Who is going to buy a Powerbook now when MacRumorSecrets says there is going to be a much faster Powerbook G5 around the corner?
Welcome to the computer industry. There is always Something Faster (tm) around the corner. And just as a side-note, I think everyone who has ever purchased an Apple product has gotten "bitten by Apple", myself included. It's a harzard of buying anything in such a rapid-paced industry.
Apple isn't looking to hamper first amendment rights, and I doubt they will.
Except that's exactly what will happen here. If the courts require the rumor site to divulge their sources, it's will become a precendent that can be used to do the same to others. Look up "chilling effect" and "stiffle" in a legal dictionary and get back to me. Imagine you are a journalist and you are reporting on some sensitive issue in the government. You have an inside source who can give you information to help keep the government accountable. Trouble is, there is a law that requires you to tell a court who your source is. Are you going to publish? Will your source let you publish? Not only is this a violation of The First, it has other negative side-effects as well, stomping out whistle-blowers and other mechanisms for any kind of accountability. Wow, what a worthy sacrifice so that Apple can stick it to some smuck who violated an NDA.
And guess what, blogs and sites like theses AREN'T OFFICIAL MEDIA.
So wait, you have to be a government-approved or corporate entity to be "official media" and enjoy the protections of the First Amendment? You mean CNN or NBC get to hide their sources but Indymedia can't? What a load of tripe. Get real and take an introduction to American government course. (Who knew the downfall of the United States would begin with the removal of Civics from standard highschool education...?) In case you were not aware, the First Amendment doesn't say "official media", it reads as follows.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
(Emphasis added.) I see no mention that this is a right protected by privilege, it simply implies "the people". Also, the spirit in which this was written strongly suggests that the Framers wanted people to have the freedom to challenge establishments by open exchange. But, don't take my word for it. Let's refence legal material at Cornell on the subject.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citiz
And what laws were broken? The employees violated a contract. Maybe I am severely mistaken, but corporate contracts are not laws of the land unless your political system is fascism. The site operators in question are not breaking the law either. If a person has knowledge about the identity or whereabouts of someone who has broken a local, state, or federal law, then that person is legally required to hand that information over. (The only exception I am aware of here is spousal confidentiality.) Otherwise, this is a civil matter. (How is it we Americans are so unbelievably stupid that we, in a very knee-jerk fashion, act as if someone is dead when all we're dealing with is a trivial intellectual property issue?)
For something so insignificant, Apple should not be pressing to make a case where, should they win, a precedent could be set which would severely hamper First Amendment rights in this country. Why? Because requiring journalists to reveal their sources will have a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of press. This whole thing is stupid and unnecessary. Sure, people shouldn't be going around violating contracts. But the potential fall-out in this situation is hardly worth it.
And in general, rumor sites like these generate helpful publicity for Apple products. What we have here are just some corporate lawyers trying to justify their highly exaggerated value. Oh, and to make matters worse, this type of legal action serves to confirm the rumors as truth when previously they were just considered a brand of fiction. If Apple really wants to keep things secret, they should not get involved.
I sure am glad our Glorious Ministry of Information can protect us from material that can provoke us to think ungood things. I guess China isn't so evil afterall, right?
...and it should influence your purchasing as well. I love Apple products. They have an excellent platform built on very well-designed hardware and open source technologies. They contribute a lot back to the community. However, poor behavior on the social front is not acceptable. I do not care how good their stuff is, if you're going to lash out at those who are not a threat to the prosperity of your business, you are being a bad citizen.
Some good points, but mostly irrelivant to my point of Christians not accepting people actively engaging in homosexual activity in the church.
I am known to go off on tangents-oooh shiny.
As for your site, I apologize I did not delve deeply enough. Ad hominem attacks don't get anyone anywhere and I am sorry. (What a shame too since I always appreciate good political satire... I'll be sure to read your site more carefully.:)
By stable I was refering to its capacity to produce well
adjusted offspring. The fact that the number of these families is
decreasing only reinforces my arguement. (Note that I do not place
sole blame on homosexuality for the breakdown of the family. It's
merely another symptom of it.)
That what I thought you meant (as I alluded in my fourth point).
I'll try to counter this by venturing out on a limb for a moment.
Based on my limited knowledge, I would speculate that the height of
popularity for the nuclear family in the United States would have been
between the 1930s and 1950s. It is this generation of parents that
produced children who later went on to forge the sexual revolution in
this country. By your argument, these children should have been the
most "stable" and "well-adjusted", but they have delivered some of the
greatest internal strive in this country. And for good cause, of
course. In addition to freeing us of many sexual stigmas, these
"well-adjusted" offspring of the nuclear family brought about the
Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage for Women, the Gay Rights Movement,
and perhaps even the slow decline of the nuclear family among other
important social and political advances.
It's also very interesting how you consider homosexuality to
be caused by a break down of, as mentioned, an extremely modern family
structure. Not only has homosexuality existed for a very long
time, it also occurs in
many species besides our own. Are we to believe that this is from
due to the deterioration of the nuclear family in frog societies? I
have to continue to profess ignorance as to how homosexuality is a
"problem" (you seem to present it as such). To what end does the
private business of other people impact you and your daily life? Are
these people trying to abridge your personal freedoms and violate your
rights as a citizen? Perhaps they are causing economic upheaval?
(And for that matter, what difference does it make to you what people
do privately in general? Sounds like you want an extended family that
reaches out to the larger population so you can have influence over
it!) I would even like to know how the nuclear family somehow
inhibits homosexuality. What is it about such an isolated family unit
that makes it more equipped to stem off certain types of behavior
versus a community family or no family at all?
So I guess I should start espousing some viewpoints around now. I
am whole-heartedly against the idea of a nuclear family. It believe
it is a failure of a family structure and we ought to go back to what
has worked for thousands and thousands of years of recorded human
history: the community family. It is arrogant and deeply presumptuous
for two people to think they can provide all the necessary insight and
wisdom to properly raise a child, let alone anywhere between two and
six. It is crucial that an existed group of authority figures all
being immediately available to children to aid the process of learning
and assist in conflict mediation. In addition to having a more
diverse knowledge base to draw from, the extended parenting group
gives children a mechanism for the understanding and potential redress
of grievances. (I would argue that community families also lead to
the installment and understanding of democratic values where nuclear
families do the opposite with the encouragement of authoritarianism.)
Nuclear families are hot-beds for parent-child conflict because if
there is a disagreement, very rarely are the children given the
opportunity for a neutral third party to come into play to help bring
about a resolution or at the very least understanding. This
frequently leads to disrespect of the parents on the part of the
children and lends to a deep divide between the two.
Furthermore, in order for a nuclear family to even function, the
people invol
I cited 60% as "common knowledge" since I didn't have the time to reference specifics at the time of my posting. (I think I heard it on The 700 Club or something one time.) Care to explain where you got those numbers and even what they pertain to? (I assume the divorce rate, but I could be mistaken.:)
It disrupts the nuclear family which is proven as the most stable arrangement for raising children.
Wow, that's quite a leap. Let me start off by saying that my goal is only to analyze this a bit and not attack you.
First, the nuclear family is a relatively modern concept in the grand scheme of Humanity's history. Second, how is a nuclear family more stable, than say, the larger extended family of your village, which is a more traditional family structure? Third, if the nuclear family is so "stable" why is it that we have a 60% divorce rate, lots of domestic violence, and other seriously family issues in this country? I can honestly say that I have yet to encounter a "stable" nuclear family. Fourth (I am going to make a leap of my own and delve into what I think you're implying), if nuclear families are so effective at raising quality individuals, why are advocates of nuclear families always complaining about social decay in a country where nuclear families are ubiquitous?
I cannot comprehend how so many people can advocate this family structure so adamantly. Where is the evidence?
I believe those are the legendary *-Wing fighters. The extra wings make it more powerful. The cheap X-Wing was only the result of a budget cut that made the great Asterisks unaffordable.
I assume these sites are going to wipe out the lists of people who have used torrents from them? It'd be a shame if their hardware were confiscated and information about who used their torrents (and contributed back) were available to authorities. (And on that note, I really hope they're using disk encryption.)
Because there is nothing you can do to stop the copying of bits if you don't control the hardware. Nothing. And it just so happens that pirates are always more sophisticated than the average consumer. Absolutely pointless.
If we insist upon moving everyone and everything over to pure OSS solutions all at once, we will fail. People don't understand the situation as many members of the OSS community do. Nor are they willing to simply take our understanding for granted. The trouble is, they will also acquire that understanding slowly. We have to move in little by little. Encroaching upon Microsoft's territory is the only way of winning it.
First we have to push Microsoft's applications out on their platform then we can begin pushing out their platform. This is gorilla warfare: if we can use the install-base of Windows as an advantage, all the better. Consider this: let's take some random company that's currently using Windows. Will their experience be more positive if they were slowly eased into using OpenOffice.Org but keeping the rest of the infrastructure the same? Imagine trying to determine all their processes and requirements and switching them over to OSS lock, stock, and barrel. It'd be a flop! OSS on Windows, in this case, is the edge of the razor.
I've even seen this in my own company. Everyone started off with Windows, but eventually Cygwin, Firefox, and other OSS tools and software began creeping in. Now we're seeing Linux working its way in as people (read: managers) become more comfortable with the idea of OSS. The logic that "these tools we are currently using on Windows are all available on Linux, we might as well start using Linux" is growing. The dependency is shifting.
(Apologies if this is slightly incoherent: it was written with great haste.)
Wrong URL. Try this one instead. And yes, she is very cute. I'd bone her. (Hey baby, wanna eliminate one of your chances of finding the wrong mate tonight?;)
Here are some other user interfaces that require lots of movement:
Controlling a vehicle, like a car, boat, or plane.
Carpentry equipment.
Opening doors.
Operating toilets.
You get the idea. Just because a user interface requires lots of physical motion does not mean it's a step in the wrong direction. Quite the contrary, some of the most spatially-intensive user interfaces are also some of the most persistent, as my examples demonstrate. These things allow the human mind to function in concrete "where things are at" terms rather than a more abstract modes like references to those things. For example, in the Minority Report User Interface (MRUI), files were things you dropped onto a tray and handed to your friend rather than placing references to them on your email and then delegating the transfer to the computer. The latter of these is far more abstract.
There are other considerations as well. Repetitive stress injuries are typically less frequent with tasks that involve a wide range of motion rather than subtle twitches (like those made to a keyboard).
Slashdot Mirror
Can anyone help me out with my Free Flatscreen attempt? Thanks.
No, I purchase nothing from Microsoft, if that's who you're talking about.
Welcome to the computer industry. There is always Something Faster (tm) around the corner. And just as a side-note, I think everyone who has ever purchased an Apple product has gotten "bitten by Apple", myself included. It's a harzard of buying anything in such a rapid-paced industry.
Except that's exactly what will happen here. If the courts require the rumor site to divulge their sources, it's will become a precendent that can be used to do the same to others. Look up "chilling effect" and "stiffle" in a legal dictionary and get back to me. Imagine you are a journalist and you are reporting on some sensitive issue in the government. You have an inside source who can give you information to help keep the government accountable. Trouble is, there is a law that requires you to tell a court who your source is. Are you going to publish? Will your source let you publish? Not only is this a violation of The First, it has other negative side-effects as well, stomping out whistle-blowers and other mechanisms for any kind of accountability. Wow, what a worthy sacrifice so that Apple can stick it to some smuck who violated an NDA.
So wait, you have to be a government-approved or corporate entity to be "official media" and enjoy the protections of the First Amendment? You mean CNN or NBC get to hide their sources but Indymedia can't? What a load of tripe. Get real and take an introduction to American government course. (Who knew the downfall of the United States would begin with the removal of Civics from standard highschool education...?) In case you were not aware, the First Amendment doesn't say "official media", it reads as follows.
(Emphasis added.) I see no mention that this is a right protected by privilege, it simply implies "the people". Also, the spirit in which this was written strongly suggests that the Framers wanted people to have the freedom to challenge establishments by open exchange. But, don't take my word for it. Let's refence legal material at Cornell on the subject.
And what laws were broken? The employees violated a contract. Maybe I am severely mistaken, but corporate contracts are not laws of the land unless your political system is fascism. The site operators in question are not breaking the law either. If a person has knowledge about the identity or whereabouts of someone who has broken a local, state, or federal law, then that person is legally required to hand that information over. (The only exception I am aware of here is spousal confidentiality.) Otherwise, this is a civil matter. (How is it we Americans are so unbelievably stupid that we, in a very knee-jerk fashion, act as if someone is dead when all we're dealing with is a trivial intellectual property issue?)
For something so insignificant, Apple should not be pressing to make a case where, should they win, a precedent could be set which would severely hamper First Amendment rights in this country. Why? Because requiring journalists to reveal their sources will have a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of press. This whole thing is stupid and unnecessary. Sure, people shouldn't be going around violating contracts. But the potential fall-out in this situation is hardly worth it.
And in general, rumor sites like these generate helpful publicity for Apple products. What we have here are just some corporate lawyers trying to justify their highly exaggerated value. Oh, and to make matters worse, this type of legal action serves to confirm the rumors as truth when previously they were just considered a brand of fiction. If Apple really wants to keep things secret, they should not get involved.
I sure am glad our Glorious Ministry of Information can protect us from material that can provoke us to think ungood things. I guess China isn't so evil afterall, right?
...and it should influence your purchasing as well. I love Apple products. They have an excellent platform built on very well-designed hardware and open source technologies. They contribute a lot back to the community. However, poor behavior on the social front is not acceptable. I do not care how good their stuff is, if you're going to lash out at those who are not a threat to the prosperity of your business, you are being a bad citizen.
I am known to go off on tangents-oooh shiny.
As for your site, I apologize I did not delve deeply enough. Ad hominem attacks don't get anyone anywhere and I am sorry. (What a shame too since I always appreciate good political satire... I'll be sure to read your site more carefully. :)
That what I thought you meant (as I alluded in my fourth point). I'll try to counter this by venturing out on a limb for a moment. Based on my limited knowledge, I would speculate that the height of popularity for the nuclear family in the United States would have been between the 1930s and 1950s. It is this generation of parents that produced children who later went on to forge the sexual revolution in this country. By your argument, these children should have been the most "stable" and "well-adjusted", but they have delivered some of the greatest internal strive in this country. And for good cause, of course. In addition to freeing us of many sexual stigmas, these "well-adjusted" offspring of the nuclear family brought about the Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage for Women, the Gay Rights Movement, and perhaps even the slow decline of the nuclear family among other important social and political advances.
It's also very interesting how you consider homosexuality to be caused by a break down of, as mentioned, an extremely modern family structure. Not only has homosexuality existed for a very long time, it also occurs in many species besides our own. Are we to believe that this is from due to the deterioration of the nuclear family in frog societies? I have to continue to profess ignorance as to how homosexuality is a "problem" (you seem to present it as such). To what end does the private business of other people impact you and your daily life? Are these people trying to abridge your personal freedoms and violate your rights as a citizen? Perhaps they are causing economic upheaval? (And for that matter, what difference does it make to you what people do privately in general? Sounds like you want an extended family that reaches out to the larger population so you can have influence over it!) I would even like to know how the nuclear family somehow inhibits homosexuality. What is it about such an isolated family unit that makes it more equipped to stem off certain types of behavior versus a community family or no family at all?
So I guess I should start espousing some viewpoints around now. I am whole-heartedly against the idea of a nuclear family. It believe it is a failure of a family structure and we ought to go back to what has worked for thousands and thousands of years of recorded human history: the community family. It is arrogant and deeply presumptuous for two people to think they can provide all the necessary insight and wisdom to properly raise a child, let alone anywhere between two and six. It is crucial that an existed group of authority figures all being immediately available to children to aid the process of learning and assist in conflict mediation. In addition to having a more diverse knowledge base to draw from, the extended parenting group gives children a mechanism for the understanding and potential redress of grievances. (I would argue that community families also lead to the installment and understanding of democratic values where nuclear families do the opposite with the encouragement of authoritarianism.) Nuclear families are hot-beds for parent-child conflict because if there is a disagreement, very rarely are the children given the opportunity for a neutral third party to come into play to help bring about a resolution or at the very least understanding. This frequently leads to disrespect of the parents on the part of the children and lends to a deep divide between the two.
Furthermore, in order for a nuclear family to even function, the people invol
Thank you. It's good to read informed comments for a change. (Those are some useful tid-bits too. :)
I cited 60% as "common knowledge" since I didn't have the time to reference specifics at the time of my posting. (I think I heard it on The 700 Club or something one time.) Care to explain where you got those numbers and even what they pertain to? (I assume the divorce rate, but I could be mistaken. :)
Wow, that's quite a leap. Let me start off by saying that my goal is only to analyze this a bit and not attack you.
First, the nuclear family is a relatively modern concept in the grand scheme of Humanity's history. Second, how is a nuclear family more stable, than say, the larger extended family of your village, which is a more traditional family structure? Third, if the nuclear family is so "stable" why is it that we have a 60% divorce rate, lots of domestic violence, and other seriously family issues in this country? I can honestly say that I have yet to encounter a "stable" nuclear family. Fourth (I am going to make a leap of my own and delve into what I think you're implying), if nuclear families are so effective at raising quality individuals, why are advocates of nuclear families always complaining about social decay in a country where nuclear families are ubiquitous?
I cannot comprehend how so many people can advocate this family structure so adamantly. Where is the evidence?
I believe those are the legendary *-Wing fighters. The extra wings make it more powerful. The cheap X-Wing was only the result of a budget cut that made the great Asterisks unaffordable.
It's called a "joke". Maybe you've heard of them before?
-1, Trolltech
Dude, the chick designs microprocessors. Where the fuck is your head? I think the better question is: what do you do in your spare time?
I assume these sites are going to wipe out the lists of people who have used torrents from them? It'd be a shame if their hardware were confiscated and information about who used their torrents (and contributed back) were available to authorities. (And on that note, I really hope they're using disk encryption.)
Because there is nothing you can do to stop the copying of bits if you don't control the hardware. Nothing. And it just so happens that pirates are always more sophisticated than the average consumer. Absolutely pointless.
Unfortunately, it's only available in Asia.
If we insist upon moving everyone and everything over to pure OSS solutions all at once, we will fail. People don't understand the situation as many members of the OSS community do. Nor are they willing to simply take our understanding for granted. The trouble is, they will also acquire that understanding slowly. We have to move in little by little. Encroaching upon Microsoft's territory is the only way of winning it.
First we have to push Microsoft's applications out on their platform then we can begin pushing out their platform. This is gorilla warfare: if we can use the install-base of Windows as an advantage, all the better. Consider this: let's take some random company that's currently using Windows. Will their experience be more positive if they were slowly eased into using OpenOffice.Org but keeping the rest of the infrastructure the same? Imagine trying to determine all their processes and requirements and switching them over to OSS lock, stock, and barrel. It'd be a flop! OSS on Windows, in this case, is the edge of the razor.
I've even seen this in my own company. Everyone started off with Windows, but eventually Cygwin, Firefox, and other OSS tools and software began creeping in. Now we're seeing Linux working its way in as people (read: managers) become more comfortable with the idea of OSS. The logic that "these tools we are currently using on Windows are all available on Linux, we might as well start using Linux" is growing. The dependency is shifting.
(Apologies if this is slightly incoherent: it was written with great haste.)
And your point is...?
Wrong URL. Try this one instead. And yes, she is very cute. I'd bone her. (Hey baby, wanna eliminate one of your chances of finding the wrong mate tonight? ;)
Here are some other user interfaces that require lots of movement:
You get the idea. Just because a user interface requires lots of physical motion does not mean it's a step in the wrong direction. Quite the contrary, some of the most spatially-intensive user interfaces are also some of the most persistent, as my examples demonstrate. These things allow the human mind to function in concrete "where things are at" terms rather than a more abstract modes like references to those things. For example, in the Minority Report User Interface (MRUI), files were things you dropped onto a tray and handed to your friend rather than placing references to them on your email and then delegating the transfer to the computer. The latter of these is far more abstract.
There are other considerations as well. Repetitive stress injuries are typically less frequent with tasks that involve a wide range of motion rather than subtle twitches (like those made to a keyboard).
I mean, if Mozilla can be ported to the Amiga, surely I can run it on my shiny new Treo 650. :)
I swear I've lost all capasity for proper grammar today.
That's extremely creatively. I like it.