And I, as as taxpayer, would rather people be able to visit me without having these dumb systems forced upon them.
I couldn't really care less if a trivial amount of my taxes goes towards giving emergency treatment to someone who needs it, but then I come from one of those weird countries where we have the radical notion of not asking for credit card details because someone's bleeding to death on the pavement.
Scratch that. As those song were distributed as one unit, so you can make a good argument for a total count of 1 infringement.
Oh please - when we hear about how many thousands of files people have on a single computer, yet when it's Sony, they get to count them all as just 1 infringement?
The idea that Sony might face $150,000 max, for distributing albums for profit, already copied onto 6,397 CDs - yet someone who has 24 mp3s on their computer, with no evidence of how many would be copied, and no evidence of intent to profit, gets $1.92 million - is madness.
The sad thing is, I can't help thinking they won't even be paying $150,000.
Apple, it Works Just! It Works, Just so long as you only want to do what Apple allow you!
(If Microsoft started requiring their approval for apps to run on Windows, then even if they never banned an app - let alone if they did start blocking widely used applications such as Flash and emulators - I bet you'd be first in line to criticise them.)
Well, are you willing to take the time to write/port an Apple II Emulator, knowing that you'll have to wait months for corporate approval, and it may even be rejected altogether?
Didn't A-MAX require hardware? You may be thinking of Shapeshifter (and later Fusion) which were software only emulators. But yes, it would be amusing to see classic MacOS on the Iphone, done via Amiga emulation:)
Indeed, heaven forbid someone run something without Apple's approval. But why allow an emulator full stop - people could still run any unapproved application written in C64 assembler (you know, like most C64 applications), and indeed, what's stopping someone installing a C64 BASIC interpretter? (Do they have UAE for the Iphone yet? Now that would be even more useful as a way to run applications without Apple approval. Every other platform in existence can run UAE, have Apple approved it yet, or is the Iphone still playing catch-up yet again, I wonder?)
With stuff like banning what people are allowed to run on their own device, I'm suprised this platform is still so popular in a place like Slashdot.
And Don't worship false gods, Don't work on the sabbath, and Please won't somebody think of the shellfish.
Yes, there's some good morals in most religions, but also some very dubious ones. And if we're going to pick and choose - well, in order to do that, we must have some independent other means to decide which morals are the "good" ones, in which case, we might as well use this independent means in the first place.
Still, a general code of moral would be nice. I wouldn't want to watch my back all the time to avoid getting a knife stuck where the sun doesn't shine because I got something someone else wants.
And what if that code said that someone could stick a knife in, if you did some particular thing, where there seemed no fair reason for that rule?
While some atheists might describe some mainstream religious texts as "nonsense", the vast majority of people, regardless of their belief, would not.
Argumentum ad populum. Would Scientology be true, if lots more people believed it?
And actually, you're wrong anyway - since there are several different religions with inconsistent views, religious people would still view other religions as wrong (often with a greater zeal than any atheist - e.g., Christians who preach that non-Christians will go to hell), and therefore any given religion still has a majority who don't believe in it. So for example, there may be about 2 billion Christians, but the "vast majority" still don't believe in Christianity.
But yes, I do agree with you - the only difference between cults and religions are how many people believe in it.
But don't go lumping the major religions in with cults like Scientology
In the context of laws like this, trying to argue against it by saying Scientology isn't a religion is a dangerous tactic - it means the law is still considered justified for religions. I think it's a bad law all round.
Perhaps they were hoping one of the iPods might have some mp3s on it already. Just think - even if they stole just 24 mp3s, that would've been worth $1.92 million! Puts that puny $46,345 to shame.
Indeed, the software installed on those Macs must be worth millions alone - that's what the RIAA tell us, right?
I object to "fanboi" being used to refer to obsessed trolls. There's nothing wrong with being a fan of something, or indeed a "boi". For people who are obsessed over something - e.g, those who love to use childish terms like "M$", and put it bold just to make the point, and repeatedly use phrases like "get over it" (one might as well say you should "get over it" for people using "MS") - please use another term.
Also, I object to the apostrophe being misused. It is used to refer to omission or possession.
More expensive doesn't always mean higher margins. That's only the same if the markup is proportional to the cost, which it often isn't.
Although the first sentence is true, the last is certainly not true - even if the more expensive product has a lower markup in proportion to cost, it may still have a higher margin.
But in this case, I don't see even your first sentence is relevant. If you have two identical laptops, except one with Linux, one with Windows. What's the markup for Linux? 0. So as long as the markup for Windows is greater than 0, then there will be a higher margin. Unless the company has simply done a fixed markup for both products.
Well okay then, Apple were the ones who "popularised" it! ("Well I hadn't heard about Superfetch, but I heard about Apple doing it first, therefore, Apple did it first")
Or um... they "integrated" it better. Yeah, that's it.
A Mac fanatic sneering at Linux users for lack of market!
I don't know who this guy is, but his entire article reads like a flamebait rant. If market share is so important, then Windows beats anything else into dust. If it isn't, he doesn't get to use that point to sneer at Linux - he can't have it both ways.
If it "hits the nail on the head", then he should quit whining about Microsoft "spin", and start hitting a few nails on the head about Macs too.
"...Wolfenstein 3D for the Atari Jaguar....my first interaction (in perhaps '97 or '98)...with proper fps...had me pretty convinced that first-person games werenâ(TM)t for me, all the way until Halo 2" wow, someone who hadn't played doom even 4 years after it was out, played Wolfenstein on a TV, and generally didn't like FPS's till halo 2. Yeah, He sounds qualified to comment on the pros and cons of FP camera.
1997 is 12 years ago. Why on earth does that fact that he might have "only" got into games 12 years ago, and not 16 years ago, make him unqualified? There have been quite a few FPS games since then. And why does playing on a console make a difference?
You also conveniently failed to quote an important part:
Not having been able to afford a computer growing up, this was my first interaction (in perhaps '97 or '98) with a proper FPS.
So in other words, you call him unqualified, because 12-16 years ago when he was growing up, he wasn't able to afford an expensive PC to play these games. Nice showing your prejudice, there.
So what are your credentials, then? Do you have something better than "My daddy bought me an expensive PC, so I was able to play Doom when it first came up"?
You're just being silly. The Amiga was never viewed as a serious desktop productivity machine, to compete with Windows
Now you're just being silly. By "serious" I presume you mean "used in business" (viewed by whom? And what's a "non-serious" machine? Many people don't view Macs as serious machines, but that's not a valid argument). Yes, Windows was used by the vast majority of businesses rather than Amigas or anything else, but the same is still true now. So talking about OS X now is no more an argument than talking about alternative OSs to Windows 95.
Moreover, are business users going to be the kind that "house parties" are aimed at? I don't think so.
and 1995 was not a major year for Amigas.
Exactly the point - the issue was "for years" before.
Likely even Amiga fans were using Windows in their work, and would have welcomed the improvements in Windows 95.
And you think that no OS X users today aren't using Windows in their work?
And the Mac has had a Dock, and cool graphical effects, for years now; the slickest parts of Windows 7 aren't really that new.
So? And the Amiga had for years before all the slickest parts of Windows 95 that you just listed. First you only compare Windows to previous OSs from MS. Then you say it's okay to discount new features, if they're available in an alternative OS. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
And if you dislike the Amiga so much, well if you prefer, use classic MacOS for your example, which also meant that Windows 95 was nothing new.
I don't disagree that the jump from DOS to Windows 95 was far bigger than XP/Vista to Windows 7 - I never suggested otherwise - but that wasn't the point the OP was making.
And many of the people who could potentially get excited by the improvements in Windows 7 have been running Mac OS X for years now.
Well, when Windows 95 came out, many of the people who could potentially get excited had been running AmigaOS etc for years.
Windows still has massive market share, and it's probably significantly increased market share in the home since the 90s (when fewer people had computers, and other platforms were still around). Perhaps computers are more seen as commodities these days, but I don't see that there'd be less people obsessed about Windows 7, compared with Windows 95.
I can't tell if you're joking - we need to crack down and criminalise private parties on private property, because public legal events at nightclubs result in litter? Maybe it's the nightclubs that you need to deal with instead.
Who cares about litter and vomit on someone's own private land, when they gave permission for it? Are we going to have the police telling you to tidy your bedroom, next?
A party for more than 100 people that plays "repetitive beats" needs Government permission - even on your own land, and where there's no issue of noise disturbance. Also the police can break up any gathering, if they merely think you're making preparations for such a party. Just ask this guy: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/18/0337223
I don't know if that applies in this case though. The Daily Fail will claim anything's "illegal" if it's about the Internet, and they want to demonise it.
Slashdot Mirror
And I, as as taxpayer, would rather people be able to visit me without having these dumb systems forced upon them.
I couldn't really care less if a trivial amount of my taxes goes towards giving emergency treatment to someone who needs it, but then I come from one of those weird countries where we have the radical notion of not asking for credit card details because someone's bleeding to death on the pavement.
Scratch that. As those song were distributed as one unit, so you can make a good argument for a total count of 1 infringement.
Oh please - when we hear about how many thousands of files people have on a single computer, yet when it's Sony, they get to count them all as just 1 infringement?
The idea that Sony might face $150,000 max, for distributing albums for profit, already copied onto 6,397 CDs - yet someone who has 24 mp3s on their computer, with no evidence of how many would be copied, and no evidence of intent to profit, gets $1.92 million - is madness.
The sad thing is, I can't help thinking they won't even be paying $150,000.
Unless we're charging people for things they weren't, er, charged with, of course it's an accurate statement.
Apple, it Works Just! It Works, Just so long as you only want to do what Apple allow you!
(If Microsoft started requiring their approval for apps to run on Windows, then even if they never banned an app - let alone if they did start blocking widely used applications such as Flash and emulators - I bet you'd be first in line to criticise them.)
Here you are - it's surprisingly easy to write once you strip out the functionality that won't ever be hit:
10 PRINT "THIS APPLICATION MAY NOT BE RUN ON NON-APPLE APPROVED HARDWARE"
Well, are you willing to take the time to write/port an Apple II Emulator, knowing that you'll have to wait months for corporate approval, and it may even be rejected altogether?
Didn't A-MAX require hardware? You may be thinking of Shapeshifter (and later Fusion) which were software only emulators. But yes, it would be amusing to see classic MacOS on the Iphone, done via Amiga emulation :)
Indeed, heaven forbid someone run something without Apple's approval. But why allow an emulator full stop - people could still run any unapproved application written in C64 assembler (you know, like most C64 applications), and indeed, what's stopping someone installing a C64 BASIC interpretter? (Do they have UAE for the Iphone yet? Now that would be even more useful as a way to run applications without Apple approval. Every other platform in existence can run UAE, have Apple approved it yet, or is the Iphone still playing catch-up yet again, I wonder?)
With stuff like banning what people are allowed to run on their own device, I'm suprised this platform is still so popular in a place like Slashdot.
Apple Stores have been operating for how many years and this is the first one that's been hit like this?
You think this is the first?
Believe it or not, stores getting robbed isn't international news headlines. Even when it's Apple.
And I love how you twist the expense of their products as being a good thing - of course they make a lot of revenue per square foot.
And what good will that do? You think this is a good law for any religion?
And Don't worship false gods, Don't work on the sabbath, and Please won't somebody think of the shellfish.
Yes, there's some good morals in most religions, but also some very dubious ones. And if we're going to pick and choose - well, in order to do that, we must have some independent other means to decide which morals are the "good" ones, in which case, we might as well use this independent means in the first place.
Still, a general code of moral would be nice. I wouldn't want to watch my back all the time to avoid getting a knife stuck where the sun doesn't shine because I got something someone else wants.
And what if that code said that someone could stick a knife in, if you did some particular thing, where there seemed no fair reason for that rule?
While some atheists might describe some mainstream religious texts as "nonsense", the vast majority of people, regardless of their belief, would not.
Argumentum ad populum. Would Scientology be true, if lots more people believed it?
And actually, you're wrong anyway - since there are several different religions with inconsistent views, religious people would still view other religions as wrong (often with a greater zeal than any atheist - e.g., Christians who preach that non-Christians will go to hell), and therefore any given religion still has a majority who don't believe in it. So for example, there may be about 2 billion Christians, but the "vast majority" still don't believe in Christianity.
But yes, I do agree with you - the only difference between cults and religions are how many people believe in it.
But don't go lumping the major religions in with cults like Scientology
In the context of laws like this, trying to argue against it by saying Scientology isn't a religion is a dangerous tactic - it means the law is still considered justified for religions. I think it's a bad law all round.
Perhaps they were hoping one of the iPods might have some mp3s on it already. Just think - even if they stole just 24 mp3s, that would've been worth $1.92 million! Puts that puny $46,345 to shame.
Indeed, the software installed on those Macs must be worth millions alone - that's what the RIAA tell us, right?
I object to "fanboi" being used to refer to obsessed trolls. There's nothing wrong with being a fan of something, or indeed a "boi". For people who are obsessed over something - e.g, those who love to use childish terms like "M$", and put it bold just to make the point, and repeatedly use phrases like "get over it" (one might as well say you should "get over it" for people using "MS") - please use another term.
Also, I object to the apostrophe being misused. It is used to refer to omission or possession.
More expensive doesn't always mean higher margins. That's only the same if the markup is proportional to the cost, which it often isn't.
Although the first sentence is true, the last is certainly not true - even if the more expensive product has a lower markup in proportion to cost, it may still have a higher margin.
But in this case, I don't see even your first sentence is relevant. If you have two identical laptops, except one with Linux, one with Windows. What's the markup for Linux? 0. So as long as the markup for Windows is greater than 0, then there will be a higher margin. Unless the company has simply done a fixed markup for both products.
Hey, it makes a refreshing change from the daily "Do XYZ On Your Iphone" stories! I'm love the variation today here on Apple- er Slashdot.
Well okay then, Apple were the ones who "popularised" it! ("Well I hadn't heard about Superfetch, but I heard about Apple doing it first, therefore, Apple did it first")
Or um ... they "integrated" it better. Yeah, that's it.
A Mac fanatic sneering at Linux users for lack of market!
I don't know who this guy is, but his entire article reads like a flamebait rant. If market share is so important, then Windows beats anything else into dust. If it isn't, he doesn't get to use that point to sneer at Linux - he can't have it both ways.
If it "hits the nail on the head", then he should quit whining about Microsoft "spin", and start hitting a few nails on the head about Macs too.
Get off my lawn!
"...Wolfenstein 3D for the Atari Jaguar. ...my first interaction (in perhaps '97 or '98) ...with proper fps...had me pretty convinced that first-person games werenâ(TM)t for me, all the way until Halo 2"
wow, someone who hadn't played doom even 4 years after it was out, played Wolfenstein on a TV, and generally didn't like FPS's till halo 2. Yeah, He sounds qualified to comment on the pros and cons of FP camera.
1997 is 12 years ago. Why on earth does that fact that he might have "only" got into games 12 years ago, and not 16 years ago, make him unqualified? There have been quite a few FPS games since then. And why does playing on a console make a difference?
You also conveniently failed to quote an important part:
Not having been able to afford a computer growing up, this was my first interaction (in perhaps '97 or '98) with a proper FPS.
So in other words, you call him unqualified, because 12-16 years ago when he was growing up, he wasn't able to afford an expensive PC to play these games. Nice showing your prejudice, there.
So what are your credentials, then? Do you have something better than "My daddy bought me an expensive PC, so I was able to play Doom when it first came up"?
You're just being silly. The Amiga was never viewed as a serious desktop productivity machine, to compete with Windows
Now you're just being silly. By "serious" I presume you mean "used in business" (viewed by whom? And what's a "non-serious" machine? Many people don't view Macs as serious machines, but that's not a valid argument). Yes, Windows was used by the vast majority of businesses rather than Amigas or anything else, but the same is still true now. So talking about OS X now is no more an argument than talking about alternative OSs to Windows 95.
Moreover, are business users going to be the kind that "house parties" are aimed at? I don't think so.
and 1995 was not a major year for Amigas.
Exactly the point - the issue was "for years" before.
Likely even Amiga fans were using Windows in their work, and would have welcomed the improvements in Windows 95.
And you think that no OS X users today aren't using Windows in their work?
And the Mac has had a Dock, and cool graphical effects, for years now; the slickest parts of Windows 7 aren't really that new.
So? And the Amiga had for years before all the slickest parts of Windows 95 that you just listed. First you only compare Windows to previous OSs from MS. Then you say it's okay to discount new features, if they're available in an alternative OS. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
And if you dislike the Amiga so much, well if you prefer, use classic MacOS for your example, which also meant that Windows 95 was nothing new.
I don't disagree that the jump from DOS to Windows 95 was far bigger than XP/Vista to Windows 7 - I never suggested otherwise - but that wasn't the point the OP was making.
I wonder if attendees have to sign an EULA?
"By entering this house, you agree to anything and everything we like".
And many of the people who could potentially get excited by the improvements in Windows 7 have been running Mac OS X for years now.
Well, when Windows 95 came out, many of the people who could potentially get excited had been running AmigaOS etc for years.
Windows still has massive market share, and it's probably significantly increased market share in the home since the 90s (when fewer people had computers, and other platforms were still around). Perhaps computers are more seen as commodities these days, but I don't see that there'd be less people obsessed about Windows 7, compared with Windows 95.
Indeed. Consider how fans of certain other OSs show off and brag about their computer platform all for free, anyway.
If Apple were doing this, there'd be nothing but praise.
I can't tell if you're joking - we need to crack down and criminalise private parties on private property, because public legal events at nightclubs result in litter? Maybe it's the nightclubs that you need to deal with instead.
Who cares about litter and vomit on someone's own private land, when they gave permission for it? Are we going to have the police telling you to tidy your bedroom, next?
A party for more than 100 people that plays "repetitive beats" needs Government permission - even on your own land, and where there's no issue of noise disturbance. Also the police can break up any gathering, if they merely think you're making preparations for such a party. Just ask this guy: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/18/0337223
I don't know if that applies in this case though. The Daily Fail will claim anything's "illegal" if it's about the Internet, and they want to demonise it.