The development system has the preview release of Mac OS X Tiger on Intel pre-installed, allowing you to run, verify, and debug your Universal Binary application.
If it doesnt come with a computer system, whats it preinstalled on? Yes, theres no 'This includes a full Intel based computer system' wording, but it does hint at it, including using terms like 'Use of a Developer Transition System' and 'pre-installed' and 'pre-loaded'.
When it comes to stuff like this, I dont post for the karma, I post because I believe in what Im saying and the arguements and views im putting across. I knew for a fact that my initial post would hit +5 and then be modded down to hell, tho I am surprised by the fact that its stayed above +2 for the time being. My post is so much against slashdot groupthink that I dont even care about the karma level, because I know that it represents the standard groupthink and not reality.
No I didn't realize that, but that may be because Fair Use rights only come into play when you don't own the copyright!! Fair Use is when you use a copyrighted work without having to ask permission from the copyright owner.
My comment on sharing copyrighted worked was directed straight at the parent comment. Fair Use is a set of exclusions from standard copyright law that the copyright owner has no control over - the parents example of sharing would struggle to come under any of the examples given of accepted fair use and based on the factors given in copyright law, it would have a hard time winning a court case based on it.
You can cite statutes all you want, but unless you know the case law behind it, you don't know what it has been interpreted to mean. For instance, did you know that the Supreme Court has held that "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 US 417 (1984).? I can tell that you didn't.
I dont see any mention of redistribution of the reproduction being allowed under that ruling and fair use certainly doesnt give you the sort of redistribution rights that slashdotters seem to think. I did know about that ruling tho.
Did you even read what you cited? That is a list of "EXAMPLES", and the list is not exclusive.
I did read that, tahnkyou. That is a list of EXAMPLES that courts have found to be fair use. Note the distinct lack in that short list of examples where the item has been redistributed in entirety, but I do agree that its a non exhaustive list.
Again, if you did any research you'd find that there is no exhaustive list for "fair uses" nor is there any bright line test for what constitutes fair use.
Equally that can also mean that theres no exhaustive uses against fair use - as each case of fair use is decided upon its own merits, this will always be the case. You cant look at a usage and immediately claim its fair use or not, but based on past cases, predominently the thing which has been found to be Fair Use is partial reproduction, not full reproduction and distribution.
The factor that has the most weight to ascertain whether or not a use is a fair use is "was it for commercial purposes?". That's the biggy, so if you're using it for personal use (does that include sharing? we don't know yet) then it is more likely that your use is non-infringing, but even that is not dispositive
No, there are four (4) weights attached when deciding if a use is fair or not and these are laid out in section 107:
1. Commercial or non commercial
2. Nature of copyrighted work
3. Size and substantiality of portion used
4. The effect of reproduction on the marketability or value of the work
The section places NO WEIGHT on any single one of those, each is as equal when determining whether the usage is fair use or not. The fiar usage exclusions within copyright law all use language which leans toward partial redistribution and now redistribution of the entire work.
OK, you just contradicted yourself. You said previously that you can't copy an entire work without infringing, but now you say that Fair Use has only been generally (read: not entirely) applicable to copies of whole works
No you misread my sentance, I say that Fair Use has generally found to be not applicable to entire works except under certain exceptions such as incidental copying or judicial copying.
To reply to your final point, I never ever said in my post that an action such as sharing is 'an abolute infringing act', my wording was very carefully put across to ensure that all I said was that it didnt certainly and definately fall under Fair Use like most slashdotters seem to believe it does. You have no immediate right to redistribute copyrighted material anyway you like, and that is the belief most slashdotters seem to think they have a right to.
Ive noticed this fallacy on a number of occasions - if you have the right amount of money, Microsoft will license you the full specs to the NTFS filesystem. How did you think third party low level disk utilities worked? They sure dont use MS dlls for a lot of what they do. Disk recovery agents also need low level information. The stuff is out there waiting to be licensed if you have the money.
You do realise that 'Fair Use' rarely if ever extends to sharing copyrighted material that you dont own copyright to? It actually amuses me the extent Fair Use is misunderstood on slashdot and taken to mean 'Do anything we want with it'. Let me comment based on Copyright.gov guidelines:
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
Sharing your captured broadcast material over the internet, whether with friends or not, cannot be considered 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research' without drastic modification from the current method of how that material is shared.
Further more, the same site has the following to say on court approved uses of Fair Use:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use:
"quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
So basically, unless its incidental or judicial in some fashion, Fair Use has generally been found to be not applicable to the entire item, only excerpts or quotations, and rarely the whole content. Again, this does not fit sharing your captured material over the Internet.
I am currently, as I write this, 25 years of age. For the past 15 or so years of my life I have had to carry an ID card at all times, in some cases on pain of imprisonment. Why? Because my father was in the RAF, and we were stationed in places like Berlin, Ireland, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Our ID allowed us to visit East Germany without being hindered by the Soviet border guards, they allowed us access to the base and when challenged, they allowed us to prove that we were UK military citizens which in many cases got us preferential treatment.
My outlook on ID cards is very different to a normal persons - pretty much any person who has had contact with the military has a different outlook on them. I have no qualms about registering for an ID card, after all I need to register to vote, register to drive, register to own property, register to travel outside the country, register to have a bank account. All of those things bring the burden of proof of identity on you, and a government backed proof would make all of these things easier.
What I do object to tho is having to pay for an ID card - up to £100 by most estimates. I am as big on privacy as anyone else on slashdot, but I fail to see how a national ID card can invade or strip my privacy any more than a drivers license or any of the other things Ive mentioned above.
Why not? With Smart Folders it allows EVERYONE with access to that location to sort that data in their own personal way, rather than one person forcing their filing method on everyone else.
They control the vast majority of Diamond mines, but they dont control them all. Canadian diamond mines are not owned or controlled by De Beers in any way, and you can buy from them with confidence.
1/ The Pentium M chip from Intel has surprised a lot of people, and is more than on par with the G4 for performance and beats AMD a lot of the time as well, so it will make an excellent lower end replacement. When Intel gets its finger out and produces the PentiumM with the EMT64 instructions, it will also be a G5 replacement. The Cell processor is NOT a general purpose processor, and definately wont do for a desktop or laptop.
2/ Yup, unavoidable tho. Unless you went with a PPC chip, you will always have compatability issues - and it does look like Apple have thought this out well and forseen many of the issues involved.
3/ Sorry, it isnt - OSX is the main selling arguement, very few Mac owners care about the CPU inside (I bet a lot of them wont even be able to name it).
And while we are at it, lets clear up a misconception - the code is under the LESSER (or Library) GPL, not the standard GPL. They are two different licenses that allow two different sets of usage, and the terminology is not interchanageable - Apple uses LGPL code not GPL code.
Quick tip with this, I found Firefox beachballed all the time after updating to 10.4, but when I deleted the.app from/Applications and replaced it with a fresh one, it started working as good as normal. Apparently something to do with prelinking/prebinding that a fresh copy (even from the same archive as the one you are currently running) fixes due to forcing it to be redone on first start.
# a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "they set the measure for all subsequent work"
# criterion: the ideal in terms of which something can be judged; "they live by the standards of their community"
# conforming to or constituting a standard of measurement or value; or of the usual or regularized or accepted kind; "windows of standard width"; "standard sizes"; "the standard fixtures"; "standard brands"; "standard operating procedure"
# a board measure = 1980 board feet
# the value behind the money in a monetary system
# established or widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence; "a standard reference work"
Being a standard does not mean it has to be published by a recognised standards authority - you can set a standard yourself purely by creating a set of rules for it to conform to.
First, Flash is a standard, just because its not ratified by an independant body doesnt mean it isnt a standard. Secondly, yes you may have a point on the cut and past, and that part is covered by the second part of my post. I stand by my statement that its no worse than any other standard out there.
There are plenty of third party flash creation applications, Flash is a published standard, Macromedia just keep the current specification to themselves for a couple of months to give their own products a headstart.
No, last year SkyOne got the entire season before it started airing in the US, it started and finished in the UK before the US, we had a short break around Christmas (a week iirc) and that was it.
Actually, the Airforce has considered plans for refurbishment of the B-52s with 4 replacement Turbofan engines, but has decided to hold off on any plans due to the abundance of already delivered spareparts for the current engines (they have enough spare engines and parts to take the current fleet through to 2015 without spending any money on replacements).
Yes, I dont believe that the busybox application set is GNU orientated, and there are many 'microdistros' based on it and uClibc. With this in mind, and the fact that these microdistros are predominent in firewall/router systems such as the netgear range, they are on a par in usage figures as GNU/Linux systems.
No, I didnt miss your point, your point is wrong. There is nothing inherent about the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset that binds them together, or makes one entirely dependant on the other, its just that they are very rarely seen apart. You can theoretically run the Linux kernel with a BSD userland set, and you can run the GNU userland set under either a BSD kernel or the Hurd kernel. Neither is completely indespensable in the Operating System world.
Both the Linux kernel and the GNU tools are essential for an operating system.
I see and have used lots of Operating Systems that dont rely on either the Linux kernel or the GNU tools. Neither are essential for an operating system, but both are often seen in operating systems, quite frequently together in the GNU/Linux OS. Please dont make it sound like an OS cant exist without the Linux kernel or the GNU tools.
Or it can simply be a fact that modern computer systems (both hardware and software) change states so much every second that its next to impossible to recreate the exact state required without having a rig that recorded the origional state and set it up as a test system. It could be a very obscure bug that requires some very exacting conditions that only occur extremely rarely, thats why noones been able to replicate it. Im sure that in the course of development, all programmers have come across a random one time only bug that causes you to shrug your shoulders, watch out to see if it ever happens again, but get on with life.
I spoke to him as a seperate individual, as Im just a bitplayer in the company I work for - he had no reason to do anything other than say 'send the info over, I shall look it over'. I sent him a fax on another subject a few years ago through the writetothem.com service (or faxyourmp.org.uk as it was then), he replied to me via letter, and held a 7 letter long discussion with myself on the subject, so I consider my MP to be one that works for everyone.
This might seem unrelated but, I actually met with my MP at a dinner setup by my employers for other reasons (they are big supporters of his locally) and so far I have managed to get him to raise the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act issues with the party leadership after actually shocking him with the actual details of the RIP bill (shifting of the burden of proof of innocence, secret evidence, contradicting the Misuse of Computers act etc) and he asked me for any further info in writing, which he passed onto a select committee who have raised it further - as I understand it, its due to be discussed in Parliament within the next 3 months, which is fantastic proof that your MP *can* work for you.
Slashdot Mirror
The development system has the preview release of Mac OS X Tiger on Intel pre-installed, allowing you to run, verify, and debug your Universal Binary application.
If it doesnt come with a computer system, whats it preinstalled on? Yes, theres no 'This includes a full Intel based computer system' wording, but it does hint at it, including using terms like 'Use of a Developer Transition System' and 'pre-installed' and 'pre-loaded'.
When it comes to stuff like this, I dont post for the karma, I post because I believe in what Im saying and the arguements and views im putting across. I knew for a fact that my initial post would hit +5 and then be modded down to hell, tho I am surprised by the fact that its stayed above +2 for the time being. My post is so much against slashdot groupthink that I dont even care about the karma level, because I know that it represents the standard groupthink and not reality.
Yes, that is fair use, but it still only covers reproduction and not redistribution of the copyrighted work, and that is what my posts are about.
No I didn't realize that, but that may be because Fair Use rights only come into play when you don't own the copyright!! Fair Use is when you use a copyrighted work without having to ask permission from the copyright owner.
My comment on sharing copyrighted worked was directed straight at the parent comment. Fair Use is a set of exclusions from standard copyright law that the copyright owner has no control over - the parents example of sharing would struggle to come under any of the examples given of accepted fair use and based on the factors given in copyright law, it would have a hard time winning a court case based on it.
You can cite statutes all you want, but unless you know the case law behind it, you don't know what it has been interpreted to mean. For instance, did you know that the Supreme Court has held that "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 US 417 (1984).? I can tell that you didn't.
I dont see any mention of redistribution of the reproduction being allowed under that ruling and fair use certainly doesnt give you the sort of redistribution rights that slashdotters seem to think. I did know about that ruling tho.
Did you even read what you cited? That is a list of "EXAMPLES", and the list is not exclusive.
I did read that, tahnkyou. That is a list of EXAMPLES that courts have found to be fair use. Note the distinct lack in that short list of examples where the item has been redistributed in entirety, but I do agree that its a non exhaustive list.
Again, if you did any research you'd find that there is no exhaustive list for "fair uses" nor is there any bright line test for what constitutes fair use.
Equally that can also mean that theres no exhaustive uses against fair use - as each case of fair use is decided upon its own merits, this will always be the case. You cant look at a usage and immediately claim its fair use or not, but based on past cases, predominently the thing which has been found to be Fair Use is partial reproduction, not full reproduction and distribution.
The factor that has the most weight to ascertain whether or not a use is a fair use is "was it for commercial purposes?". That's the biggy, so if you're using it for personal use (does that include sharing? we don't know yet) then it is more likely that your use is non-infringing, but even that is not dispositive
No, there are four (4) weights attached when deciding if a use is fair or not and these are laid out in section 107:
1. Commercial or non commercial
2. Nature of copyrighted work
3. Size and substantiality of portion used
4. The effect of reproduction on the marketability or value of the work
The section places NO WEIGHT on any single one of those, each is as equal when determining whether the usage is fair use or not. The fiar usage exclusions within copyright law all use language which leans toward partial redistribution and now redistribution of the entire work.
OK, you just contradicted yourself. You said previously that you can't copy an entire work without infringing, but now you say that Fair Use has only been generally (read: not entirely) applicable to copies of whole works
No you misread my sentance, I say that Fair Use has generally found to be not applicable to entire works except under certain exceptions such as incidental copying or judicial copying.
To reply to your final point, I never ever said in my post that an action such as sharing is 'an abolute infringing act', my wording was very carefully put across to ensure that all I said was that it didnt certainly and definately fall under Fair Use like most slashdotters seem to believe it does. You have no immediate right to redistribute copyrighted material anyway you like, and that is the belief most slashdotters seem to think they have a right to.
Ive noticed this fallacy on a number of occasions - if you have the right amount of money, Microsoft will license you the full specs to the NTFS filesystem. How did you think third party low level disk utilities worked? They sure dont use MS dlls for a lot of what they do. Disk recovery agents also need low level information. The stuff is out there waiting to be licensed if you have the money.
Sharing your captured broadcast material over the internet, whether with friends or not, cannot be considered 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research' without drastic modification from the current method of how that material is shared.
Further more, the same site has the following to say on court approved uses of Fair Use:
So basically, unless its incidental or judicial in some fashion, Fair Use has generally been found to be not applicable to the entire item, only excerpts or quotations, and rarely the whole content. Again, this does not fit sharing your captured material over the Internet.
I am currently, as I write this, 25 years of age. For the past 15 or so years of my life I have had to carry an ID card at all times, in some cases on pain of imprisonment. Why? Because my father was in the RAF, and we were stationed in places like Berlin, Ireland, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Our ID allowed us to visit East Germany without being hindered by the Soviet border guards, they allowed us access to the base and when challenged, they allowed us to prove that we were UK military citizens which in many cases got us preferential treatment.
My outlook on ID cards is very different to a normal persons - pretty much any person who has had contact with the military has a different outlook on them. I have no qualms about registering for an ID card, after all I need to register to vote, register to drive, register to own property, register to travel outside the country, register to have a bank account. All of those things bring the burden of proof of identity on you, and a government backed proof would make all of these things easier.
What I do object to tho is having to pay for an ID card - up to £100 by most estimates. I am as big on privacy as anyone else on slashdot, but I fail to see how a national ID card can invade or strip my privacy any more than a drivers license or any of the other things Ive mentioned above.
Why not? With Smart Folders it allows EVERYONE with access to that location to sort that data in their own personal way, rather than one person forcing their filing method on everyone else.
They control the vast majority of Diamond mines, but they dont control them all. Canadian diamond mines are not owned or controlled by De Beers in any way, and you can buy from them with confidence.
1/ The Pentium M chip from Intel has surprised a lot of people, and is more than on par with the G4 for performance and beats AMD a lot of the time as well, so it will make an excellent lower end replacement. When Intel gets its finger out and produces the PentiumM with the EMT64 instructions, it will also be a G5 replacement. The Cell processor is NOT a general purpose processor, and definately wont do for a desktop or laptop.
2/ Yup, unavoidable tho. Unless you went with a PPC chip, you will always have compatability issues - and it does look like Apple have thought this out well and forseen many of the issues involved.
3/ Sorry, it isnt - OSX is the main selling arguement, very few Mac owners care about the CPU inside (I bet a lot of them wont even be able to name it).
And while we are at it, lets clear up a misconception - the code is under the LESSER (or Library) GPL, not the standard GPL. They are two different licenses that allow two different sets of usage, and the terminology is not interchanageable - Apple uses LGPL code not GPL code.
Quick tip with this, I found Firefox beachballed all the time after updating to 10.4, but when I deleted the .app from /Applications and replaced it with a fresh one, it started working as good as normal. Apparently something to do with prelinking/prebinding that a fresh copy (even from the same archive as the one you are currently running) fixes due to forcing it to be redone on first start.
From Dictionary.com:
Now we may both agree that Flash has its shortcomings, but for what it does there is simply no equal, so it excels at its use.
From Googles define:
Being a standard does not mean it has to be published by a recognised standards authority - you can set a standard yourself purely by creating a set of rules for it to conform to.
First, Flash is a standard, just because its not ratified by an independant body doesnt mean it isnt a standard. Secondly, yes you may have a point on the cut and past, and that part is covered by the second part of my post. I stand by my statement that its no worse than any other standard out there.
Flash is as bad as any other standard, its what assholes do with it that counts.
There are plenty of third party flash creation applications, Flash is a published standard, Macromedia just keep the current specification to themselves for a couple of months to give their own products a headstart.
No, last year SkyOne got the entire season before it started airing in the US, it started and finished in the UK before the US, we had a short break around Christmas (a week iirc) and that was it.
Actually, the Airforce has considered plans for refurbishment of the B-52s with 4 replacement Turbofan engines, but has decided to hold off on any plans due to the abundance of already delivered spareparts for the current engines (they have enough spare engines and parts to take the current fleet through to 2015 without spending any money on replacements).
Yes, I dont believe that the busybox application set is GNU orientated, and there are many 'microdistros' based on it and uClibc. With this in mind, and the fact that these microdistros are predominent in firewall/router systems such as the netgear range, they are on a par in usage figures as GNU/Linux systems.
No, I didnt miss your point, your point is wrong. There is nothing inherent about the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset that binds them together, or makes one entirely dependant on the other, its just that they are very rarely seen apart. You can theoretically run the Linux kernel with a BSD userland set, and you can run the GNU userland set under either a BSD kernel or the Hurd kernel. Neither is completely indespensable in the Operating System world.
Both the Linux kernel and the GNU tools are essential for an operating system.
I see and have used lots of Operating Systems that dont rely on either the Linux kernel or the GNU tools. Neither are essential for an operating system, but both are often seen in operating systems, quite frequently together in the GNU/Linux OS. Please dont make it sound like an OS cant exist without the Linux kernel or the GNU tools.
Or it can simply be a fact that modern computer systems (both hardware and software) change states so much every second that its next to impossible to recreate the exact state required without having a rig that recorded the origional state and set it up as a test system. It could be a very obscure bug that requires some very exacting conditions that only occur extremely rarely, thats why noones been able to replicate it. Im sure that in the course of development, all programmers have come across a random one time only bug that causes you to shrug your shoulders, watch out to see if it ever happens again, but get on with life.
I spoke to him as a seperate individual, as Im just a bitplayer in the company I work for - he had no reason to do anything other than say 'send the info over, I shall look it over'. I sent him a fax on another subject a few years ago through the writetothem.com service (or faxyourmp.org.uk as it was then), he replied to me via letter, and held a 7 letter long discussion with myself on the subject, so I consider my MP to be one that works for everyone.
This might seem unrelated but, I actually met with my MP at a dinner setup by my employers for other reasons (they are big supporters of his locally) and so far I have managed to get him to raise the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act issues with the party leadership after actually shocking him with the actual details of the RIP bill (shifting of the burden of proof of innocence, secret evidence, contradicting the Misuse of Computers act etc) and he asked me for any further info in writing, which he passed onto a select committee who have raised it further - as I understand it, its due to be discussed in Parliament within the next 3 months, which is fantastic proof that your MP *can* work for you.
What 'current lgpl violations'?