What he says is "Windows doesn't have font issues, changing permissions on the fly, and disk errors every so often."
Methinks our Windows-loving genius doesn't have three problems with his Mac, but rather one. Disk errors? Only time I've seen disk errors is when the disk was physically failing.
Last things first: Apple doesn't have to abide by the APSL with respect to their own code.
Second, if it's "OS X" on PPC, and "OS X" on Intel, why wouldn't it be "OS X" on ARM? It could well come from the very same code base, simply an unreleased branch.
There have been at least 7 definitions of the meter, actually.
BTW, I was slightly mistaken above; the liter was originally defined in terms of the meter and is now so defined, but between 1901 and 1964 it was defined in terms of the kilogram.
There are approximately 355ml in a real can of Coke. Using 330ml cans, or even 300ml cans, is how the Coca-Cola company punishes European countries for imposing metric on them. There's also a 375ml can in a few places, like Australia (so it doesn't disappear behind the Foster's cans)
There are two official miles in the US. One is the international mile (exactly 1760 international yards), the other the survey mile (exactly 5280 survey feet). They differ by about 2 * 10E-6. Both are based on the metric system; the survey foot is 1200/3937 meter.
I think the rail miles you speak of are probably conventions used only in that specific industry, and if rail in the US was measured in kilometers they'd do exactly the same thing.
The liter is (and always was) a unit derived from the meter, which was originally defined based on the length of the meridian through Paris. It doesn't have anything to do with pints (it's much closer to a quart, anyway)
I think the fact that Apple was in talks with Cisco is probably Apple's only chance of winning this one. Date of first use in trade is the criterion for determining trademark priority, not date of registration. The 1996 registration for a no-longer-produced product that few had heard of wouldn't have been a major barrier to Apple trademarking the name, but they figured they'd cover their bases and obtain the rights. They'll probably claim that by entering those negotiations, Cisco was tipped off that Apple wanted the name, and that Cisco then deliberately introduced a product with the iPhone name specifically to drive the price of the mark up -- i.e. they were negotiating in bad faith.
Other than that possibility, I don't see that Apple has a leg to stand on; Cisco had a product first.
While copyright law does allow protection of architectural works, it specifically does not extend that protection to photographs of copyrighted buildings. It was the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame who sued, not I.M. Pei. They sued on trademark grounds, not copyright. And they lost on appeal.
The principle -- that disobedience to a law should be possible -- is the same regardless of whether you consider the issue a "public safety" issue or not. I even gave other examples, like the speed limit. Would the National Maximum Speed Limit have been repealed without the example of the vast majority of drivers out there breaking it every day? That's also considered a "public safety issue".
The problem with this technology isn't any of the (many) practical problems it entails. The problem is it just begs to be made mandatory by governments. Very few people would want to put this system in a car which they drive; after all, most of them figure they don't drive drunk anyway so why pay for it, and the drunks sure as heck don't want it. Some people would want it in cars they bought for their teen-aged children but that's a fairly small niche market. Rental companies might want it but probably wouldn't want to pay for it unless it was somehow mandated -- particularly since it might cause legitimate renters to shy away fearing those false positives. So here's a technology which "everyone" (which is to say journalists, car manufacturers, politicians, and the safety lobby) sees will do good, but will not be accepted by the public on an individual level. Legislation is sure to follow.
On a philosophical level, I think it's antithetical to freedom for technology to be required to prevent people from deliberately doing wrong. The choice to break the law should be up to the individual. Consider if the Montgomery buses had had skin-albedometers and some odd contraption to move Rosa Parks where she "belonged" -- you can't have civil disobedience if disobedience is impossible. Consider if printing presses were somehow rigged to refuse to print the Pentagon Papers or anything else the government thought was illegal to print. If cars had a 55mph speed governor during the years of the US national maximum speed limit, would that law have ever been repealed? Granted, these are arguments against mandating the technology, not against its development, but for the reasons I stated above, this technology is pretty much a control-freak magnet.
Zinc is abundant in pennies too. They're about as tasty as most vegan food. The main problem is removing the copper shell to get at the zinc goodness inside.
You eat mostly cheese and egg-based stuff? That ain't vegetarian, that's meat by-product-ism. Cheese is probably worse for you than yummy high-fat prime beef; it's high fat (much of it saturated) and very high in sodium.
He excludes air conditioning from his measure. He uses expensive CF light bulbs everywhere. He has a new high-efficiency furnace fan motor and doesn't use electricity for heat or hot water.
And he compares all this high-efficiency goodness to a run-of-the-mill PC with apparently no power saving features and two (count 'em, TWO) 19" CRT monitors.
So, apparently, if you exclude HVAC and hot water, get a new refrigerator, and make heroic efforts to keep down lighting costs, electronics which you make no attempt to optimize for power usage end up being a large part of the total. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
In the semi-Puritan US, where the government and talking heads really hate to say anything positive about alcohol, I take theories about polyphenols and flavenoids to largely be an attempt to conceal the conclusion that many studies keep pointing to. Namely, that there's benefit from alcohol consumption. And not just moderate (by US standards) consumption, but frequent consumption (moderate by European standards). The studies keep showing it, but the govt and talking heads still keep talking about alcohol like it's a bad thing and continue to say that there's no reason to increase your consumption.
Not that polyphenols might not have a positive effect; only that it's likely small compared to the positive effect of alcohol.
Light beer does typically have less alcohol than regular beer (since a lot of beer's calories come from alcohol). And 20oz is a pint in some countries, and even in the US some bars have a 20oz size. For instance, one bar I used to go to served Guiness and Bass in 20 oz glasses and everything else in 16 oz glasses.
The 10-gram drink they give is pretty small. Think about a bottle of light beer, or a little more than half a glass of wine, or an ounce of 80-proof spirits. So their 4 drinks is more like 3 average-sized drinks, or two drinks if you drink 20-oz pints or pour wine and spirits with a generous hand.
It's a trick which has been tried many times before -- make your software not work with other software unless that other software contains your trademark. It usually doesn't work; courts have ruled that if you use your trademark in a functional way like that, you can't use trademark protection. Thus video cards which contained strings like "Some code expects 'IBM' here" (because the BIOS was checking for 'IBM' in a particular location), and similar nonsense.
Of course, throw enough lawyers at enough courts, particularly if your opponents aren't well-funded, and eventually you're likely to get your view accepted.
So your point is good, that copyright holders have used the political process to extend their benefits to what seems to be the deterement of everyone else.
That doesn't mean that you have a legal right to copy copyrighted material. So you can feel free to ignore the law of "criminals" but the reality is that you could still be held accountable, regardless of your own justification.
Ahh, the "they bought the law fair and square" argument. The point isn't that people violating the (bought and paid-for) law can't be held accountable. In fact, not only can they, but the people who bought the law get to set the value of the accounting. The point is that due to their activities there is no longer any moral or ethical backing to the law. It's pure might-makes-right and violating it is at worst a morally neutral act.
The threat to your "rights" and the rights of copyright holders is low cost digital duplication and distribution. Guess what, 100 years ago copying a book required that you buy the physical materials to print the book on and an expensive printer to print the book.
So our rights were safe as long as we didn't have the means to effectively exercise them. As soon as we could exercise them, they were taken away. Thank you, Joseph Heller. Of course the fact that you put our rights in scare quotes and left their rights unadorned pretty much gave away what you think is important.
Copyright is good. Protecting it is good. DRM is not inherently evil.
The DMCA is inherently evil. The DMCA (or something like it) is the only way to protect the integrity of DRM, so DRM must also be evil. If DRM is the only way to protect copyright, then copyright must be evil.
In this season? The Mall of America, the King of Prussia Mall, Sawgrass Mills Mall, etc....
Actually, if the terrorists are REALLY clever, they'll take down all the jewelry stores and florist shops and stands on Christmas Eve. The damage done by the women to men who saved their gift shopping for the last minute should shut the country down for weeks (taking down the florist shops prevents effective apologies, of course).
Bill Gates: Darth Velop ("envelop") Steve Jobs: Darth Vision ("envision") Bin Laden: Darth Plosion ("implosion") Bush: Darth Competent Stallman: Darth GNU (what else?) Linus: Come on, you can't Darth Linus.
Slashdot Mirror
What he says is "Windows doesn't have font issues, changing permissions on the fly, and disk errors every so often."
Methinks our Windows-loving genius doesn't have three problems with his Mac, but rather one. Disk errors? Only time I've seen disk errors is when the disk was physically failing.
What possible GPL violation could Apple have committed wrt the LLVM? The LLVM project doesn't use the GPL for its backend.
Last things first: Apple doesn't have to abide by the APSL with respect to their own code.
Second, if it's "OS X" on PPC, and "OS X" on Intel, why wouldn't it be "OS X" on ARM? It could well come from the very same code base, simply an unreleased branch.
There have been at least 7 definitions of the meter, actually. BTW, I was slightly mistaken above; the liter was originally defined in terms of the meter and is now so defined, but between 1901 and 1964 it was defined in terms of the kilogram.
There are approximately 355ml in a real can of Coke. Using 330ml cans, or even 300ml cans, is how the Coca-Cola company punishes European countries for imposing metric on them. There's also a 375ml can in a few places, like Australia (so it doesn't disappear behind the Foster's cans)
There are two official miles in the US. One is the international mile (exactly 1760 international yards), the other the survey mile (exactly 5280 survey feet). They differ by about 2 * 10E-6. Both are based on the metric system; the survey foot is 1200/3937 meter.
I think the rail miles you speak of are probably conventions used only in that specific industry, and if rail in the US was measured in kilometers they'd do exactly the same thing.
The liter is (and always was) a unit derived from the meter, which was originally defined based on the length of the meridian through Paris. It doesn't have anything to do with pints (it's much closer to a quart, anyway)
I think the fact that Apple was in talks with Cisco is probably Apple's only chance of winning this one. Date of first use in trade is the criterion for determining trademark priority, not date of registration. The 1996 registration for a no-longer-produced product that few had heard of wouldn't have been a major barrier to Apple trademarking the name, but they figured they'd cover their bases and obtain the rights. They'll probably claim that by entering those negotiations, Cisco was tipped off that Apple wanted the name, and that Cisco then deliberately introduced a product with the iPhone name specifically to drive the price of the mark up -- i.e. they were negotiating in bad faith.
Other than that possibility, I don't see that Apple has a leg to stand on; Cisco had a product first.
Using DMCA counter-notification is like slashing open a vein when you see a fin in the water. It's literally an invitation to sue.
While copyright law does allow protection of architectural works, it specifically does not extend that protection to photographs of copyrighted buildings. It was the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame who sued, not I.M. Pei. They sued on trademark grounds, not copyright. And they lost on appeal.
k _and_roll.htm
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/IP/trademark/roc
The principle -- that disobedience to a law should be possible -- is the same regardless of whether you consider the issue a "public safety" issue or not. I even gave other examples, like the speed limit. Would the National Maximum Speed Limit have been repealed without the example of the vast majority of drivers out there breaking it every day? That's also considered a "public safety issue".
The problem with this technology isn't any of the (many) practical problems it entails. The problem is it just begs to be made mandatory by governments. Very few people would want to put this system in a car which they drive; after all, most of them figure they don't drive drunk anyway so why pay for it, and the drunks sure as heck don't want it. Some people would want it in cars they bought for their teen-aged children but that's a fairly small niche market. Rental companies might want it but probably wouldn't want to pay for it unless it was somehow mandated -- particularly since it might cause legitimate renters to shy away fearing those false positives. So here's a technology which "everyone" (which is to say journalists, car manufacturers, politicians, and the safety lobby) sees will do good, but will not be accepted by the public on an individual level. Legislation is sure to follow.
On a philosophical level, I think it's antithetical to freedom for technology to be required to prevent people from deliberately doing wrong. The choice to break the law should be up to the individual. Consider if the Montgomery buses had had skin-albedometers and some odd contraption to move Rosa Parks where she "belonged" -- you can't have civil disobedience if disobedience is impossible. Consider if printing presses were somehow rigged to refuse to print the Pentagon Papers or anything else the government thought was illegal to print. If cars had a 55mph speed governor during the years of the US national maximum speed limit, would that law have ever been repealed? Granted, these are arguments against mandating the technology, not against its development, but for the reasons I stated above, this technology is pretty much a control-freak magnet.
It's already hacked; they admit as much. Burn to CSS-protected DVD, use DeCSS.
Isn't claim 1 of that patent superheterodyning, with the slight addition (also not novel) that you can choose the upper image or the lower image?
Zinc is abundant in pennies too. They're about as tasty as most vegan food. The main problem is removing the copper shell to get at the zinc goodness inside.
You eat mostly cheese and egg-based stuff? That ain't vegetarian, that's meat by-product-ism. Cheese is probably worse for you than yummy high-fat prime beef; it's high fat (much of it saturated) and very high in sodium.
He excludes air conditioning from his measure. He uses expensive CF light bulbs everywhere. He has a new high-efficiency furnace fan motor and doesn't use electricity for heat or hot water.
And he compares all this high-efficiency goodness to a run-of-the-mill PC with apparently no power saving features and two (count 'em, TWO) 19" CRT monitors.
So, apparently, if you exclude HVAC and hot water, get a new refrigerator, and make heroic efforts to keep down lighting costs, electronics which you make no attempt to optimize for power usage end up being a large part of the total. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
In the semi-Puritan US, where the government and talking heads really hate to say anything positive about alcohol, I take theories about polyphenols and flavenoids to largely be an attempt to conceal the conclusion that many studies keep pointing to. Namely, that there's benefit from alcohol consumption. And not just moderate (by US standards) consumption, but frequent consumption (moderate by European standards). The studies keep showing it, but the govt and talking heads still keep talking about alcohol like it's a bad thing and continue to say that there's no reason to increase your consumption.
Not that polyphenols might not have a positive effect; only that it's likely small compared to the positive effect of alcohol.
Light beer does typically have less alcohol than regular beer (since a lot of beer's calories come from alcohol). And 20oz is a pint in some countries, and even in the US some bars have a 20oz size. For instance, one bar I used to go to served Guiness and Bass in 20 oz glasses and everything else in 16 oz glasses.
The 10-gram drink they give is pretty small. Think about a bottle of light beer, or a little more than half a glass of wine, or an ounce of 80-proof spirits. So their 4 drinks is more like 3 average-sized drinks, or two drinks if you drink 20-oz pints or pour wine and spirits with a generous hand.
It's a trick which has been tried many times before -- make your software not work with other software unless that other software contains your trademark. It usually doesn't work; courts have ruled that if you use your trademark in a functional way like that, you can't use trademark protection. Thus video cards which contained strings like "Some code expects 'IBM' here" (because the BIOS was checking for 'IBM' in a particular location), and similar nonsense.
Of course, throw enough lawyers at enough courts, particularly if your opponents aren't well-funded, and eventually you're likely to get your view accepted.
In this season? The Mall of America, the King of Prussia Mall, Sawgrass Mills Mall, etc....
Actually, if the terrorists are REALLY clever, they'll take down all the jewelry stores and florist shops and stands on Christmas Eve. The damage done by the women to men who saved their gift shopping for the last minute should shut the country down for weeks (taking down the florist shops prevents effective apologies, of course).
Bill Gates: Darth Velop ("envelop")
Steve Jobs: Darth Vision ("envision")
Bin Laden: Darth Plosion ("implosion")
Bush: Darth Competent
Stallman: Darth GNU (what else?)
Linus: Come on, you can't Darth Linus.