Yes, after all noone's heard of the ipod, it's a niche market. Don't get me started on that mobile phone fad either.
Face it, traditional PCs are the niche market. Your VCR, TV, CD player, cable box, car, microwave, and 'Elmo knows your name' have the ability to be programmed as well, they are not computers. The ipod and mobile phones (not PDAs) are not computers. They are devices with advanced electronics, but by no means are they 'computers'.
The traditional PC can not be the niche market, it's the definition of the mainstream computer market. The mini-laptops are a niche in the overall personal computer market, slightly more advanced compared to toys like the ipod.
However we're looking in the wrong direction. It's happening on the ASUS Eee PC, where hundreds of thousands of people are buying these things and using Linux happily. Interesting, because the hardware requirements are pretty much static, which puts it in the realm of pre-configured embedded devices.
You can do so much if you control the hardware, yet you'll never climb out of the niche market.
You're assuming Apple are selling copies of their software. They'll claim they aren't selling copies at all, merely licensing them. Can you license something without showing the license beforehand? Do you expect to be entering into a license agreement at a retail store?
Saying 'but it's online, at apple.com somewhere' is as Douglas Adams put it "on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'". It should be in avilable to you when you go to buy it, not on a website you can't access at the moment.
In theory, at least, if a box of software says clearly and unequivocally that you agree to the EULA if you use the software, and that EULA is available in some form (including online on the company's website), then it is enforceable.
To what extent licensing law varies from traditional contract law, I can't say, having not studied licensing law in depth (yet). Also, if you buy software from an actual retailer, get it home, open the box and then disagree with the EULA, you can often seek and receive a return from the developer/publisher if the retailer won't accept a return. In theory. However, they already have your money, you paid for a mystery box with rules attached that you can't review and can't decline without losing your money. Now, if stores would accept software returns, this wouldn't be an issue, you could decline the EULA and return the software. Now, some developers/publishers will accept a return, but they're still a minority, and I don't believe Apple will. (someone correct me on this if I'm wrong)
I'm guessing you're a law student who got halfway through the Contracts casebook and then just stopped reading? See the above case, which is taught in most first year Contracts courses and is still good law. Not in all districts, some have ruled differently, and you should know that. (http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case209.cfm)
Whether it seems fair or not, you are wrong, shrink wrap licenses ARE enforceable. You're obviously posting anonymously to avoid paying my reading fee, which you agreed to by reading my message. Since all comments are owned by the poster (see below), and licenses you can't read before hand are enforcable (according to you), you owe me $50. So, please pay up or I'll have to call a collection agency.
There has to be benifit to both parties for a contract to be valid. I can't just throw $200 at apple and get software that I they say I can't use without having the option to return it. Since the parties involved refuse to accept returned software the return policy is unconscionable and the license may be void.
Second, you can't agree to a contract that you never had an opportunity to read and accept or decline. I think that one is obvious.
So, yes, Apple might not like the outcome of a court case.
Courts really do frown upon lopsided unsigned pre-purchase contracts.
Basically, it wouldn't be an issue if the agreement was on the box for everyone to see. It probably wouldn't be an issue if Apple made you read and sign the agreement before buying a copy. But go to Best Buy, purchase a copy of osx, open it up, read the agreement, box it back up and then try and return it. Good luck.
Apple really might not like the outcome of a case like this.
As things stand right now, my only outstanding question for resolving the Creative debacle is "Turtle Beach or m-Audio?" I don't know about m-Audio, but Turtle Beach doesn't seem to be designing their own cards anymore, they havn't for a while. Last gen cards were all crystal based with some add-ons. The USB sound cards are pretty much a HK import with the turle beach logo stamped on it.
It's a shame actually, Turtle Beach was a pretty decent sound card company for a while, but the non-stop getting bought out and moving offices must have taken its toll on them.
Are you paying for their bandwidth? How about the servers that are being hammered, are you paying for them?
Short of removing themselves from DNS, this is the most effective way to reduce bandwidth usage in the long term AND teach mail admins on how to properly run their mail servers.
'At 9:15 am, no one will be watching the door, so you can slip in and plant a bomb here, here and here, please refer to the blueprints on page 12' type of specifics.
not
'kill em all, shoot em in the head. kill em all, shoot em in their bed'
Is making swastikas on important Jewish religious places, such as synagogues and cemeteries hate crime? Yes, defaced property with intent to terrorize.
Is making something, that has no intellectual value, and is perceived to be hateful by 1.2 billion people on Earth not hate crime? No, there was no crime committed. Now, if I wrote 'kill the Muslims' on the side of a mosque, then that would be a hate crime. I defaced someone's property and terrorized them.
If I wrote a book saying 'kill the Muslims' and outlined specifics on how to do it, that would be a hate crime. I'm clearly inciting violence.
If I draw a cartoon or write a book depicting Muhammad or Jesus or Moses or Buddha as a terrorist, I have not committed a hate crime. I personally wouldn't do something like that, because I don't believe it, but I will defend the right to be able to do it.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right. I will never condone removing that right for something as petty as avoiding insulting someone.
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
A hate crime has to have SOME criminal element to it. If I say 'Muslims suck', I made a blanket statement, but to even think of elevating it to a crime is absurd. Now, I can run around all day spouting blanket staments, and eventually people will learn that I am acting like a crackpot and have nothing important to say. (Example, Twitter). That is punishment enough.
To start deciding that unpopular content is a crime in itself is the first step in the end of free speech.
I've seen some of the cartoons, I have not seen the film. The cartoons are tasteless, they are not criminal.
The US constitution is a list of limitations on the federal government, NOT A LIST OF YOUR RIGHTS.
It was never supposed to be a list of your rights and should never be interpreted as a list of your rights. The ninth and tenth amendments should make this clear.
Anonymous speech is a basic human right and didn't just show up in 1997 as a feature of Netscape.
Slashdot Mirror
Face it, traditional PCs are the niche market. Your VCR, TV, CD player, cable box, car, microwave, and 'Elmo knows your name' have the ability to be programmed as well, they are not computers. The ipod and mobile phones (not PDAs) are not computers. They are devices with advanced electronics, but by no means are they 'computers'.
The traditional PC can not be the niche market, it's the definition of the mainstream computer market. The mini-laptops are a niche in the overall personal computer market, slightly more advanced compared to toys like the ipod.
However we're looking in the wrong direction. It's happening on the ASUS Eee PC, where hundreds of thousands of people are buying these things and using Linux happily. Interesting, because the hardware requirements are pretty much static, which puts it in the realm of pre-configured embedded devices.
You can do so much if you control the hardware, yet you'll never climb out of the niche market.
I'm suprised as well, but what about Best Buy, Microcenter and other Apple retailers?
Saying 'but it's online, at apple.com somewhere' is as Douglas Adams put it "on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'". It should be in avilable to you when you go to buy it, not on a website you can't access at the moment.
To what extent licensing law varies from traditional contract law, I can't say, having not studied licensing law in depth (yet). Also, if you buy software from an actual retailer, get it home, open the box and then disagree with the EULA, you can often seek and receive a return from the developer/publisher if the retailer won't accept a return. In theory. However, they already have your money, you paid for a mystery box with rules attached that you can't review and can't decline without losing your money. Now, if stores would accept software returns, this wouldn't be an issue, you could decline the EULA and return the software. Now, some developers/publishers will accept a return, but they're still a minority, and I don't believe Apple will. (someone correct me on this if I'm wrong)
My terms of service specifically addresses this. Now, everyone, please pay up, I'll include a copy of the terms with your receipt.
There has to be benifit to both parties for a contract to be valid. I can't just throw $200 at apple and get software that I they say I can't use without having the option to return it. Since the parties involved refuse to accept returned software the return policy is unconscionable and the license may be void.
Second, you can't agree to a contract that you never had an opportunity to read and accept or decline. I think that one is obvious.
So, yes, Apple might not like the outcome of a court case.
Courts really do frown upon lopsided unsigned pre-purchase contracts.
Basically, it wouldn't be an issue if the agreement was on the box for everyone to see. It probably wouldn't be an issue if Apple made you read and sign the agreement before buying a copy. But go to Best Buy, purchase a copy of osx, open it up, read the agreement, box it back up and then try and return it. Good luck.
Apple really might not like the outcome of a case like this.
Campfire is about as complex as KeepTalking was in 1999. It's not original, it's just flashier.
It's a shame actually, Turtle Beach was a pretty decent sound card company for a while, but the non-stop getting bought out and moving offices must have taken its toll on them.
If the average Slashdot user doesn't know how to bypass a country restriction anymore then we have a very serious problem here.
I figured wording it that way would show that I was being sarcastic.
The ends never justify the means.
Simply put: the ends justify the means.
Didn't distributed.net do something almost exactly as described in 1998 (the RC5 challenge)?
Are you paying for their bandwidth? How about the servers that are being hammered, are you paying for them?
Short of removing themselves from DNS, this is the most effective way to reduce bandwidth usage in the long term AND teach mail admins on how to properly run their mail servers.
When I said outlined specifics, I meant:
'At 9:15 am, no one will be watching the door, so you can slip in and plant a bomb here, here and here, please refer to the blueprints on page 12' type of specifics.
not
'kill em all, shoot em in the head. kill em all, shoot em in their bed'
What you're saying is if you insult enough people it's a hate crime.
It's not.
If I wrote a book saying 'kill the Muslims' and outlined specifics on how to do it, that would be a hate crime. I'm clearly inciting violence.
If I draw a cartoon or write a book depicting Muhammad or Jesus or Moses or Buddha as a terrorist, I have not committed a hate crime. I personally wouldn't do something like that, because I don't believe it, but I will defend the right to be able to do it.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right. I will never condone removing that right for something as petty as avoiding insulting someone.
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
A hate crime has to have SOME criminal element to it. If I say 'Muslims suck', I made a blanket statement, but to even think of elevating it to a crime is absurd. Now, I can run around all day spouting blanket staments, and eventually people will learn that I am acting like a crackpot and have nothing important to say. (Example, Twitter). That is punishment enough.
To start deciding that unpopular content is a crime in itself is the first step in the end of free speech.
I've seen some of the cartoons, I have not seen the film. The cartoons are tasteless, they are not criminal.
Come on, we can figure out MUCH better things to change the names to. Then all we have to do is send screenshots to Fark.com for people to laugh at.
Names would be gone from ads in about 3 months.
Apple is, and always has been the man on the screen in the 1984 ad.
I'm assuming you mean besides the case law that's posted all over this topic. (http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity)
The fact that you ignored the 9th amendment makes it clear that you have no concept on how to read the constitution.
So, if you can read above a 6th grade level, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution would be a good starting point.
The US constitution is a list of limitations on the federal government, NOT A LIST OF YOUR RIGHTS.
It was never supposed to be a list of your rights and should never be interpreted as a list of your rights. The ninth and tenth amendments should make this clear.
Anonymous speech is a basic human right and didn't just show up in 1997 as a feature of Netscape.