Secondly: If Mac OS can be made by hobbyists to work well with non-Apple hardware, suddenly Apple finds that every PC OEM on the planet has just become an Apple-cloning company.
No - selling Mac clones would still be illegal.
You are still talking about option 1. We know they're not doing that - the person you replied to wants to distinguish between options 2 and 3. If it's option 3, then DRM just prevents what end users can do with their legally bought hardware and software; it is not required to prevent companies from selling Mac clones.
I do not support censoring the internet, but you can look at this problem in a better prospective, such as thinking about the exploited teens that are shown in some site in a pornographic manners, that I support of being censored.
Like in every other thing in our life where's the red line?
Well, there's an obvious line between images made only with consenting adults, and images that involve non-consenting participants.
For the most part, that's not even a "line", more like a big gaping division - in the same way that most people can see the difference between rape and sex that isn't rape. The only grey area is age of consent.
As soon as we accept that the difference between what consenting adults do, and rape, is merely drawing a line somewhere, we get anti-sex / pro-censorship campaigners thinking it's fine to draw the line somewhere else, including criminialising acts (or images of acts) between consenting adults.
There's no question that OS X Leopard runs on AMD. It's that they have no plans to release it on AMD.
Which is exactly the point being made. The point isn't whether it would run or not on particular hardware, the point is that it's an awful lot easier to control bugs when the OS is officially restricted to certain hardware. Obviously it wouldn't be fair to criticise OS X if their back room unofficial version running on an AMD machine had a bug.
Not that there's anything wrong with such an approach; this is a benefit of all non-PC platforms. But the point is that they are different approaches, and you're not comparing like with like.
I know many people who have given up editing on Wiki because they just can't spend time checking their edits every few hours to ensure that some kid hasn't rolled them back to suit his world view.
They don't have to "spend time checking". If their edit is vandalised, someone else can and will fix it.
you are either a student yourself or employed in some non-vital manner.
Nope, I have a well paid job in something I enjoy (and I mean an office computer programming job - not something random). With flexible working hours. Try again.
But still, if your happy with your lot, then fine, but you seem to have your head in the sand when it comes to what other people can have, believing that I must have have no job or an unimportant job! That's fine for you, but please don't put down those who aspire to achieve and get something more with their lives.
indeed, the world will leave your 11am friend in the dust.
Funny, I'm doing fine.
smaller rush hours would form
By "smaller rush hour", you mean "normal traffic", i.e., not a rush hour by definition.
And people who want to car pool would still do so - flexible hours doesn't mean forcing ppl to come in at different times.
Anyone is *entitled* to *request* anything from anyone. What you are *entitled* to, is not complying with their requests, and not working for them. You're not *entitled* to a job with any specific employer.
And similarly, people are entitled to request what they want from a job, and companies aren't entitled to have any specific person working for them.
The only one who brought up "entitlement" was the person arguing against it - a strawman. No one is saying they have some right to have it.
Easy...because they are paying you to come in, follow their rules and do their work.
And you are doing work for them.
Both sides in the contract are entitled to make their demands. It may work, it may not. But your OP suggested that there was something inherently wrong about the individual wanting particular things in a job.
(Also, if more people were bothered about things like flexible hours, people would be in more of a position to get it, as there'd be less competition from those who aren't bothered.)
Talking about "entitlement" smells like a strawman - no one is claiming this is some Human Rights issue, it is just about what they would like in a job.
Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If someone's entire work process is dependent on another person being in, what happens if he's sick, or on holiday? What if he leaves tomorrow?
Obviously the minority of office jobs that require being in at the same time as other people are not going to do well at being flexible, but this doesn't apply to all or even most of them. Also jobs can still require "core hours" (although even without core hours, there will naturally be a significant overlap).
Also note that "flexible hours" doesn't necessarily have to mean "come in when you want" - it could mean having a choice of hours, which you then have to stick to. And "life balance" has nothing to do with it. The world isn't going to stop because one guy comes in at 9am and another at 11am.
This would have other benefits too, for example not having as much of a rush hour, and resulting in less congestion and pollution.
I know you're making a joke, but on a serious note, there is plenty of textual material too - and I'm sure I've heard of the US authorities trying to crack down on that too... (I would search for refs, but am at work!)
I've also heard it described as meaning "near" as in "close in space" rather than "nearly", though I can't find a reference for that derivation off hand...
Agreed - if an individual running a business broke the law, they risk getting sent to prison. Imagine a common criminal refusing to comply with the law - you'd never hear it written up as "finally agreed to comply". The full weight of the law would come down of them, and they'd have no choice in the matter.
Maybe if bailiffs raided the assets of Microsoft European offices, or those obstructing the course of justice were charged accordingly, they might start "complying" a bit more. But no, we can't go treating big companies the same as you or I...
Someone misusing the "redundant" mod yet again - care to point out where someone already said this?
It is indeed like the UK, and I wouldn't describe any of that as "liberal".
The main point is that you can't shove the whole spectrum of beliefs into two pigeon holes of "left" and "right". I don't see that this is particularly surprising - especially when no one can agree what left/right mean in the first place (technically they refer to economic control, which should be independent of views on censorship - the more relevant scale here is the authoritarian/liberal one, where being pro-censorship is clearly towards the former end of that scale).
The EULA is between you and the publisher, not you and the store. If the store says "we don't take returns" then the EULA can't do jack shit about it.
A "we don't take returns" means nothing if they've sold defective goods (i.e., don't do what they claim to do). Otherwise they could get away with selling items that inside had a piece of paper saying "You can't use this unless you pay us loads of money". The fact that the publisher put that paper there is irrelevant - it's no more relevant than if the box was empty, and you claim "That's the publisher who didn't put the CD in the case". The shop selling you that good still has responsibility. At least, in sensible countries.
And I don't need to "contest the EULA in court" anymore than the publisher needs to contest my EULA which reads "By selling me a product, you agree to let me do anything I like with it".
By replying to this post, you agree to agree with everything I say.
Agreed - if an individual running a business broke the law, they risk getting sent to prison. Imagine a common criminal refusing to comply with the law - you'd never hear it written up as "finally agreed to comply". The full weight of the law would come down of them, and they'd have no choice in the matter.
Maybe if bailiffs raided the assets of Microsoft European offices, or those obstructing the course of justice were charged accordingly, they might start "complying" a bit more. But no, we can't go treating big companies the same as you or I...
You know, I suspect that RMS has an idea of how hard it is to write software...
By all means, disagree with his views, but I don't think it's helpful to portray people with those views as clueless people who know nothing about programming or even computers at all.
Look at the MacBook. It starts at $1099, only $99 over the top of your bracket
Well I think that was his point - only those looking to spend at the very highest end of $400-$1000 would consider stretching to something outside of that bracket.
His point wasn't that people want to run Linux specifically, but that Linux is a non-Windows platform that would let them keep their hardware. But, obviously, that's running Linux on their existing PC, not running Linux on a Mac.
Also, if people are only buying Macs to run Linux, whilst that's good for Apple's profits, it doesn't mean the Mac platform is growing.
They've managed to widen it to cover TV's, computers, or even a 3g phone - or basically ANY device capable of getting anything from the BBC.
True - and in fact, that applies to getting any TV, not just BBC material. Though it only applies if you're downloading television at the same time it's being broadcast AFAIK. So a hypothetical site offering legal TV downloads wouldn't require you to have a TV licence (though I'd bet them trying to change the law, if such sites took off...)
I too dislike their methods. I got sent threatening, misleading and harrassing letters - even though I already had a licence! And when I was at Uni, they would send these letters out to every student en masse, falsely claiming we were breaking the law, just because we didn't all have licences - yet none of us had TVs.
Record labels or not - what it does show is that there's money to be made in legal DRM-free Internet music, even when you can legally download it for nothing. Perhaps one day the labels will finally catch on, if they're still around?
No, but a new band starting out can't afford to run a national publicity campaign.
Sure, in a world without labels, a new band wouldn't go from being nobodies to national or international superstars overnight. They'd have to work their way up, starting locally, and only the very best would become known nationally.
Is that so bad, though? It's no different to how it is for most other industries.
I also love the pic of Kiefer with those puppy dog eyes. "Pwease don't illegal pirate my content! Or I'll come and torture you like those nasty-wasty terrorists!"
I only had to download the rest of 24 Season 6 because Virgin Media were too tight to pay Sky 3p a day for each customer. I still paid the same - Kiefer should go and show his soppy face to Richard Branson for not passing on my money to Sky.
Or maybe we could have a whip round to make up for Kiefer's lost revenue? Here Kiefer, here's that 45p I think I owe you!
Please, the Guardian - stop trying to guilt trip us with pics of celebrities, as if fans watching their shows is causing them to starve on the streets.
It's also not as black and white as whether it should be legal or not. I thought copyright infringement was a civil issue. By all means, copyright holders should be free to sue someone who links, and make their case for lost revenue as a result of that linking. I'm in favour of copyright law. But that doesn't mean linking should get you arrested like a common criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly: If Mac OS can be made by hobbyists to work well with non-Apple hardware, suddenly Apple finds that every PC OEM on the planet has just become an Apple-cloning company.
No - selling Mac clones would still be illegal.
You are still talking about option 1. We know they're not doing that - the person you replied to wants to distinguish between options 2 and 3. If it's option 3, then DRM just prevents what end users can do with their legally bought hardware and software; it is not required to prevent companies from selling Mac clones.
I do not support censoring the internet, but you can look at this problem in a better prospective, such as thinking about the exploited teens that are shown in some site in a pornographic manners, that I support of being censored.
Like in every other thing in our life where's the red line?
Well, there's an obvious line between images made only with consenting adults, and images that involve non-consenting participants.
For the most part, that's not even a "line", more like a big gaping division - in the same way that most people can see the difference between rape and sex that isn't rape. The only grey area is age of consent.
As soon as we accept that the difference between what consenting adults do, and rape, is merely drawing a line somewhere, we get anti-sex / pro-censorship campaigners thinking it's fine to draw the line somewhere else, including criminialising acts (or images of acts) between consenting adults.
There's no question that OS X Leopard runs on AMD. It's that they have no plans to release it on AMD.
Which is exactly the point being made. The point isn't whether it would run or not on particular hardware, the point is that it's an awful lot easier to control bugs when the OS is officially restricted to certain hardware. Obviously it wouldn't be fair to criticise OS X if their back room unofficial version running on an AMD machine had a bug.
Not that there's anything wrong with such an approach; this is a benefit of all non-PC platforms. But the point is that they are different approaches, and you're not comparing like with like.
I know many
people who have given up editing on Wiki because they just
can't spend time checking their edits every few hours to
ensure that some kid hasn't rolled them back to suit his
world view.
They don't have to "spend time checking". If their edit is vandalised, someone else can and will fix it.
you are either a student yourself or employed in some non-vital manner.
Nope, I have a well paid job in something I enjoy (and I mean an office computer programming job - not something random). With flexible working hours. Try again.
But still, if your happy with your lot, then fine, but you seem to have your head in the sand when it comes to what other people can have, believing that I must have have no job or an unimportant job! That's fine for you, but please don't put down those who aspire to achieve and get something more with their lives.
indeed, the world will leave your 11am friend in the dust.
Funny, I'm doing fine.
smaller rush hours would form
By "smaller rush hour", you mean "normal traffic", i.e., not a rush hour by definition.
And people who want to car pool would still do so - flexible hours doesn't mean forcing ppl to come in at different times.
Anyone is *entitled* to *request* anything from anyone. What you are *entitled* to, is not complying with their requests, and not working for them. You're not *entitled* to a job with any specific employer.
And similarly, people are entitled to request what they want from a job, and companies aren't entitled to have any specific person working for them.
The only one who brought up "entitlement" was the person arguing against it - a strawman. No one is saying they have some right to have it.
Easy...because they are paying you to come in, follow their rules and do their work.
And you are doing work for them.
Both sides in the contract are entitled to make their demands. It may work, it may not. But your OP suggested that there was something inherently wrong about the individual wanting particular things in a job.
(Also, if more people were bothered about things like flexible hours, people would be in more of a position to get it, as there'd be less competition from those who aren't bothered.)
Talking about "entitlement" smells like a strawman - no one is claiming this is some Human Rights issue, it is just about what they would like in a job.
Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If someone's entire work process is dependent on another person being in, what happens if he's sick, or on holiday? What if he leaves tomorrow?
Obviously the minority of office jobs that require being in at the same time as other people are not going to do well at being flexible, but this doesn't apply to all or even most of them. Also jobs can still require "core hours" (although even without core hours, there will naturally be a significant overlap).
Also note that "flexible hours" doesn't necessarily have to mean "come in when you want" - it could mean having a choice of hours, which you then have to stick to. And "life balance" has nothing to do with it. The world isn't going to stop because one guy comes in at 9am and another at 11am.
This would have other benefits too, for example not having as much of a rush hour, and resulting in less congestion and pollution.
I know you're making a joke, but on a serious note, there is plenty of textual material too - and I'm sure I've heard of the US authorities trying to crack down on that too... (I would search for refs, but am at work!)
No you haven't. You have seen a near hit. A collusion is a near miss.
A "near miss" is quite correct - it's a miss which was nearly a hit. See http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html#near , http://www.cjr.org/resources/lc/nearmiss.php .
I've also heard it described as meaning "near" as in "close in space" rather than "nearly", though I can't find a reference for that derivation off hand...
Agreed - if an individual running a business broke the law, they risk getting sent to prison. Imagine a common criminal refusing to comply with the law - you'd never hear it written up as "finally agreed to comply". The full weight of the law would come down of them, and they'd have no choice in the matter.
Maybe if bailiffs raided the assets of Microsoft European offices, or those obstructing the course of justice were charged accordingly, they might start "complying" a bit more. But no, we can't go treating big companies the same as you or I...
Someone misusing the "redundant" mod yet again - care to point out where someone already said this?
It is indeed like the UK, and I wouldn't describe any of that as "liberal".
The main point is that you can't shove the whole spectrum of beliefs into two pigeon holes of "left" and "right". I don't see that this is particularly surprising - especially when no one can agree what left/right mean in the first place (technically they refer to economic control, which should be independent of views on censorship - the more relevant scale here is the authoritarian/liberal one, where being pro-censorship is clearly towards the former end of that scale).
The EULA is between you and the publisher, not you and the store. If the store says "we don't take returns" then the EULA can't do jack shit about it.
A "we don't take returns" means nothing if they've sold defective goods (i.e., don't do what they claim to do). Otherwise they could get away with selling items that inside had a piece of paper saying "You can't use this unless you pay us loads of money". The fact that the publisher put that paper there is irrelevant - it's no more relevant than if the box was empty, and you claim "That's the publisher who didn't put the CD in the case". The shop selling you that good still has responsibility. At least, in sensible countries.
And I don't need to "contest the EULA in court" anymore than the publisher needs to contest my EULA which reads "By selling me a product, you agree to let me do anything I like with it".
By replying to this post, you agree to agree with everything I say.
Agreed - if an individual running a business broke the law, they risk getting sent to prison. Imagine a common criminal refusing to comply with the law - you'd never hear it written up as "finally agreed to comply". The full weight of the law would come down of them, and they'd have no choice in the matter.
Maybe if bailiffs raided the assets of Microsoft European offices, or those obstructing the course of justice were charged accordingly, they might start "complying" a bit more. But no, we can't go treating big companies the same as you or I...
And getting this back on topic, I remember the story of police stopping ninjas in Cambridge.
Still, that doesn't make it right though. I equally defend people being allowed to wear hijabs and ninja outfits.
You know, I suspect that RMS has an idea of how hard it is to write software...
By all means, disagree with his views, but I don't think it's helpful to portray people with those views as clueless people who know nothing about programming or even computers at all.
Look at the MacBook. It starts at $1099, only $99 over the top of your bracket
Well I think that was his point - only those looking to spend at the very highest end of $400-$1000 would consider stretching to something outside of that bracket.
His point wasn't that people want to run Linux specifically, but that Linux is a non-Windows platform that would let them keep their hardware. But, obviously, that's running Linux on their existing PC, not running Linux on a Mac.
Also, if people are only buying Macs to run Linux, whilst that's good for Apple's profits, it doesn't mean the Mac platform is growing.
They've managed to widen it to cover TV's, computers, or even a 3g phone - or basically ANY device capable of getting anything from the BBC.
True - and in fact, that applies to getting any TV, not just BBC material. Though it only applies if you're downloading television at the same time it's being broadcast AFAIK. So a hypothetical site offering legal TV downloads wouldn't require you to have a TV licence (though I'd bet them trying to change the law, if such sites took off...)
I too dislike their methods. I got sent threatening, misleading and harrassing letters - even though I already had a licence! And when I was at Uni, they would send these letters out to every student en masse, falsely claiming we were breaking the law, just because we didn't all have licences - yet none of us had TVs.
Record labels or not - what it does show is that there's money to be made in legal DRM-free Internet music, even when you can legally download it for nothing. Perhaps one day the labels will finally catch on, if they're still around?
No, but a new band starting out can't afford to run a national publicity campaign.
Sure, in a world without labels, a new band wouldn't go from being nobodies to national or international superstars overnight. They'd have to work their way up, starting locally, and only the very best would become known nationally.
Is that so bad, though? It's no different to how it is for most other industries.
I didn't vote for them. In fact, they got only 35.2% of the vote, equating to approximately 22% of the population.
That's democracy for you.
I agree - and I'm usually a fan of the Guardian.
I also love the pic of Kiefer with those puppy dog eyes. "Pwease don't illegal pirate my content! Or I'll come and torture you like those nasty-wasty terrorists!"
I only had to download the rest of 24 Season 6 because Virgin Media were too tight to pay Sky 3p a day for each customer. I still paid the same - Kiefer should go and show his soppy face to Richard Branson for not passing on my money to Sky.
Or maybe we could have a whip round to make up for Kiefer's lost revenue? Here Kiefer, here's that 45p I think I owe you!
Please, the Guardian - stop trying to guilt trip us with pics of celebrities, as if fans watching their shows is causing them to starve on the streets.
It's also not as black and white as whether it should be legal or not. I thought copyright infringement was a civil issue. By all means, copyright holders should be free to sue someone who links, and make their case for lost revenue as a result of that linking. I'm in favour of copyright law. But that doesn't mean linking should get you arrested like a common criminal.
but comparing a belief to a non-belief in this regard is slightly flawed in reason.
I agree entirely, and that's my point really. Non-religion doesn't cause people to do things, like religion does.