In the end, it seems he just didn't want to continue developing his program - and instead of being honest, he thought he'd use this opportunity to climb on his soapbox and make some waves by blaming NAT for the ills of the internet and the death of his program.
I don't think it quite comes off that way. I believe that his point is that most people who use his software are simply operating behind a NAT and either don't know how or are not bothering to redirect a port to an internal IP. So what is happening is that the program does not work well for those people and so the program is falling less and less into use. Given that situation I can totally understand the desire to shelve further support of a dying program and I don't blame him for what he is doing, he is taking the most graceful out he can.
Yes he could solve the problem by setting up a central server and acting as a meeting place/redirector. However, he is totally correct that the bandwidth issues make this option less than optimal for a free service and the additional administration overhead is PITA also. So I think that the developer is spot-on in his explanation and is actually doing his best to inform people as to the how and why of the situation, not that he is using this as a soapbox against NAT.
For example, I recently discovered that if you buy an Apple iPod that says "30 GB" on the box, and power it up, the device will say: "Capacity: 27.8 GB. Available: 27.8 GB."
This is the problem with industry practices, once enough people in the industry do it then everyone has to follow.
For example, years ago Apple had a 12" monitor. If you measured the workable diagonal on the screen it was 12". The problem was that everyone else in the industry was saying that the same size monitor was a 13" because they were measuring the entire front glass, including space that had no phosphors to display stuff.
After a while Apple switched to calling their monitor a 13" monitor. Why? Because people were not buying the 12" monitor since they thought it was smaller than everyone else's 13" monitor.
The same thing has happened in the hard drive industry. The manufacturers call their drives 30GB (3x10^9) using the decimal version of giga when they know that operating systems use the base 2 version of giga making it 27.8GB. They do this so that they can get away with sounding larger. Apple and other manufacturers are forced to follow suit because if they labeled everything as the drive manufactures did they they would have to look like they had smaller drives than the competition.
Alternatively operating systems could just report everything in decimal to make you feel better, but that really wouldn't change the sizes of the drives and it would make file sizes more confusing.
I guess the best way to do it is to follow the SI unit definition of 1 MB = 1000 bytes and 1 MiB = 1024 bytes but very few people the notation. If it's not being used then it isn't really a solution.
Lastly remember that any hard drive that has a raw capacity of x will have a smaller real capacity because of the overhead of the filesystem and other meta data. These can easily take up a couple of percent of drive space on their own and will contribute to reducing the space available for your data.
Apple has had a disclaimer and a technote about this issue for a long time. You can read the technote here. I'm pretty sure that they also mention it in the documentation that comes with the computer, but I couldn't find out where I left that stuff since I've never needed it for my Mac.
I put my 15" tibook in firewire target-disk mode (try THAT on a PC laptop)
You know, that is one of the least mentioned features on the Powerbooks and yet it is one of the most useful. I can't count the number of times I've had to resurrect someone's computer or transfer a huge set of files. I just hook up the Powerbook, boot it into target disk mode, and boot the other computer up from it or transfer the data. With Firewire it's quick and easy and it works without a hitch. 1, 2, 3 and your done and off. If everything to do with computers could only be this easy...
And thus you point out a great problem with the provisions of law - the need for interpretation. ... If a law gets passed and then gets clarification in the court system no one goes back and re-writes the law for easier reading.
100% spot-on. It is the morass of case law that really defines how the law is interpreted. Of course the volumes of the case law is so confused that the law is often up for the highest bidder (the one who can afford the best searches) and the lowest common denominator (the particular interpretation that fits their desires). If the law was revised with every case, kind of like some sort of good versioning system, then the law would be more evenly applied and therefore more just.
Justice is lost
Justice is raped Justice is gone Pulling your strings Justice is done Seeking no truth Winning is all Find it so grim, so true, so real
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the exception "2) this only pertains to sound recordings, or computer software that is not embodied in hardware..." be interpreted in a manner to allow lending a CD?
An excellent point but I think you are parsing that statement incorrectly. You are parsing it this way:
this only pertains to (sound recordings, or computer software) that is not embodied in hardware
When the standard legal interpretation for these sort of statements is this way:
this only pertains to (sound recordings), or (computer software that is not embodied in hardware)
It has to do with the placement of the comma. Since there is a comma between the two items the first one ends at the comma. If it was stated like this you might have a better arguement:
this only pertains to sound recordings or computer software that is not embodied in hardware
By the way, thanks to the grandparent of this comment. I had read through the copyright statute and didn't pick up on 17 USC 109(b)(1)(A). It would have helped me out in an earlier discussion of the law. You live, you learn...
I'm sure the other poster meant grounding referring to a connection to a common conductor representing base voltage
Exactly. I'm sure that only an utter moron would take the literal meaning of the word ground as being an earth ground rather than its more common meaning in electronics as an arbitrary zero level of voltage, such as a signal ground or chassis ground. Thanks for setting that utter moron straight for me.
when my neighbor uses his electric saw, my computer monitor starts spazzing out.
You know that's not a good example either. There is a big difference between a large unshielded AC motor and a PDA in terms of stray energy output. There are two important characteristics to any stray signal - its magnitude and how frequently that magnitude swings. An AC motor produces high amplitude, wildly varying interference that induces all sorts of currents in nearby electronics. A PDA, powered by a couple of volts DC, is not likely to have anywhere near the interference of the saw.
First of all, yes the shield acts as an antenna to some extent but it still attenuates the signal by a great deal.
Secondly, if you use twisted signal pairs (pair the signal and the ground wire and twist them together) then you will lower signal leakage a lot. Combining this with wire shielding should reduce the signal leakage to nearly nothing.
Look at it this way, we use a ton of devices in our every day life. Just because you use a PDA doesn't mean that your computer goes on the fritz when the PDA is near. If airlines are having so many problems then they should look into shielding their equipment better, it should not be this affected by stray signals.
Too bad the people at PARC did't patent the idea of a graphic windowing operating system.
They did. They waited too long to enforce the patents. Xerox totally bungled their chance to become Microsoft.
Totally untrue. Xerox was paid by Apple for the right to use some of their ideas. To see the real story, go here. Here's a quote for you:
Jobs was so hot on the concepts of UI, and the living Demos he say, that he, later, negotiated a deal with Xerox. He gave Xerox a large sum of stock in Apple (worth Millions) if he could come back, and bring some programmers -- to inspire them more on the concepts of GUI. This was like a one-day tour. This was agreed to by Xerox, and so by no stretch of the imagination could this be called "ripping-off".
By separating out the cargo, the personel-carrying missions can actually become more predictable (less variance due to cargo weights) and are unencumbered with the reusability goals.
I've got an even better reason for sending up seperate cargo missions: you can leave the containers up in orbit.
See, you have just spent a lot of cash to boost tons of container material up into space. Why would you then waste the money spent to get it up there when you could instead re-use the containers themselves? If the containers were designed in such a way that when they were emptied they could be hooked together, pressurized, and turned into modules for space stations then you would have a great recipe for an easy and less expensive space program. You could even do this with some of the top fuel tanks used to boost the containers into orbit.
The personnel missions can now be much smaller and more efficient because they don't need to boost up a large amount of container material. You just boost up a personnel module and then have it splashdown at the end of the mission. Design that part well and it can be reused also.
With this sort of setup virtually everything is reusable except for the lowermost booster sections and the fuel. Yes you can probably make the lower boosters reusable but that has been shown to not be worth the effort.
What if he used the 'mv' or 'move' command instead;P
That's not copying.
It doesn't sound like it is, but it can be depending on the implementation and the situation.
There are two ways to move something with computers. If the file hierarchy is contained in some sort of index then the system might simply change the index of the file, but not copy it. However, if the file is being moved to another volume or if its position on the drive determines where the file is shown then the computer first copies the file to a new place and then it deletes the original.
I think it can be successfully argued, however, that you can copy and destroy a file so long as the file is an exact duplicate and that it remains only in the possession of the original owner. So most forms of copying, moving, and archiving a file are safe from copyright - as long as you were given the right to own the file in the first place. Transferring the file to another person is really the sticky issue.
I generally can't stand Courtney Love but she had a pretty good speech
I won't rehash it because I did it once before here on Slashdot and it was long and involved, but just try truly adding up the numbers she is talking about. They don't match at all, not even close. Those numbers that she throws around are pure bullshit and are exaggerated to justify her argument. Yes the artists get less of the take than we think but Courtney Love's arguments hold no water at all.
While you've quoted the exclusive rights section, you forgot the fair use section.
Actually I didn't. If you read the Duke article which I linked to you will see that they go into much more detail as to why the First Sale Doctrine does not apply (not Fair Use, that is a completely different issue).
I simply paraphrased what was said in the Duke article because in order to deal with the topic properly I would have to write several pages on the subject. I don't need to do this since the Duke article does it so well for me. Take a look at it and then comment if you would.
the relevant question is not what he considers to be copying, but what the law does.
A very good observation. I believe it is illegal (ie, against copyright law) to reproduce a work through any type of copying. This would be similar to photocopying a book, burning the original, and selling the copy to someone. It's the very act of copying the work that is illegal because you were not given the right to reproduce the work. Here's the relevant section of the code:
106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; ...
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
So, since only the original author has the right to reproduce the work it would be illegal to reproduce it. If the iTunes music store specifically gave you the right to reproduce the work then you could make a million copies. However, you would then run into section 3 of the code quoted above, which says that only the owner of the copyright can transfer ownership of a copy of the work.
I would assume that by giving the buyer a license to his iTunes account would give access to all purchased songs, not just the one in question.
Yes, but all the songs would also have to be transfered. The way it works is that the song is encrypted. When you go to play that song in iTunes, it tries to decrypt the song. If the computer does not have the proper account then you are asked to authorize the computer to play the song. You need an Internet connection to do this, but you only need to do it once and not every single time you want to play the song.
So basically, yes the buyer could play every song that the original purchaser has. However, the buyer could only do that if the original purchaser transfered every song to the buyer. If the original owner only transfered 1 song then the buyer could only play that 1 song.
Considering Blaster only affects 2000/XP/2003 machines, that means that the roughly 50 computers running those took 8 hours to clean? Something seems wrong here.
50 computers over 8 hours = 9.6 minutes per computer, average. This time includes knocking on doors, explanations, going back to get rooms which were closed for some reason, booting up computers and rebooting them, loading the patches on to the machine and installing them, and all the regular crap that goes with handling 50 different computers with 50 different setups. Honestly I would say that 10 minutes per computer is simply amazing. These guys must be supermen to get a whole dorm patched in a day, unless they come in with an army of a dozen techs.
What can a student do? Preach alternative systems. Wean people off of Microsoft Windows entirely. I run 2 labs of a dozen Macintosh machines running Mac OS X and I haven't had to lift a finger to do much of anything for more than a year. The machines run perfectly and just laughed at all of the viruses, worms, trojan horses, and other problems that Windows computers have had to deal with. The same, I'm sure, is true of BSD and Linux based operating systems.
Take a look at the history of the Irish potato famine. The main cause of this horrible piece of history was a simple fungus. It spread so suddenly and completely because to grow potatoes quickly you can simply cut up one potato and plant the pieces. Each new plant is a genetic clone of the original potato. Thus when a disease hits one plant it quickly spreads and hits them all, turning a simple disease into an epidemic. The same is true of computers. A monoculture of Windows machines are much more vulnerable to the spread of computer infections than a mix of operating systems. Having one operating system dominate over 90% of the market is simply not healthy.
If the kid is under 18, it's a gray area at best on the applicability of a contract to him. Are you responsible then for a contract you never saw that was "signed" by someone not able to sign a contract alone in the first place?
Actually it's not a grey area at all. Any contract signed by an unemancipated youth is null and void if the youth decides that they don't want to be bound by it. In the case of child actors and such it is the primary caregiver or some other responsible agent that signs the contract and pledges that the child will work, not the youth.
Each state in the United States has their own versions of contract law, here's an example from California:
Capacity of the Parties
In order to be bound to a contract, the parties must be competent to enter into such a legal arrangement. Underage persons, persons who are mentally ill, and intoxicated persons are usually not held to the contracts they enter. However, a minor may have the option of enforcing a contract.
So yes, this would most likely get around any user agreement or contract that you have to "click-through". Just have your 5 year old kid press the key and click on the buttons and then you are home free to do whatever you want with the software. Of course if it came down to a court case you would have to convince a court that you truly never saw or agreed to the clauses.
Xcode is just an IDE for GCC; it's not a separate compiler.
So is ProjectBuilder. However I believe that Apple has thrown in their improvements to GCC in the form of libraries and assorted files. So even though the compiler is GCC there is an advantage to compiling Objective-C through ProjectBuilder and XCode. Also, you can't compile Cocoa (Apple's additions to Objective-C with additional libraries for MacOS specific stuff) without ProjectBuilder or XCode.
That's why I said you can compile Objective-C with GCC, but it might not be as good since I have heard that Apple has better libraries (more optimized) for Objective-C.
Objective C is parsed into regular C via macros and such.
This was true when Objective-C was originally developed. The more modern implementations of Objective-C utilize more direct methods of parsing, linking, and compiling Objective-C code. While you could still probably create a set of macros and libraries which would allow a generic C compiler to compile Objective-C, it would be a lot of work and it would probably compile very slowly.
So you are probably just better off using Apple's ProjectBuilder or XCode to compile Objective-C code. ProjectBuilder compiles Objective-C "natively" (without the need for a set of translation macros), and the upcoming XCode is supposed to greatly improve on ProjectBuilder. You can also use GCC to compile Objective-C code, but I'm not sure how good the current implementation is. I know Apple made a number of improvements which were pending acceptance into GCC.
Re:What I would Actually like to see.
on
Aquarium Modcase
·
· Score: 1
Just so you know IAAC (I am a chemist). I have a masters degree in organic chemistry and have been working in commercial research laboratories for over 10 years.
1 x 10^-7M is a measure of concentration. What do you mean that water(you didn't specify how much water) has that much of each ion? A concentration is a not a measure of quantity.
What I mean is that any quantity of water has 1 x 10^-7 M of hydronium ions and 1 x 10^-7 M of hydroxyl ions. If you want to know how many ions that is in a certain amount of water then multiply the concentration times the volume. So 1 liter of water would have 1 liter x 1 x 10^-7 moles/liter = 1 x 10^-7 moles of hydronium ions.
Also, the term "hydroxyl" is only proper when the ion is part of an organic compound. Organic compounds contain carbon. Water is not an organic compound, so the proper term is "hydroxide."
Actually either term can be used. Chemists tend to use the term "hydroxide" to talk about the OH- ion when it is combined with another ion, such as sodium hydroxide. "Hydroxyl group" and "hydroxyl ion" are used when you are talking about the properties of the OH- group in general.
we get 1.8 parts per billion, and since for every hydronium, there was also a hydroxide, that means that the ion concentration is 3.6 parts per billion.
Not exactly. First of all you are calculating a mass ratio of weight of the dissociated ions to the weight of the undissociated water, something that is rarely used because it is rarely useful. Generally what is useful is to know the molarity of the solution because the rate of a reaction depends on how far apart the reactants are, ie: how many of them are in a certain volume.
Secondly, if you are doing a mass ratio then you can't double it. The original water molecules that dissociated weighed 18 g/mol and even when they split they weigh 18 g/mol so you will have 1.8 ppb mass/mass.
So let me just say that the water isn't really breaking down per se; the concentration of hydronium and hydroxide ions in neutral water is going to stay the same.
Yes, the water is really breaking down. Yes it is also recombining. At 25 degrees Celsius it will do so at such a rate that there will be a concentration of 1 x 10^-7 M of water broken down into ions at any one time. Increase the temperature and the rate of dissociation increases, thus achieving a steady state of more free ions. Yes, this does mean that the pH (hydronium ions) changes depending on the temperature but it also means that the pOH (hydroxyl ions) also change by the same amount. So overall the solution stays neutral. To put it another way, at 25 degrees C pH 7 is neutral and at some higher temperature a pH of 8 might be neutral. This can be very important for some reactions and also when measuring the pH of a solution. A good pH instrument will have a temperature probe so that it can automatically correct for any temperature deviation from 25 degrees Celsius.
Many Unix geeks, particularly on Slashdot, have praised Apple's decision to base Mac OS X off of the enterprise-ready BSD codebase.
Blah blah blah...
This is a cut-and-paste troll that has been answered dozens of times on Slashdot. Basically it boils down to a lot of FUD. Apple's X11 server is pretty much the same as all the X11 servers people use on other platforms. Apple's Mach-O format binaries are open, tested standards that several other operating systems use. MacOS X is extremely compatible with many of the open source standards out there and Apple contributes heavily to the open source movement. The DRM that Apple uses for the iTunes Music Store is by far one of the lightest DRMs possible and is hardly even noticeable, how many other DRMs let you burn as many normal, un-watermarked CDs of the music as you want?
So continue your cut-and-paste trolling, we all see that you can't even come up with original FUD about Apple because it is all blatantly ridiculous.
You'll note that it's emulating only the X11 libraries, really even only the X11 server itself.
Just a note. Apple's X11 server on MacOS X is not an emulator at all. It is a window sever application, just like the ones you would have on Linux, Windows, BSD, or whatever. It is still in beta (not alpha as an earlier poster tries to say) but it works pretty much perfectly and is just as quick as other X11 window servers out there. Apple plans on releasing the completed version with MacOS X 10.3, Panther, and it will be a free download.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it quite comes off that way. I believe that his point is that most people who use his software are simply operating behind a NAT and either don't know how or are not bothering to redirect a port to an internal IP. So what is happening is that the program does not work well for those people and so the program is falling less and less into use. Given that situation I can totally understand the desire to shelve further support of a dying program and I don't blame him for what he is doing, he is taking the most graceful out he can.
Yes he could solve the problem by setting up a central server and acting as a meeting place/redirector. However, he is totally correct that the bandwidth issues make this option less than optimal for a free service and the additional administration overhead is PITA also. So I think that the developer is spot-on in his explanation and is actually doing his best to inform people as to the how and why of the situation, not that he is using this as a soapbox against NAT.
This is the problem with industry practices, once enough people in the industry do it then everyone has to follow.
For example, years ago Apple had a 12" monitor. If you measured the workable diagonal on the screen it was 12". The problem was that everyone else in the industry was saying that the same size monitor was a 13" because they were measuring the entire front glass, including space that had no phosphors to display stuff.
After a while Apple switched to calling their monitor a 13" monitor. Why? Because people were not buying the 12" monitor since they thought it was smaller than everyone else's 13" monitor.
The same thing has happened in the hard drive industry. The manufacturers call their drives 30GB (3x10^9) using the decimal version of giga when they know that operating systems use the base 2 version of giga making it 27.8GB. They do this so that they can get away with sounding larger. Apple and other manufacturers are forced to follow suit because if they labeled everything as the drive manufactures did they they would have to look like they had smaller drives than the competition.
Alternatively operating systems could just report everything in decimal to make you feel better, but that really wouldn't change the sizes of the drives and it would make file sizes more confusing.
I guess the best way to do it is to follow the SI unit definition of 1 MB = 1000 bytes and 1 MiB = 1024 bytes but very few people the notation. If it's not being used then it isn't really a solution.
Lastly remember that any hard drive that has a raw capacity of x will have a smaller real capacity because of the overhead of the filesystem and other meta data. These can easily take up a couple of percent of drive space on their own and will contribute to reducing the space available for your data.
Apple has had a disclaimer and a technote about this issue for a long time. You can read the technote here. I'm pretty sure that they also mention it in the documentation that comes with the computer, but I couldn't find out where I left that stuff since I've never needed it for my Mac.
You know, that is one of the least mentioned features on the Powerbooks and yet it is one of the most useful. I can't count the number of times I've had to resurrect someone's computer or transfer a huge set of files. I just hook up the Powerbook, boot it into target disk mode, and boot the other computer up from it or transfer the data. With Firewire it's quick and easy and it works without a hitch. 1, 2, 3 and your done and off. If everything to do with computers could only be this easy...
100% spot-on. It is the morass of case law that really defines how the law is interpreted. Of course the volumes of the case law is so confused that the law is often up for the highest bidder (the one who can afford the best searches) and the lowest common denominator (the particular interpretation that fits their desires). If the law was revised with every case, kind of like some sort of good versioning system, then the law would be more evenly applied and therefore more just.
As a pre-sellout Metallica put it:
An excellent point but I think you are parsing that statement incorrectly. You are parsing it this way:
When the standard legal interpretation for these sort of statements is this way:
It has to do with the placement of the comma. Since there is a comma between the two items the first one ends at the comma. If it was stated like this you might have a better arguement:
By the way, thanks to the grandparent of this comment. I had read through the copyright statute and didn't pick up on 17 USC 109(b)(1)(A). It would have helped me out in an earlier discussion of the law. You live, you learn...
Exactly. I'm sure that only an utter moron would take the literal meaning of the word ground as being an earth ground rather than its more common meaning in electronics as an arbitrary zero level of voltage, such as a signal ground or chassis ground. Thanks for setting that utter moron straight for me.
You know that's not a good example either. There is a big difference between a large unshielded AC motor and a PDA in terms of stray energy output. There are two important characteristics to any stray signal - its magnitude and how frequently that magnitude swings. An AC motor produces high amplitude, wildly varying interference that induces all sorts of currents in nearby electronics. A PDA, powered by a couple of volts DC, is not likely to have anywhere near the interference of the saw.
First of all, yes the shield acts as an antenna to some extent but it still attenuates the signal by a great deal.
Secondly, if you use twisted signal pairs (pair the signal and the ground wire and twist them together) then you will lower signal leakage a lot. Combining this with wire shielding should reduce the signal leakage to nearly nothing.
Look at it this way, we use a ton of devices in our every day life. Just because you use a PDA doesn't mean that your computer goes on the fritz when the PDA is near. If airlines are having so many problems then they should look into shielding their equipment better, it should not be this affected by stray signals.
Totally untrue. Xerox was paid by Apple for the right to use some of their ideas. To see the real story, go here. Here's a quote for you:
You came in for an argument and got abuse instead...
I've got an even better reason for sending up seperate cargo missions: you can leave the containers up in orbit.
See, you have just spent a lot of cash to boost tons of container material up into space. Why would you then waste the money spent to get it up there when you could instead re-use the containers themselves? If the containers were designed in such a way that when they were emptied they could be hooked together, pressurized, and turned into modules for space stations then you would have a great recipe for an easy and less expensive space program. You could even do this with some of the top fuel tanks used to boost the containers into orbit.
The personnel missions can now be much smaller and more efficient because they don't need to boost up a large amount of container material. You just boost up a personnel module and then have it splashdown at the end of the mission. Design that part well and it can be reused also.
With this sort of setup virtually everything is reusable except for the lowermost booster sections and the fuel. Yes you can probably make the lower boosters reusable but that has been shown to not be worth the effort.
It doesn't sound like it is, but it can be depending on the implementation and the situation.
There are two ways to move something with computers. If the file hierarchy is contained in some sort of index then the system might simply change the index of the file, but not copy it. However, if the file is being moved to another volume or if its position on the drive determines where the file is shown then the computer first copies the file to a new place and then it deletes the original.
I think it can be successfully argued, however, that you can copy and destroy a file so long as the file is an exact duplicate and that it remains only in the possession of the original owner. So most forms of copying, moving, and archiving a file are safe from copyright - as long as you were given the right to own the file in the first place. Transferring the file to another person is really the sticky issue.
I won't rehash it because I did it once before here on Slashdot and it was long and involved, but just try truly adding up the numbers she is talking about. They don't match at all, not even close. Those numbers that she throws around are pure bullshit and are exaggerated to justify her argument. Yes the artists get less of the take than we think but Courtney Love's arguments hold no water at all.
Actually I didn't. If you read the Duke article which I linked to you will see that they go into much more detail as to why the First Sale Doctrine does not apply (not Fair Use, that is a completely different issue).
I simply paraphrased what was said in the Duke article because in order to deal with the topic properly I would have to write several pages on the subject. I don't need to do this since the Duke article does it so well for me. Take a look at it and then comment if you would.
A very good observation. I believe it is illegal (ie, against copyright law) to reproduce a work through any type of copying. This would be similar to photocopying a book, burning the original, and selling the copy to someone. It's the very act of copying the work that is illegal because you were not given the right to reproduce the work. Here's the relevant section of the code:
So, since only the original author has the right to reproduce the work it would be illegal to reproduce it. If the iTunes music store specifically gave you the right to reproduce the work then you could make a million copies. However, you would then run into section 3 of the code quoted above, which says that only the owner of the copyright can transfer ownership of a copy of the work.
A very thorough and much more involved look at the First Sale Doctrine can be found at the Duke Law & Technology Review article: "THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE AND DIGITAL PHONORECORDS"
Yes, but all the songs would also have to be transfered. The way it works is that the song is encrypted. When you go to play that song in iTunes, it tries to decrypt the song. If the computer does not have the proper account then you are asked to authorize the computer to play the song. You need an Internet connection to do this, but you only need to do it once and not every single time you want to play the song.
So basically, yes the buyer could play every song that the original purchaser has. However, the buyer could only do that if the original purchaser transfered every song to the buyer. If the original owner only transfered 1 song then the buyer could only play that 1 song.
50 computers over 8 hours = 9.6 minutes per computer, average. This time includes knocking on doors, explanations, going back to get rooms which were closed for some reason, booting up computers and rebooting them, loading the patches on to the machine and installing them, and all the regular crap that goes with handling 50 different computers with 50 different setups. Honestly I would say that 10 minutes per computer is simply amazing. These guys must be supermen to get a whole dorm patched in a day, unless they come in with an army of a dozen techs.
What can a student do? Preach alternative systems. Wean people off of Microsoft Windows entirely. I run 2 labs of a dozen Macintosh machines running Mac OS X and I haven't had to lift a finger to do much of anything for more than a year. The machines run perfectly and just laughed at all of the viruses, worms, trojan horses, and other problems that Windows computers have had to deal with. The same, I'm sure, is true of BSD and Linux based operating systems.
Take a look at the history of the Irish potato famine. The main cause of this horrible piece of history was a simple fungus. It spread so suddenly and completely because to grow potatoes quickly you can simply cut up one potato and plant the pieces. Each new plant is a genetic clone of the original potato. Thus when a disease hits one plant it quickly spreads and hits them all, turning a simple disease into an epidemic. The same is true of computers. A monoculture of Windows machines are much more vulnerable to the spread of computer infections than a mix of operating systems. Having one operating system dominate over 90% of the market is simply not healthy.
Actually it's not a grey area at all. Any contract signed by an unemancipated youth is null and void if the youth decides that they don't want to be bound by it. In the case of child actors and such it is the primary caregiver or some other responsible agent that signs the contract and pledges that the child will work, not the youth.
Each state in the United States has their own versions of contract law, here's an example from California:
So yes, this would most likely get around any user agreement or contract that you have to "click-through". Just have your 5 year old kid press the key and click on the buttons and then you are home free to do whatever you want with the software. Of course if it came down to a court case you would have to convince a court that you truly never saw or agreed to the clauses.
So is ProjectBuilder. However I believe that Apple has thrown in their improvements to GCC in the form of libraries and assorted files. So even though the compiler is GCC there is an advantage to compiling Objective-C through ProjectBuilder and XCode. Also, you can't compile Cocoa (Apple's additions to Objective-C with additional libraries for MacOS specific stuff) without ProjectBuilder or XCode.
That's why I said you can compile Objective-C with GCC, but it might not be as good since I have heard that Apple has better libraries (more optimized) for Objective-C.
This was true when Objective-C was originally developed. The more modern implementations of Objective-C utilize more direct methods of parsing, linking, and compiling Objective-C code. While you could still probably create a set of macros and libraries which would allow a generic C compiler to compile Objective-C, it would be a lot of work and it would probably compile very slowly.
So you are probably just better off using Apple's ProjectBuilder or XCode to compile Objective-C code. ProjectBuilder compiles Objective-C "natively" (without the need for a set of translation macros), and the upcoming XCode is supposed to greatly improve on ProjectBuilder. You can also use GCC to compile Objective-C code, but I'm not sure how good the current implementation is. I know Apple made a number of improvements which were pending acceptance into GCC.
What I mean is that any quantity of water has 1 x 10^-7 M of hydronium ions and 1 x 10^-7 M of hydroxyl ions. If you want to know how many ions that is in a certain amount of water then multiply the concentration times the volume. So 1 liter of water would have 1 liter x 1 x 10^-7 moles/liter = 1 x 10^-7 moles of hydronium ions.
Actually either term can be used. Chemists tend to use the term "hydroxide" to talk about the OH- ion when it is combined with another ion, such as sodium hydroxide. "Hydroxyl group" and "hydroxyl ion" are used when you are talking about the properties of the OH- group in general.
Not exactly. First of all you are calculating a mass ratio of weight of the dissociated ions to the weight of the undissociated water, something that is rarely used because it is rarely useful. Generally what is useful is to know the molarity of the solution because the rate of a reaction depends on how far apart the reactants are, ie: how many of them are in a certain volume.
Secondly, if you are doing a mass ratio then you can't double it. The original water molecules that dissociated weighed 18 g/mol and even when they split they weigh 18 g/mol so you will have 1.8 ppb mass/mass.
Yes, the water is really breaking down. Yes it is also recombining. At 25 degrees Celsius it will do so at such a rate that there will be a concentration of 1 x 10^-7 M of water broken down into ions at any one time. Increase the temperature and the rate of dissociation increases, thus achieving a steady state of more free ions. Yes, this does mean that the pH (hydronium ions) changes depending on the temperature but it also means that the pOH (hydroxyl ions) also change by the same amount. So overall the solution stays neutral. To put it another way, at 25 degrees C pH 7 is neutral and at some higher temperature a pH of 8 might be neutral. This can be very important for some reactions and also when measuring the pH of a solution. A good pH instrument will have a temperature probe so that it can automatically correct for any temperature deviation from 25 degrees Celsius.
Blah blah blah...
This is a cut-and-paste troll that has been answered dozens of times on Slashdot. Basically it boils down to a lot of FUD. Apple's X11 server is pretty much the same as all the X11 servers people use on other platforms. Apple's Mach-O format binaries are open, tested standards that several other operating systems use. MacOS X is extremely compatible with many of the open source standards out there and Apple contributes heavily to the open source movement. The DRM that Apple uses for the iTunes Music Store is by far one of the lightest DRMs possible and is hardly even noticeable, how many other DRMs let you burn as many normal, un-watermarked CDs of the music as you want?
So continue your cut-and-paste trolling, we all see that you can't even come up with original FUD about Apple because it is all blatantly ridiculous.
Just a note. Apple's X11 server on MacOS X is not an emulator at all. It is a window sever application, just like the ones you would have on Linux, Windows, BSD, or whatever. It is still in beta (not alpha as an earlier poster tries to say) but it works pretty much perfectly and is just as quick as other X11 window servers out there. Apple plans on releasing the completed version with MacOS X 10.3, Panther, and it will be a free download.
Take a look at Apple's X11 site for more information.
In the cupholder that comes out of the front of the computer of course!