.
The car analogy is broken (they pretty much always are) and yes, I take full responsibility as I did it first (I was actually making a joke - but clearly I failed).
But you never lose the right to say "stuff that" and not buy the product - just because you don't like the deal offered doesn't mean you have the right to ignore the terms! If I create something, and say "you must x to have my product" you've got a choice: "Do x" or walk away... You don't get the right to have the product just because you want it!
And if you do, I want a Ferrari (I just happen to think the price is unreasonable).
It's only 40% transparent - the effect would be to render the e-ink unreadable (or near unreadable). While I think it's fantastically cool, I can't think of a single good use for the technology. I can think of a couple of bad ones:
Make it a touch screen, and put it on the door of your microwave oven - now you don't need the panel to the side... still need to put that volume somewhere (that's where the "guts of the microwave are").
Did I say a couple? I meant one - really weak idea. But yeah it's cool.
For a laptop? Total nonstarter... do I really want everyone to see what I've got on my screen?! (No, not all the time)
Err, who really wants their computer to last forever? (Hell I won't last FOREVER) What's really wanted is a reasonable life expectancy, AND the ability to take my junk off the computer and onto my next computer (where it must make some sense).
Mac OS X does that (even if my next computer isn't a Mac). Now you could argue that Linux does that (and I'll concede the point). What you probably don't do is buy from a company that is sure to get sued into oblivion (that's just not smart).
Since when did the creator of something have no right to say how their product can be used?! Microsoft sell academic versions of some of their stuff... How is this different? All Apple have done is say: Macs come with Mac OS X, and Mac OS X can only (legally) be used on Macs. Apple don't sell Mac OS X on it's own (they sell upgrades... but that's a different thing). Microsoft sell OEM versions of Windows - is that different?! Even the GPL (maybe I should say "Especially the GPL"?) makes stipulations as to what you can and can't do - ignore those at your peril! If I create something, I should be allowed any license I feel appropriate. I don't see how Windows users or Linux users can argue (I should know - I use all three). I wouldn't want to be told that Linux couldn't enforce the GPL, or that Microsoft couldn't distribute with a PC (no OEM pricing).
Err, what?! Apple "fanbois" pay money to Apple, abide by the EULA - why would Apple want to screw them over?! You're not thinking.
I adore the way people on your side are so "self righteous", let's look at the facts:
Psystar sold PCs, with some software derived from Open Source, with Apple's upgrade version of their OS, thumbing their nose at the EULA, and argued because you COULD do it, then it SHOULD be legal. How the heck they ever thought that was going to fly I'll never understand. And no it wasn't a "full version" of the OS - you obtain the right to run Mac OS X when you buy a Mac, and at no other time, so unless there was a Mac in the box too (wiped) I don't see how they ever thought it was going to be "OK".
You're right companies exist to make money, Apple "cares" about it's customers because it knows that doing this will mean they'll return to buy more product. Yes, they'll even be happy to pay a little more for it. This is a recipe for success that the rest of the industry seems to have forgotten, in their "race to the bottom" they've cut everything. You want a decent PC? You probably need to build it yourself, because you buy one prebuilt it'll have horrible build quality and more bloatware than any sane person can stand. You build it yourself, you get to choose the quality (maybe a keyboard that isn't totally horrible). I mean think about a new PC, what's the first thing you need to do? Burn a set of recovery disks - what the hell?! How much does not supplying a restore DVD actually save? You pay more for the blank media!
So let's not talk nonsense, if you know nothing about computers, don't want to build one, but actually want something nice - a Mac is probably your best bet. That horrible Psystar? No so much.
If we're being pedantic (and I guess I started it) then it's accepted usage to talk of "stealing someone else's work" when what's actually meant it passing it off as your own (rather than depriving the originator of the work itself).
I'd agree "stealing" in this sense it's the same as taking a physical object, but you are still obtaining something you don't have rightful claim over. You could argue that has this code has a cost (someone's time) then it must have a monetary value, so appropriating it without consent IS stealing.
My understanding is the distinction is only relevant for English Law - where theft involves depriving the owner - other definitions seem to be far more broad. (I'm English - so my understanding of your laws maybe in error)
I kinda remember Microsoft themselves talk about people "stealing" Windows. Technically "stealing" isn't the correct word, it's like riding a train without a ticket, or sneaking into a ballgame. However you slice it then it's wrong. This is far simpler it's plagiarism. Of course, if the code had come from Windows then Microsoft would call it "stealing".
I wonder what they called it when the did it to Stac? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics)
"The Myth of Fingerprints" - Paul Simon, right? As far as I understand it they only use a few "distinguishing features" anyway - and they allow for damage to those (like a cut). However, the point is that it's hard to predict what will "fool the scanner" and what won't. If you don't know which "distinguishing features" it's looking for what do you change? Even harder is to get the scanner to give a false hit on someone else's finger print data (so you can pretend to be them).
As evidence at a crime scene I think finger prints are far more suspect than they might at first appear.
I wasn't attempting to justify which project is more worthy - for the record, I think folding@home is more useful. Not least as it seems to have more chance of success.
But this is a personal view, and as such we might not agree with HOW the 5000 computer's idle time was used - but the fact that the same use for a different purpose would have been accepted seems to show that all he can really be guilty of is questionable judgement. I'm also pretty sure that there will be others who think that proving aliens exist is pretty important (well let's be honest here - such a revelation would alter our view of ourselves, and our place in the universe - you could also argue that this itself might lead to the saving of many lives).
But yeah, I'd take the cure for cancer too... (Though I do already believe in aliens - how else do you explain Dennis Rodman?)
Yeah, but power consumption and performance kinda go hand in hand (for a given generation of CPUs). The big hungry ones tend to have better performance.
Of course, it's never really been seen as much of an issue - till now. I'll admit I'm at a bit of a loss to know how to factor in power consumption, but I'd guess that my "stick to the middle" probably still applies. (This is a guess)
You've got a point there. To be honest, all this nonsense about a screen saver seems over the top. Though 5000 systems means even a little extra power has to add up.
I wonder if the problem wasn't him trying to prove aliens existed, schools can be weird on religious grounds - is that a subtext here?
Buying the lowest-power CPUs?! Are you absolutely sure about that? This seems like REALLY bad advice. Needs always rise (ALWAYS) to what "gets the job done" today won't tomorrow. This advice is a crock of ****, always was. You want to be efficient? Buy systems from the middle, not the slowest, and not the fastest. The middle is usually the right choice. The slow ones will have short lives (and replacing machines is expensive - not just in machine costs) the fastest machines cost a fortune (and there is always diminishing returns at the top end).
Now like all rules, it's there to be broken. If you don't expect the system to have a long life - consider cheaper (typical examples are harsh environments). If replacing the system is really expensive (because downtime is a problem, expensive specialists are required whatever) then consider something more expensive.
But always buying the cheapest is just bad advice.
Now THIS is an interesting observation, SETI@home is wasteful compared to what? If the school logo was made to flutter in that flag screen saver nobody would have given a monkey's. Seems harsh.
This argument will always result in you getting dreadful working conditions. There has to be a point where you say: "Forget it, I'll either work for someone else, or myself".
Do I expect to be paid for being on call? Yes. It's simple, can I go anywhere, plan anything if I'm on call? No. I don't expect to be paid as much (but I expect to get "the normal rate" when the call is actually made...) but I DO expect (or rather demand) to be paid when I'm on call. We can negotiate stuff like what I get paid when the call is made (the first few hours can be at the normal rate even... too many extra and I expect either a higher rate or time off) but you bet I expect to be compensated when I can't do what I want.
Actually I don't think that's fair at all. If company XYZ doesn't want to be taken to court it's simple. Pay the price you should for the software you use. Now that might be free, or that might be a fortune - but you have a moral obligation as well as a legal one.
It's simple - you want something someone has created you pay THEIR price or you don't get it - you don't have a right to it just because you want it. Now if some software is horrifically over priced, you don't buy it - you get something else or live without it.
Piracy in SMEs is endemic, but I guess so is the mistreatment of staff. My advice? Turn them in. You've told them, it's not like they don't know. If they sack you, then sue them for wrongful dismissal. If they get caught, and it wasn't you that turned them in, you'll possibly find yourself carrying the can. Clearly they have no ethics, and they'll hang this on you to mitigate themselves.
You're forgetting your investment in applications and expertise, those things are far more important than you've suggested. Also Linux runs on a lot more than "PCs".
Slashdot Mirror
The section of the EULA you're complaining about is printed on the outside of the box... The typeface is reasonably large.
The car analogy is broken (they pretty much always are) and yes, I take full responsibility as I did it first (I was actually making a joke - but clearly I failed).
Very short?!
I guess you could make a oneway mirror... but really, WHY?!
But you never lose the right to say "stuff that" and not buy the product - just because you don't like the deal offered doesn't mean you have the right to ignore the terms! If I create something, and say "you must x to have my product" you've got a choice: "Do x" or walk away... You don't get the right to have the product just because you want it!
And if you do, I want a Ferrari (I just happen to think the price is unreasonable).
It's only 40% transparent - the effect would be to render the e-ink unreadable (or near unreadable). While I think it's fantastically cool, I can't think of a single good use for the technology. I can think of a couple of bad ones:
Make it a touch screen, and put it on the door of your microwave oven - now you don't need the panel to the side... still need to put that volume somewhere (that's where the "guts of the microwave are").
Did I say a couple? I meant one - really weak idea. But yeah it's cool.
For a laptop? Total nonstarter... do I really want everyone to see what I've got on my screen?! (No, not all the time)
Err, who really wants their computer to last forever? (Hell I won't last FOREVER) What's really wanted is a reasonable life expectancy, AND the ability to take my junk off the computer and onto my next computer (where it must make some sense).
Mac OS X does that (even if my next computer isn't a Mac). Now you could argue that Linux does that (and I'll concede the point). What you probably don't do is buy from a company that is sure to get sued into oblivion (that's just not smart).
Since when did the creator of something have no right to say how their product can be used?! Microsoft sell academic versions of some of their stuff... How is this different? All Apple have done is say: Macs come with Mac OS X, and Mac OS X can only (legally) be used on Macs. Apple don't sell Mac OS X on it's own (they sell upgrades... but that's a different thing). Microsoft sell OEM versions of Windows - is that different?! Even the GPL (maybe I should say "Especially the GPL"?) makes stipulations as to what you can and can't do - ignore those at your peril! If I create something, I should be allowed any license I feel appropriate. I don't see how Windows users or Linux users can argue (I should know - I use all three). I wouldn't want to be told that Linux couldn't enforce the GPL, or that Microsoft couldn't distribute with a PC (no OEM pricing).
Err, what?! Apple "fanbois" pay money to Apple, abide by the EULA - why would Apple want to screw them over?! You're not thinking.
I adore the way people on your side are so "self righteous", let's look at the facts:
Psystar sold PCs, with some software derived from Open Source, with Apple's upgrade version of their OS, thumbing their nose at the EULA, and argued because you COULD do it, then it SHOULD be legal. How the heck they ever thought that was going to fly I'll never understand. And no it wasn't a "full version" of the OS - you obtain the right to run Mac OS X when you buy a Mac, and at no other time, so unless there was a Mac in the box too (wiped) I don't see how they ever thought it was going to be "OK".
You're right companies exist to make money, Apple "cares" about it's customers because it knows that doing this will mean they'll return to buy more product. Yes, they'll even be happy to pay a little more for it. This is a recipe for success that the rest of the industry seems to have forgotten, in their "race to the bottom" they've cut everything. You want a decent PC? You probably need to build it yourself, because you buy one prebuilt it'll have horrible build quality and more bloatware than any sane person can stand. You build it yourself, you get to choose the quality (maybe a keyboard that isn't totally horrible). I mean think about a new PC, what's the first thing you need to do? Burn a set of recovery disks - what the hell?! How much does not supplying a restore DVD actually save? You pay more for the blank media!
So let's not talk nonsense, if you know nothing about computers, don't want to build one, but actually want something nice - a Mac is probably your best bet. That horrible Psystar? No so much.
If we're being pedantic (and I guess I started it) then it's accepted usage to talk of "stealing someone else's work" when what's actually meant it passing it off as your own (rather than depriving the originator of the work itself).
I'd agree "stealing" in this sense it's the same as taking a physical object, but you are still obtaining something you don't have rightful claim over. You could argue that has this code has a cost (someone's time) then it must have a monetary value, so appropriating it without consent IS stealing.
My understanding is the distinction is only relevant for English Law - where theft involves depriving the owner - other definitions seem to be far more broad. (I'm English - so my understanding of your laws maybe in error)
I kinda remember Microsoft themselves talk about people "stealing" Windows. Technically "stealing" isn't the correct word, it's like riding a train without a ticket, or sneaking into a ballgame. However you slice it then it's wrong. This is far simpler it's plagiarism. Of course, if the code had come from Windows then Microsoft would call it "stealing".
I wonder what they called it when the did it to Stac? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics)
"The Myth of Fingerprints" - Paul Simon, right? As far as I understand it they only use a few "distinguishing features" anyway - and they allow for damage to those (like a cut). However, the point is that it's hard to predict what will "fool the scanner" and what won't. If you don't know which "distinguishing features" it's looking for what do you change? Even harder is to get the scanner to give a false hit on someone else's finger print data (so you can pretend to be them).
As evidence at a crime scene I think finger prints are far more suspect than they might at first appear.
I wasn't attempting to justify which project is more worthy - for the record, I think folding@home is more useful. Not least as it seems to have more chance of success.
But this is a personal view, and as such we might not agree with HOW the 5000 computer's idle time was used - but the fact that the same use for a different purpose would have been accepted seems to show that all he can really be guilty of is questionable judgement. I'm also pretty sure that there will be others who think that proving aliens exist is pretty important (well let's be honest here - such a revelation would alter our view of ourselves, and our place in the universe - you could also argue that this itself might lead to the saving of many lives).
But yeah, I'd take the cure for cancer too... (Though I do already believe in aliens - how else do you explain Dennis Rodman?)
Yeah, but power consumption and performance kinda go hand in hand (for a given generation of CPUs). The big hungry ones tend to have better performance.
Of course, it's never really been seen as much of an issue - till now. I'll admit I'm at a bit of a loss to know how to factor in power consumption, but I'd guess that my "stick to the middle" probably still applies. (This is a guess)
But didn't they say that Folding@Home would have been OK? Seems like it's not so cut and dried...
You've got a point there. To be honest, all this nonsense about a screen saver seems over the top. Though 5000 systems means even a little extra power has to add up.
I wonder if the problem wasn't him trying to prove aliens existed, schools can be weird on religious grounds - is that a subtext here?
Buying the lowest-power CPUs?! Are you absolutely sure about that? This seems like REALLY bad advice. Needs always rise (ALWAYS) to what "gets the job done" today won't tomorrow. This advice is a crock of ****, always was. You want to be efficient? Buy systems from the middle, not the slowest, and not the fastest. The middle is usually the right choice. The slow ones will have short lives (and replacing machines is expensive - not just in machine costs) the fastest machines cost a fortune (and there is always diminishing returns at the top end).
Now like all rules, it's there to be broken. If you don't expect the system to have a long life - consider cheaper (typical examples are harsh environments). If replacing the system is really expensive (because downtime is a problem, expensive specialists are required whatever) then consider something more expensive.
But always buying the cheapest is just bad advice.
Now THIS is an interesting observation, SETI@home is wasteful compared to what? If the school logo was made to flutter in that flag screen saver nobody would have given a monkey's. Seems harsh.
Err, are you sure? Why does the battery on a laptop go flat sooner when you run a 3D game on it? Power consumption isn't linear.
PHB: I've got a great idea, why don't we run all our programs as screen savers?
Dilbert: How will we type? As soon as someone hits a key the application will close and we'll be back at the desktop consuming electricity again.
PHB: Couldn't we login remotely? We could create a terminal application that ran as a screen saver!
Dilbert: Again, how will we type?
PHB: We could type really slowly.
Wally: I already do, somedays I don't type anything at all!
PHB: See Dilbert, you need to be more like Wally!
This argument will always result in you getting dreadful working conditions. There has to be a point where you say: "Forget it, I'll either work for someone else, or myself".
Do I expect to be paid for being on call? Yes. It's simple, can I go anywhere, plan anything if I'm on call? No. I don't expect to be paid as much (but I expect to get "the normal rate" when the call is actually made...) but I DO expect (or rather demand) to be paid when I'm on call. We can negotiate stuff like what I get paid when the call is made (the first few hours can be at the normal rate even... too many extra and I expect either a higher rate or time off) but you bet I expect to be compensated when I can't do what I want.
You're talking about the one that needed to be fired before the end of the second act aren't you?
Don't you mean Chekov's Dogs?
No wait ... that isn't right.
Yes they do. If memory serves it's 5% of any fines.
Actually I don't think that's fair at all. If company XYZ doesn't want to be taken to court it's simple. Pay the price you should for the software you use. Now that might be free, or that might be a fortune - but you have a moral obligation as well as a legal one.
It's simple - you want something someone has created you pay THEIR price or you don't get it - you don't have a right to it just because you want it. Now if some software is horrifically over priced, you don't buy it - you get something else or live without it.
Piracy in SMEs is endemic, but I guess so is the mistreatment of staff. My advice? Turn them in. You've told them, it's not like they don't know. If they sack you, then sue them for wrongful dismissal. If they get caught, and it wasn't you that turned them in, you'll possibly find yourself carrying the can. Clearly they have no ethics, and they'll hang this on you to mitigate themselves.
I'm a Mac, and Windows 7 was my idea!
You're forgetting your investment in applications and expertise, those things are far more important than you've suggested. Also Linux runs on a lot more than "PCs".