I love the fact that someone modded you up for this insane response. You *are* aware that "dollar" is used in other countries right? Fuckin' americans.
No, they are not free to do that. There's anti-trust laws that prevent them from doing that. That's the only reason why they don't do that. The difference between Apple and BMW is copyright, nothing more, nothing less. When you throw copyright into the mix things get murky because copyright is a blank check handed out by the government with absolutely no accountability.
Uhh, if BMW was to make it a condition of purchase of one of their vehicles that you only buy spare parts from them, that would be anti-competitive. This is much the same thing.
Meh, he's selling a service, he should have adequate float to cover legal tender. If he's worried about his safety he should get a safer job. Next you'll be saying convenience stores and gas stations shouldn't have to have sufficient float to cover legal tender because they get robbed all the time.
It's just crazy. Imagine getting a license with the water pump for your car:
"Spare Part License Agreement for Ford Torus Water Pump:
2. A. This license allows you to install, use and run this Water Pump in a single Ford Vehicle at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Water Pump on any non-Ford-labeled vehicle, or to enable others to do so."
Ford would be laughed out of court. This kind of shit has long ago been ruled anti-competitive and illegal.
Carry a fuckin' float, what is hard? Little girl lemonade store can't afford it, I can understand that, but why can't the million dollar bus company afford to put a freakin' float on their bus? As for vending machines, they're not people, they're not held to account on these things, and yes when they were first introduced there was an uproar about them not accepting legal tender.
Say I'm a black man. I go into a store to buy some bread to feed my family. The shop keep says "that bread aint for sale". I say I have a moral right to take it. Irrefutable.
Say I buy a razor, it comes with 3 razor blades. After a month of use I need some more. I go back to the store and ask for replacement razor blades, the shop keep says I have to buy a whole new razor to get 3 more razor blades. I don't want a razor, I want replacement razor blades. I bought my razor with the belief that I could get replacement razor blades. After all, I can get replacement razor blades for every other razor on the planet, why not this one? Again, I ask the shop keep how much for just the razor blades, he says they are "not for individual sale". The guy is clearly trying to cheat me. If he won't accept a fair price, I say I have a moral right to take them.
Yes, even if you're just taking a copy.
You were so close, then you fucked yourself.
Like quantum physics, the problem with copyright is it is not ammenable to common sense. Typically when something is not ammenable to common sense we reject it, but in both cases we can't. In the case of quantum physics we just have to accept that the world isn't the way we would like it to be. In the case of copyright we don't, we can ignore it and we can reject it. Fuck what Apple says we can and can't do with Mac OS X. They can't stop us.
Maybe in your juristiction that would work, but around here the bus company doesn't have any special rights. Hell, the local council buses don't have any special rights. You wanna take money off people, you have enough float to accept legal tender. In my area, if you were to refuse me a ride on your bus (and you'd have to do it with force cause I'm a pig headed bastard) I'd have you arrested.
The moment I ask what the price is and they tell me, and I accept, I have a debt. Here's how the transaction goes (at least where I live):
How much is a ticket to [where I'm going]?
$3.50
Ok, one thanks.
[Operator presses button on the machine, ticket prints out.] That's $3.50.
[Hands operator a $50 note.] Here you go.
Hey man, I can't change this! You got anything smaller.
No, sorry, I don't.
Look, I need something smaller or I can't sell you this ticket.
[Points to the ticket.] You already have.
[Shakes his head, gives me the ticket.] Go sit down, and try to have close to exact change next time please.
He knows he's fucked because the stupid bus company policy of not having enough float to cover legal tender ties his hands. He can't even ask me ahead of time if I have exact change because the moment he tells me how much the ticket is he's offered the sale. Not to mention the fact that it's $3.50 we're talking about here, there's no reason to get uppity about it. I don't want to give the wrong impression here. I typically try to have correct change, but on the rare occasions that I've gotten on a bus and only had a $20, I'll either get this response or I'll get $16.50 change in coins.. bus drivers appear to have figured out their own solution to the $50 dilemma, don't give notes as change to anyone except those people.
Of course, maybe one day all this shit will go away. It's pretty funny that I've got to deal with the same issues today that Isaac Newton had to deal with. Today it's a $50 note, back then it was a gold guinea, and when they "made change" they really made it: a "piece of eight" was literally a spanish silver coin cut up into eight pieces by a blacksmith. If there was no blacksmith around? The shopkeep would write it down in a book and you got credit.
I still don't see how that is stealing. Maybe if you broke into someone's house and took their installer disc it would be stealing. But let's just say we're going with the whole "Apple is losing revenue by you copying this" argument that this is stealing.. if it is impossible for me to buy it, then how can they be losing revenue? Are they trying to say that my willingness to download a copy of their OS from the Internet is somehow implying that I'm willing to go buy their hardware to get it? And therefore they are missing out on a hardware sale? That's a pretty ludicrious implication.
Yeah, that's one of the scarier things about modern society. Replace person with a non-rational token vending machine and then show "zero tolerance" for people who don't have a token.
Bullshit. You have no right to refuse sale based on a lack of change. If I buy something for $49.50 and give the attendant $50, they are required to give me 50 cents change. If they don't have 50 cents, but they have a dollar, they are required to give me a dollar change. If they don't have a 50 cents but they have five dollars they are required to give me five dollars change, etc. The moment I ask "how much?" and they tell me, they have entered into a contract to supply the goods at that price or a lower price if they can't make change. And yes, it is perfectly legal to carry around a $50 note and refuse to give any other legal tender if you know bus drivers are arrogant enough to demand "exact change". And no, it doesn't matter if they put up a sign. The supreme court has overruled prior restraint about a dozen times. The pretty coloured notes in my pocket have a promise on them that they are legal tender in this land, failure to accept them is against the law.
Fuck you're an idiot. Do you honestly believe that all the carbon exhausted by factories, power stations, automobiles, etc just hangs in the air and fails to be sequested by the earth? If that were the case our atmosphere would be completely carbon inside a year. No, my simple friend, the excess carbon in our atmosphere is a very small percentage of that which us humans are releasing. It would take a lot of energy for us to remove that carbon from the air but it is possible. The problem here is not that the earth doesn't sequestor carbon so we have to do it, the problem is that the earth doesn't sequester enough carbon so we need to give it a helping hand.
I tell ya, the law of thermodynamics is like the halting problem, in the hands of the ignorant it can be used to quash just about any idea.
If only more geeks, scientists and other technically competent people did this. But, I suppose, they're all too busy actually working for a living to bother.
Yeah, copyright law is fucked, I thought we all agreed on that. Here's the thing, when I get on the bus and I only have a $50 note, I say to the driver: you can give me change or I ride for free, I don't apologise and get off the bus because he refuses to take my money.
Yeah, see, I'm not terribly interested in making something that is "intelligent" in the philosophical "be my best friend" kind of way.. I'd just like to make something that could solve problems, summarise stuff, etc. Ya know, the kind of work where emotion actually gets in the way.
I really don't get it. This is just using copyright to prevent competition isn't it? If these people hadn't copied the ROMs and instead had written their own ROMs which were compatible, we could have had an Apple II clone war long before the IBM PC clone war.. how can that possibly be a bad thing for the consumer, being that the clone war is essentially what made PCs mainstream?
Your karma check for today: There once was was a user that whined his existing OS was so blind, he'd do better to pirate an OS that ran great but found his hardware declined. Please don't steal Mac OS! Really, that's way uncool. (C) Apple Computer, Inc.
So let me gets this straight. There once was a user who really didn't like Windows (or whatever) and so he decided he wanted to run Mac OS X. Unfortunately, Apple refuses to sell him a copy of Mac OS X that will run on his PC, so he cracks it (or downloads the crack from someone else). Ok, so two questions occur to me:
How is this stealing? I mean, if I'm willing to accept the somewhat unsound argument that if person X aquires a copy of a program from person Y instead of person Z (the owner of the program), then person Z is missing out on revenue from person X, and I'm willing to call that "stealing", even if that is all true, that isn't what is happening here. Person X can't by a copy of the program from person Z that will run on his PC. Person Z is refusing to sell it to him, so how is person Z losing out? And shit, for all we know, there could be a person W who is happy to buy a copy of the program from person Z, even though it won't run on his PC and then go get the crack so he can run it on his PC. Is Apple try to equate "stealing" with getting something that you paid for to work on the hardware you want it to work on?
How is this uncool? Apart from the fact that plenty of people think having the skills to crack software and having cracks available for the world to download is a pretty cool thing, is Apple trying to say that only Apple hardware is cool? Or are they just trying to say that refusing to be bullied into buying a complete computer when all you want is the OS is uncool? Cause I think people who stand up for themselves are actually pretty cool.
It kinda frightens me when people feel a moral imperative to justify what they do for a living. I've worked on DRM (actually "product activation", but I guess this crowd would consider that DRM) and the whole time that I did that I never felt anything but kinsmanship towards crackers. It takes a lot of cracking knowledge to create a reasonable barrier that will slow down cracking (and that's all this technology can ever be), so I'm of the opinion that only people who have actually been crackers can make good DRM. How can you go from being a cracker to hating them just because you're on the other side of the fence now? Does your pay check really control your thoughts that much?
they don't care if its based on human intelligence as long as it works
I'd go one step further than that. They don't want it based on human intelligence, because human intelligence is just so atrocious. The reason why old sci-fi always petrayed robots as being unemotional purely rational beings is because that's what scientists see as virtue.
"Embodied intelligence" is the argument that only an environment like ours is valid for the creation of recognisable AI. And yeah, it's true, if you're obsessed with recognising the natural in the artificial.
Slashdot Mirror
I love the fact that someone modded you up for this insane response. You *are* aware that "dollar" is used in other countries right? Fuckin' americans.
"an experienced veteran in the digital media business."
Oh my god, it's Prince!
the creator of Syndicate, 'nuff said.
No, they are not free to do that. There's anti-trust laws that prevent them from doing that. That's the only reason why they don't do that. The difference between Apple and BMW is copyright, nothing more, nothing less. When you throw copyright into the mix things get murky because copyright is a blank check handed out by the government with absolutely no accountability.
Uhh, if BMW was to make it a condition of purchase of one of their vehicles that you only buy spare parts from them, that would be anti-competitive. This is much the same thing.
Meh, he's selling a service, he should have adequate float to cover legal tender. If he's worried about his safety he should get a safer job. Next you'll be saying convenience stores and gas stations shouldn't have to have sufficient float to cover legal tender because they get robbed all the time.
And you're a pussy who is perfectly willing to let people cheat him. That's why there are anti-trust laws.
It's just crazy. Imagine getting a license with the water pump for your car:
"Spare Part License Agreement for Ford Torus Water Pump:
2. A. This license allows you to install, use and run this Water Pump in a single Ford Vehicle at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Water Pump on any non-Ford-labeled vehicle, or to enable others to do so."
Ford would be laughed out of court. This kind of shit has long ago been ruled anti-competitive and illegal.
Carry a fuckin' float, what is hard? Little girl lemonade store can't afford it, I can understand that, but why can't the million dollar bus company afford to put a freakin' float on their bus? As for vending machines, they're not people, they're not held to account on these things, and yes when they were first introduced there was an uproar about them not accepting legal tender.
Say I'm a black man. I go into a store to buy some bread to feed my family. The shop keep says "that bread aint for sale". I say I have a moral right to take it. Irrefutable.
Say I buy a razor, it comes with 3 razor blades. After a month of use I need some more. I go back to the store and ask for replacement razor blades, the shop keep says I have to buy a whole new razor to get 3 more razor blades. I don't want a razor, I want replacement razor blades. I bought my razor with the belief that I could get replacement razor blades. After all, I can get replacement razor blades for every other razor on the planet, why not this one? Again, I ask the shop keep how much for just the razor blades, he says they are "not for individual sale". The guy is clearly trying to cheat me. If he won't accept a fair price, I say I have a moral right to take them.
Yes, even if you're just taking a copy.
You were so close, then you fucked yourself.
Like quantum physics, the problem with copyright is it is not ammenable to common sense. Typically when something is not ammenable to common sense we reject it, but in both cases we can't. In the case of quantum physics we just have to accept that the world isn't the way we would like it to be. In the case of copyright we don't, we can ignore it and we can reject it. Fuck what Apple says we can and can't do with Mac OS X. They can't stop us.
Who says I live in the US?
American geniuses strike again!
Maybe in your juristiction that would work, but around here the bus company doesn't have any special rights. Hell, the local council buses don't have any special rights. You wanna take money off people, you have enough float to accept legal tender. In my area, if you were to refuse me a ride on your bus (and you'd have to do it with force cause I'm a pig headed bastard) I'd have you arrested.
He knows he's fucked because the stupid bus company policy of not having enough float to cover legal tender ties his hands. He can't even ask me ahead of time if I have exact change because the moment he tells me how much the ticket is he's offered the sale. Not to mention the fact that it's $3.50 we're talking about here, there's no reason to get uppity about it. I don't want to give the wrong impression here. I typically try to have correct change, but on the rare occasions that I've gotten on a bus and only had a $20, I'll either get this response or I'll get $16.50 change in coins.. bus drivers appear to have figured out their own solution to the $50 dilemma, don't give notes as change to anyone except those people.
Of course, maybe one day all this shit will go away. It's pretty funny that I've got to deal with the same issues today that Isaac Newton had to deal with. Today it's a $50 note, back then it was a gold guinea, and when they "made change" they really made it: a "piece of eight" was literally a spanish silver coin cut up into eight pieces by a blacksmith. If there was no blacksmith around? The shopkeep would write it down in a book and you got credit.
I still don't see how that is stealing. Maybe if you broke into someone's house and took their installer disc it would be stealing. But let's just say we're going with the whole "Apple is losing revenue by you copying this" argument that this is stealing.. if it is impossible for me to buy it, then how can they be losing revenue? Are they trying to say that my willingness to download a copy of their OS from the Internet is somehow implying that I'm willing to go buy their hardware to get it? And therefore they are missing out on a hardware sale? That's a pretty ludicrious implication.
Yeah, that's one of the scarier things about modern society. Replace person with a non-rational token vending machine and then show "zero tolerance" for people who don't have a token.
Bullshit. You have no right to refuse sale based on a lack of change. If I buy something for $49.50 and give the attendant $50, they are required to give me 50 cents change. If they don't have 50 cents, but they have a dollar, they are required to give me a dollar change. If they don't have a 50 cents but they have five dollars they are required to give me five dollars change, etc. The moment I ask "how much?" and they tell me, they have entered into a contract to supply the goods at that price or a lower price if they can't make change. And yes, it is perfectly legal to carry around a $50 note and refuse to give any other legal tender if you know bus drivers are arrogant enough to demand "exact change". And no, it doesn't matter if they put up a sign. The supreme court has overruled prior restraint about a dozen times. The pretty coloured notes in my pocket have a promise on them that they are legal tender in this land, failure to accept them is against the law.
Fuck you're an idiot. Do you honestly believe that all the carbon exhausted by factories, power stations, automobiles, etc just hangs in the air and fails to be sequested by the earth? If that were the case our atmosphere would be completely carbon inside a year. No, my simple friend, the excess carbon in our atmosphere is a very small percentage of that which us humans are releasing. It would take a lot of energy for us to remove that carbon from the air but it is possible. The problem here is not that the earth doesn't sequestor carbon so we have to do it, the problem is that the earth doesn't sequester enough carbon so we need to give it a helping hand.
I tell ya, the law of thermodynamics is like the halting problem, in the hands of the ignorant it can be used to quash just about any idea.
If only more geeks, scientists and other technically competent people did this. But, I suppose, they're all too busy actually working for a living to bother.
Yeah, copyright law is fucked, I thought we all agreed on that. Here's the thing, when I get on the bus and I only have a $50 note, I say to the driver: you can give me change or I ride for free, I don't apologise and get off the bus because he refuses to take my money.
Yeah, see, I'm not terribly interested in making something that is "intelligent" in the philosophical "be my best friend" kind of way.. I'd just like to make something that could solve problems, summarise stuff, etc. Ya know, the kind of work where emotion actually gets in the way.
I really don't get it. This is just using copyright to prevent competition isn't it? If these people hadn't copied the ROMs and instead had written their own ROMs which were compatible, we could have had an Apple II clone war long before the IBM PC clone war.. how can that possibly be a bad thing for the consumer, being that the clone war is essentially what made PCs mainstream?
So let me gets this straight. There once was a user who really didn't like Windows (or whatever) and so he decided he wanted to run Mac OS X. Unfortunately, Apple refuses to sell him a copy of Mac OS X that will run on his PC, so he cracks it (or downloads the crack from someone else). Ok, so two questions occur to me:
It kinda frightens me when people feel a moral imperative to justify what they do for a living. I've worked on DRM (actually "product activation", but I guess this crowd would consider that DRM) and the whole time that I did that I never felt anything but kinsmanship towards crackers. It takes a lot of cracking knowledge to create a reasonable barrier that will slow down cracking (and that's all this technology can ever be), so I'm of the opinion that only people who have actually been crackers can make good DRM. How can you go from being a cracker to hating them just because you're on the other side of the fence now? Does your pay check really control your thoughts that much?
they don't care if its based on human intelligence as long as it works
I'd go one step further than that. They don't want it based on human intelligence, because human intelligence is just so atrocious. The reason why old sci-fi always petrayed robots as being unemotional purely rational beings is because that's what scientists see as virtue.
No, it was on Slashdot when it was announced, I remember because I bookmarked the "Universal AI" book that it featured. here it is.. August 13.
"Embodied intelligence" is the argument that only an environment like ours is valid for the creation of recognisable AI. And yeah, it's true, if you're obsessed with recognising the natural in the artificial.