You can call apps "Linux software" as long as you want, if people run them on Mac OS X (or Windows) instead of Linux, they aren't running Linux, period.
Just got back from Cairo and BMW 5 series seemed quite popular in Cairo, but nowhere the majority... Saw more old fiats and families packed onto the back of a small scooters.
As for Sagan himself on the issue, his research seems more speculative rather than concrete. Remember he also predicted that the first Iraq war would lead to global cooling because of the particulate matter generated from the oil fires Saddam threatened to set. Well indeed Saddam did set those fires as he threatened and it had no measurable impact on our climate.
He never predicted "global cooling", even so his predictions were still wrong. In the autumn of 1990, Sagan made his most serious scientific blunder. Short version: Sagan assumed that the soot from the fires could reach stratosphere, which then would endanger food production in Asia. He was wrong about that - however, the ecology of Kuwait was damaged, temperatures going down more than 4 degrees C.
Also, Sagan was only one of 5 people who wrote the paper on Nuclear Winter. A simple oil well fire (no matter how big) simply can't reach the stratosphere, an atomic explosion does - and thousands do to.
Maybe the anon got modded Troll because it was meant as a goddam joke. Next time I make a joke I'll make sure to edit it for historical and technical accuracy.
Ohh, so your post was a joke (and modded +3 Insightful), and the ACs a troll, not the other way around? Thanks for clearing that up.
Reposting because the AC made a good point and got modded Troll:
so people never upgraded hardware or software before Apple came along? what, did Steve Jobs invent software versioning too?
and that quote only refers to hardware upgrade, not a hardware/software upgrade cycle. the whole point of it was that they promised BASIC for the Apple I. so they're not going to make people buy an Apple II before they've delivered BASIC on the Apple I. how is that a hardware/software upgrade cycle? they're not using hardware to make people upgrade their software. they're not even using software to make people upgrade their hardware.
There was nothing to "reverse engineer". The Mac was a simple machine
that was exceeded by all of it's non-PC rivals at the time. All you
needed to emulate the Mac was MacOS itself and some software.
The hard part was getting MacOS itself (both ROMs and System disks).
You mean those rivals that where not finished until a year later at least?
"Pirating" is a stupid term for copyright infringement.
I used to think so, except that it goes back [wikipedia.org] to at least 1703. Additionally...
That just means it's an old, stupid term for copyright infringement. I value precision in speech and calling one crime by the name of another because the first term is harder to understand or less flashy angers me.
You are right, the illegal thing being done is *copying* the software, whether they modified it or not.
How do you figure? By every account I've read, Psystar is buying copies of OS X and installing them. Each of their customers is getting their own boxed copy of legally-purchased OS X.
So they do sell two copies for each they buy. Case closed.
Apple *IS* evil... way more evil than IBM could ever try to be in their wildest imaginations.
Apple once granted permission to make an Apple 2 clone to a company that did that and made it LOTS better. Apple sued and won on the basis of "We said you could make a clone, not embarrass us by making it way better!"
This is the story of the Apple IIe and the Franklin computer. It is one of the ugliest things I have seen happen in the business world and I will never forget it and the company associated with it.
You forgot to mention that most of it is made up. Is Apple so *EVIL* you have to make up a story?
Whether I can install that Mac OS X on a computer and then sell you that computer, is what's iffy here. It gets even iffier if I have patched it. The common-sense answer is that it should(*) be legal; the reality is that it might not.
(*) Or should it? If we're talking about GPLed software, some people's opinions might change.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/16/osx86-project-not-too-happy-with-psystar-either/
Uh-oh, it looks like wannabe Mac clone maker Psystar has more than one licensing issue with the Open Computer: the company didn't get permission from developers working on the OSx86 Project to sell their work. Netkas, who developed the EFI emulator Psystar is using, posted up a blog entry yesterday calling Psystar "liars" and has re-released his code under a license that specifically forbids commercial usage.
Apple has tied the iPod to the iTMS? Yes, sure, if by that you mean they created the iTMS because there was no way to legally buy anything but "independent" music (=music hardly anyone wants) online for it.
No, I mean technologically. Every iPod comes bundled with a copy of iTunes which connects users to the iTunes store. The iPod uses a proprietary DRM scheme to allow sale of DRM'd media and Apple does not license that DRM scheme for use by other stores. Both of these provide Apple with an advantage other music stores cannot duplicate. If the iPod is a monopoly influence, that's illegal.
And we are back at step one - Apple became a monopoly because of the bundling trinity - it offered a simplicity that the consumer wanted. And why should Apple license Fairplay to others stores? Because that would not open up the market, but instead give more leverage back to the music industry and actually put Apple in the master monopoly position Microsoft was in with DRM'd WMA. Yet by not opening Fairplay they have essentially forced the music industry to sell their music at a number of stores without DRM - benefitting not only the stores but more importantly the consumers, both their customers and those who will never buy from evil monopolistic Apple, but who can now buy non-DRMed music online, which they fucking could not before Apple became a monopoly.
Well, unless you bought from a WMD shop, forcing Apple to become yet another accomplice to the Microsoft monopoly. Not to mention that if they did that only iPod owners with Windows could buy songs for it, not Mac owners, because not a single one of those stores worked on the Mac.
Yeah, the market was broken because of Microsoft's monopoly abuse. They were even convicted of that abuse in one case although the "punishment" was so flaccid it did not even include stopping the crime.
Or do you mean that you can't play Fairplay songs on anything but an iPod?
You've still got it backwards. It is because the iPod will play Fairplay media, but not other DRM'd media and because other retailers can't sell Fairplay DRM'd media. That's the potentially illegal part. It doesn't matter one whit if other players can play Fairplay, but whether other stores can sell DRM'd media that works on the iPod.
So you say Apple should be forced to become an even bigger monopolist? And there is obviously no need to sell DRM'd music, else Amazon wouldn't be such a big hit. But then, who knows if they could still do that if Apple were forced to "open up" Fairplay?
Nobody forced you to buy anything from the iTMS, and you can pretty easily transcode the tunes to any format you want, including lossless, giving you the exact same sound.
No, but then other stores aren't automatically connected to when you install the software that ships with iPods and other stores proprietary DRM schemes aren't supported by the iPod either.
Which is good, else there would not be any DRM free stores. And the iTMS isn't "automatically connected to" either, you will have to click on the store entry to even get there. But you are probably right, the iPod users are so pampered, they would never be able to open a browser window and type "amazon.com/mp3/".
Apple has tied the iPod to the iTMS? Yes, sure, if by that you mean they created the iTMS because there was no way to legally buy anything but "independent" music (=music hardly anyone wants) online for it. Well, unless you bought from a WMD shop, forcing Apple to become yet another accomplice to the Microsoft monopoly. Not to mention that if they did that only iPod owners with Windows could buy songs for it, not Mac owners, because not a single one of those stores worked on the Mac.
Or do you mean that you can't play Fairplay songs on anything but an iPod? You can't play LPs on a CD player either. Nobody forced you to buy anything from the iTMS, and you can pretty easily transcode the tunes to any format you want, including lossless, giving you the exact same sound.
I keep pointing out that Apple didn't file against Psystar until the pro-EULA decision in the WoW Glider case came through.
Too bad you are wrong then. Yes, the news of Apple's suit came out on July 15th, a day after the Glider decision. However Apple filed its suit on July 3
They are illegally altering an existing, copyrighted product.
It is not inherently illegal to modify a copyrighted product. I can buy a book, use correction tape a sharpie to re-write parts I don't like, and re-sell it. This is allowed. What makes OS X special in this regard?
But you can't resell it claiming you are selling the unchanged original - which is what you keep claiming Psystar did.
You shouldn't look at "the biggest allegation I've heard on Slashdot", because I can easily claim they hide Osama Bin Laden in their basement - and guess who's behind them. But you should look at what Apple claims (among other things): "Defendant has created derivative works from, reproduced, distributed and/or displayed the Copyrighted Works in violation of Apple's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. Apple has not licensed or otherwise authorized Defendant's creation of derivative works from, reproduction, distribution or display of the Copyrighted Works. "
Slashdot Mirror
most of the G1 applications are lagging *FAR* behind their iPhone counterparts.
What do you expect, really? The iphone came out about a year and a half before the G1. Of course they're going to be lagging behind for awhile.
But the Android SDK came out long before the iPhone SDK.
You can call apps "Linux software" as long as you want, if people run them on Mac OS X (or Windows) instead of Linux, they aren't running Linux, period.
You certainly haven't met enough nutcases in your time.
So Apple is evil because most developers chose to sell their apps for 99 cents - or give it away free.
Just got back from Cairo and BMW 5 series seemed quite popular in Cairo, but nowhere the majority... Saw more old fiats and families packed onto the back of a small scooters.
So how many of those old Fiats were new?
Most Americans spell words the way they think they should be spelled if they were pronounced the way they think they should be pronounced.
Without Hitler, the US wouldn't have been the first one to have nuclear weapons.
As for Sagan himself on the issue, his research seems more speculative rather than concrete. Remember he also predicted that the first Iraq war would lead to global cooling because of the particulate matter generated from the oil fires Saddam threatened to set. Well indeed Saddam did set those fires as he threatened and it had no measurable impact on our climate.
He never predicted "global cooling", even so his predictions were still wrong. In the autumn of 1990, Sagan made his most serious scientific blunder. Short version: Sagan assumed that the soot from the fires could reach stratosphere, which then would endanger food production in Asia. He was wrong about that - however, the ecology of Kuwait was damaged, temperatures going down more than 4 degrees C.
Also, Sagan was only one of 5 people who wrote the paper on Nuclear Winter. A simple oil well fire (no matter how big) simply can't reach the stratosphere, an atomic explosion does - and thousands do to.
There is a newer paper on Nuclear Winter: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235.shtml
Nobody has yet to say how fucked up the display of the second article is in Firefox 3. PS:looks fine in Safari.
Furthermore, the Zune has a lot in common with the iPod on the battery front, including a non-replaceable battery.
What it doesn't have in common is a (out-of-warranty) battery replacement program.
Maybe the anon got modded Troll because it was meant as a goddam joke. Next time I make a joke I'll make sure to edit it for historical and technical accuracy.
Ohh, so your post was a joke (and modded +3 Insightful), and the ACs a troll, not the other way around? Thanks for clearing that up.
so people never upgraded hardware or software before Apple came along? what, did Steve Jobs invent software versioning too?
and that quote only refers to hardware upgrade, not a hardware/software upgrade cycle. the whole point of it was that they promised BASIC for the Apple I. so they're not going to make people buy an Apple II before they've delivered BASIC on the Apple I. how is that a hardware/software upgrade cycle? they're not using hardware to make people upgrade their software. they're not even using software to make people upgrade their hardware.
nt
"Each of their customers is getting their own boxed copy of legally-purchased OS X."
So they do sell two copies for each they buy. Case closed.
Nope, just the one (and the "live" version that every relevant court case has affirmed does not count as it's the same copy but in usable form).
How the hell do they sell a original shrink-wrapped box after they installed the software? Face it, they sell two copies.
Oh puleeeze...
There was nothing to "reverse engineer". The Mac was a simple machine that was exceeded by all of it's non-PC rivals at the time. All you needed to emulate the Mac was MacOS itself and some software.
The hard part was getting MacOS itself (both ROMs and System disks).
You mean those rivals that where not finished until a year later at least?
"Pirating" is a stupid term for copyright infringement.
I used to think so, except that it goes back [wikipedia.org] to at least 1703. Additionally...
That just means it's an old, stupid term for copyright infringement. I value precision in speech and calling one crime by the name of another because the first term is harder to understand or less flashy angers me.
I see you up in arms about "identity theft".
You are right, the illegal thing being done is *copying* the software, whether they modified it or not.
How do you figure? By every account I've read, Psystar is buying copies of OS X and installing them. Each of their customers is getting their own boxed copy of legally-purchased OS X.
So they do sell two copies for each they buy. Case closed.
Apple *IS* evil... way more evil than IBM could ever try to be in their wildest imaginations.
Apple once granted permission to make an Apple 2 clone to a company that did that and made it LOTS better. Apple sued and won on the basis of "We said you could make a clone, not embarrass us by making it way better!"
This is the story of the Apple IIe and the Franklin computer. It is one of the ugliest things I have seen happen in the business world and I will never forget it and the company associated with it.
You forgot to mention that most of it is made up. Is Apple so *EVIL* you have to make up a story?
Whether I can install that Mac OS X on a computer and then sell you that computer, is what's iffy here. It gets even iffier if I have patched it. The common-sense answer is that it should(*) be legal; the reality is that it might not.
(*) Or should it? If we're talking about GPLed software, some people's opinions might change.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/16/osx86-project-not-too-happy-with-psystar-either/ Uh-oh, it looks like wannabe Mac clone maker Psystar has more than one licensing issue with the Open Computer: the company didn't get permission from developers working on the OSx86 Project to sell their work. Netkas, who developed the EFI emulator Psystar is using, posted up a blog entry yesterday calling Psystar "liars" and has re-released his code under a license that specifically forbids commercial usage.
Apple has tied the iPod to the iTMS? Yes, sure, if by that you mean they created the iTMS because there was no way to legally buy anything but "independent" music (=music hardly anyone wants) online for it.
No, I mean technologically. Every iPod comes bundled with a copy of iTunes which connects users to the iTunes store. The iPod uses a proprietary DRM scheme to allow sale of DRM'd media and Apple does not license that DRM scheme for use by other stores. Both of these provide Apple with an advantage other music stores cannot duplicate. If the iPod is a monopoly influence, that's illegal.
And we are back at step one - Apple became a monopoly because of the bundling trinity - it offered a simplicity that the consumer wanted. And why should Apple license Fairplay to others stores? Because that would not open up the market, but instead give more leverage back to the music industry and actually put Apple in the master monopoly position Microsoft was in with DRM'd WMA. Yet by not opening Fairplay they have essentially forced the music industry to sell their music at a number of stores without DRM - benefitting not only the stores but more importantly the consumers, both their customers and those who will never buy from evil monopolistic Apple, but who can now buy non-DRMed music online, which they fucking could not before Apple became a monopoly.
Well, unless you bought from a WMD shop, forcing Apple to become yet another accomplice to the Microsoft monopoly. Not to mention that if they did that only iPod owners with Windows could buy songs for it, not Mac owners, because not a single one of those stores worked on the Mac.
Yeah, the market was broken because of Microsoft's monopoly abuse. They were even convicted of that abuse in one case although the "punishment" was so flaccid it did not even include stopping the crime.
Or do you mean that you can't play Fairplay songs on anything but an iPod?
You've still got it backwards. It is because the iPod will play Fairplay media, but not other DRM'd media and because other retailers can't sell Fairplay DRM'd media. That's the potentially illegal part. It doesn't matter one whit if other players can play Fairplay, but whether other stores can sell DRM'd media that works on the iPod.
So you say Apple should be forced to become an even bigger monopolist? And there is obviously no need to sell DRM'd music, else Amazon wouldn't be such a big hit. But then, who knows if they could still do that if Apple were forced to "open up" Fairplay?
Nobody forced you to buy anything from the iTMS, and you can pretty easily transcode the tunes to any format you want, including lossless, giving you the exact same sound.
No, but then other stores aren't automatically connected to when you install the software that ships with iPods and other stores proprietary DRM schemes aren't supported by the iPod either.
Which is good, else there would not be any DRM free stores. And the iTMS isn't "automatically connected to" either, you will have to click on the store entry to even get there. But you are probably right, the iPod users are so pampered, they would never be able to open a browser window and type "amazon.com/mp3/".
Or do you mean that you can't play Fairplay songs on anything but an iPod? You can't play LPs on a CD player either. Nobody forced you to buy anything from the iTMS, and you can pretty easily transcode the tunes to any format you want, including lossless, giving you the exact same sound.
I keep pointing out that Apple didn't file against Psystar until the pro-EULA decision in the WoW Glider case came through.
Too bad you are wrong then. Yes, the news of Apple's suit came out on July 15th, a day after the Glider decision. However Apple filed its suit on July 3
They are illegally altering an existing, copyrighted product.
It is not inherently illegal to modify a copyrighted product. I can buy a book, use correction tape a sharpie to re-write parts I don't like, and re-sell it. This is allowed. What makes OS X special in this regard?
But you can't resell it claiming you are selling the unchanged original - which is what you keep claiming Psystar did.
You shouldn't look at "the biggest allegation I've heard on Slashdot", because I can easily claim they hide Osama Bin Laden in their basement - and guess who's behind them. But you should look at what Apple claims (among other things): "Defendant has created derivative works from, reproduced, distributed and/or displayed the Copyrighted Works in violation of Apple's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. Apple has not licensed or otherwise authorized Defendant's creation of derivative works from, reproduction, distribution or display of the Copyrighted Works. "