As of the last revision of the iBooks, the 12 inch powerbook was a horrible machine in comparison. It had 3 selling points:
1) 20 gigs more space 2) DVI out 3) 64 MB of video memory
Otherwise it was a fairly lousy machine next to the computers on either side of it. It was essentialy unchanged since the beginning of 2005, it still came with 2 256 chips instead of 1 512 and was honestly just lacking compared to the other powerbooks.
I wonder if you use a macintosh. Dashboard, Finder, Spotlight and the Dock are all removeable from the use interface, you just have to know where to look. Understandably Apple did not put the Finder in the Applications folder. Yes, on a technical level all of the programs are very integrated, but not in the way that microsoft applications tend to be integrated. With the possible exception of Spotlight, removing any one of those applications will not adversely affect any other program on the system provided the program does not expect that application to be there (hence my exclusion of spotlight which many apps use because frankly it works as intended). Now, removing the actual system libraries will break things, but as anyone who has used path finder, launch bar etc removing the Finder or the Dock or Dashboard will certainly not cause a system failure.
The problem is, the modular upgrading only makes sense in two senarios:
piece wise continuous upgrades
high end systems with reuse
For most people though, by the time they go to upgrade their computer, they're doing it for a specific reason and usualy because it isn't fast enough or current enough to do something specific.
So you go to upgrade the processor
But in order to do the processor, you should do the mother board, because slot technology has changed and it's a good chance the processor you want (or need) is not availible for your mother board.
Since you're upgrading the board, you need to upgrade the memory.
And if you're upgrading for a game, you need a better graphics card
At this point, a sound card and the HDD are the only real pieces left that's worth seriously keeping, everything else you are already paying for in the board anyway, and by this point for most people, an HDD upgrade wouldn't be a bad deal since they're spending so much already.
Why not, the lable is on a DVD, which contains Digital data and it's a form of Rights Management in that it is being used to ensure that only the intended recipient recieves and views the data.
I was walking down a street in London and saw a door marked "Ministry of Defence. Top Secret. UFO archive." I'd probably keep on walking - unless the door was wide open. Then I might just peek inside out of curiosity. Now if it turned out to be the real deal how the hell could anyone with a brain and a conscience prosecute me for that?
Hooray for flawed analogies. The door was not wide open. Secured with a lock that can be opened with any key commonly found in a child's plastic handcuff kit sure, but still locked. Criminal trespass in almost all cases merely requires indication that the premise is not open to the public. I think a login/password would be sufficient indication.
I don't have a case on hand, it's just my reading based on the laguage used:
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
"shall not itself bar a finding of fair use" seems to indicate that an item being unpublished automaticaly shifts the balance away from fair use (probably because the assumption is if it isn't published it was stolen or obtained through less than legiitimate methods) but that it alone is not enough to say it isn't fair use.
Furthermore how does it not impact part 2 of the consideration? If part 2 is considering the "nature" of the work, than part of it's nature is proprietary unpublished and classified released only to those who have agreed not to distribute.
Then you need to think about it from a marketing perspective. It's along the same lines as simplifying the product line that happened when steve jobs returned (though whether it's still simple is a topic for another discussion). What's the difference between an iBook and a Powerbook? The short and easy answer is the Powerbooks are just faster or better, or that the iBooks are lower end versions of the powerbooks. There isn't (from a consumer standpoint) a major difference between the two. Therefore Macbook / Macbook Pro makes perfect sense.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Generaly the service manuals from apple are listed confidential, and are unpublished except to authorized persons. Whether something is unpublished or not was considered a large enough factor to merit a specific line about it and falls heavily into part 2 of the 4 part test. Whether the other parts are sufficient to override that would indeed be a matter for the courts.
Mostly my point was that the tax system was fucked up. It takes and takes and takes, then pays to the bottom 20% but in a manner that's useless and worthless to them.
But they pay more in other taxes too. They may have saved a percentage point on the sales tax, but now part of that money is taxed as income for the gardener as well (even more so if the gardener is part of a business rather than an individual. Furthermore, while each 1 item may take a larger chunk from the poor, the richer tend to buy larger chunks of things. When I last did my taxes I calculated out to have spent roughly $270 in sales taxes. I paid more than that in income taxes to the state, never mind the federal taxes. The bottom 20% get all except medicare and SS taxes back.
In short the tax system is fucked up because it gives to the poor (while still fucking them over), screws the middle class, and attempts to punish the succesful.
Oh I fully understand that insurance is a free market development and that the only way to eliminate it is to outlaw it, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing (or that I want it outlawed for that matter) Insurance, like any other free market devvelopment when a collection of people on one side of the equation band together produces a shift in the market. Idealy insurance should lower the costs for the consumer for things, the problem is, insurance as it's used and implemented now is not insuring against the big costs, it's insuring the little costs too which is driving all the prices up. The equation has shifted, but has in effect shifted too far and the consumer power is now forcing costs up and not down.
And because that doctor had to write off $85 that you cost him because of your insurance, the rest of us who can't afford or choose not to buy insurance have to foot the bill. That's why I hate health insurance as it is designed, because it's used for stupid shit that doctors should be competing on while driving the rates of EVERYTHING else up.
Since the top 10% make over 90% of the wealth, shouldn't they be paying 90% of the taxes? The taxes should be distributed by wealth, not numbers of people. There is nothing wrong with someone with a one billion/year income paying as much in taxes as 50,000 people making 20k/year. Or for one 100,000/year income invidual paying as much as 5 20k/year. That's right, the average joe income of 20k is sitting in Microsofts cash reserves 1.5 million times over.
No. Our tax system taxes (or is supposed to tax) income not wealth. Or would you like to be paying taxes on the money you have in the bank?
You are right about social security, but social security is not what we are discussing. Social security is a retirement program. As for taxes, if you were just above the poverty line (defined by the no tax line) that would still put at an income well under 20k. At that level of income I highly doubt you paid more than 2000 after refund. At 30k as single white male with no dependants I paid far less than that after refund.
You're right, I paid that 12% or so that medicare and social security were (since you don't get those back in your refund). My point was that hundred someodd I was losing each month that I would not get back (or even that which I would get back) could have been better used to fund my own health and nutrition. It would have been nice to have an extra $100 to spend on eating and living healthier.
Ah, but markets are two sided. While 10 people may be willing to pay 50,000 12 people may be willing to pay 25,000, and the doctor that charges 25,000 will get all 12 (AOTBE). The market will bear a lower price if there is more money to be made. And yes, people do forgo surguries because they don't want to pay it.
Health insurance is NOT privitized healthcare in the truest sense. It's socialized but you get to choose (to a degree) the people paying in. Truely private healthcare would be doctors competeing for cash paying customers having to match their rates to what people can actualy afford rather than what they can get out of insurance companies.
Except it isn't just the wealthy that are paying. My effective tax rate when I was making just above the poverty line for each paycheck after state and federal taxes was about 21%. Nearly 12% of that was paid into social security and medicare/medicaid. In ortherwords HALF of the money I was paying out in taxes was going into systems that I am ineligable to bennefit from. In the mean time, I had to scrape together $125 to get a simple checkup at a doctor (which would have been covered easily if I wasn't paying for someone elses health.
Furthermore, here's another figure to add to your collection. Nearly 50% of the taxes in the US are paid by the top 10% of the wage earners. The bottom 20% of the wage earners not only don't pay taxes but actualy MAKE money off the tax system. In otherwords, pick the nearest 10 people to you. One of them pays 50% of the taxes you all pay, 2 of them recieve money rather than loose it, and the last 7 divide the other 50% between you.
That's why insurance companies suck, and why I can't understand why people continue to buy into them (or why people think giving everyone health insurance is a good idea). If most people didn't have health insurance they wouldn't want to pay all the god awful costs that doctors charge (like $125 for a checkup), and doctors would be forced to reduce prices or go out of business.
Oddly enough there are plenty of softwares out there that make use of Apple's installer to install system level software all the time. Very few things use their own (Symanitc being one of those exceptions) There's little Apple can do to force people to use the proper installer.
To have the right key, you need the right program. I can't open PGP encrypted files without PGP, is it so supprising you can't open windows encrypted files without windows?
And yes, I agree the system is fucked and the government would fuck it up worse. I don't want them involved either. I just wish more people would fight for a better system. The insurance companies are a business, let's treat them like one and start doing some consumer negotiation.
You're right. Having read more into the plan after I posted I found that there was a cap. $5000 after the deductable. So another year that I need to stay out of the hospital. In short, the system is still fucked up for all but the absolute WORST case senarios.
Slashdot Mirror
As of the last revision of the iBooks, the 12 inch powerbook was a horrible machine in comparison. It had 3 selling points:
1) 20 gigs more space
2) DVI out
3) 64 MB of video memory
Otherwise it was a fairly lousy machine next to the computers on either side of it. It was essentialy unchanged since the beginning of 2005, it still came with 2 256 chips instead of 1 512 and was honestly just lacking compared to the other powerbooks.
What's so hard about copying your documents to a disk every once in a while?
I wonder if you use a macintosh. Dashboard, Finder, Spotlight and the Dock are all removeable from the use interface, you just have to know where to look. Understandably Apple did not put the Finder in the Applications folder. Yes, on a technical level all of the programs are very integrated, but not in the way that microsoft applications tend to be integrated. With the possible exception of Spotlight, removing any one of those applications will not adversely affect any other program on the system provided the program does not expect that application to be there (hence my exclusion of spotlight which many apps use because frankly it works as intended). Now, removing the actual system libraries will break things, but as anyone who has used path finder, launch bar etc removing the Finder or the Dock or Dashboard will certainly not cause a system failure.
The problem is, the modular upgrading only makes sense in two senarios:
piece wise continuous upgrades
high end systems with reuse
For most people though, by the time they go to upgrade their computer, they're doing it for a specific reason and usualy because it isn't fast enough or current enough to do something specific.
So you go to upgrade the processor
But in order to do the processor, you should do the mother board, because slot technology has changed and it's a good chance the processor you want (or need) is not availible for your mother board.
Since you're upgrading the board, you need to upgrade the memory.
And if you're upgrading for a game, you need a better graphics card
At this point, a sound card and the HDD are the only real pieces left that's worth seriously keeping, everything else you are already paying for in the board anyway, and by this point for most people, an HDD upgrade wouldn't be a bad deal since they're spending so much already.
Why not, the lable is on a DVD, which contains Digital data and it's a form of Rights Management in that it is being used to ensure that only the intended recipient recieves and views the data.
I was walking down a street in London and saw a door marked "Ministry of Defence. Top Secret. UFO archive." I'd probably keep on walking - unless the door was wide open. Then I might just peek inside out of curiosity. Now if it turned out to be the real deal how the hell could anyone with a brain and a conscience prosecute me for that?
Hooray for flawed analogies. The door was not wide open. Secured with a lock that can be opened with any key commonly found in a child's plastic handcuff kit sure, but still locked. Criminal trespass in almost all cases merely requires indication that the premise is not open to the public. I think a login/password would be sufficient indication.
I don't have a case on hand, it's just my reading based on the laguage used:
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
"shall not itself bar a finding of fair use" seems to indicate that an item being unpublished automaticaly shifts the balance away from fair use (probably because the assumption is if it isn't published it was stolen or obtained through less than legiitimate methods) but that it alone is not enough to say it isn't fair use.
Furthermore how does it not impact part 2 of the consideration? If part 2 is considering the "nature" of the work, than part of it's nature is proprietary unpublished and classified released only to those who have agreed not to distribute.
Then you need to think about it from a marketing perspective. It's along the same lines as simplifying the product line that happened when steve jobs returned (though whether it's still simple is a topic for another discussion). What's the difference between an iBook and a Powerbook? The short and easy answer is the Powerbooks are just faster or better, or that the iBooks are lower end versions of the powerbooks. There isn't (from a consumer standpoint) a major difference between the two. Therefore Macbook / Macbook Pro makes perfect sense.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Generaly the service manuals from apple are listed confidential, and are unpublished except to authorized persons. Whether something is unpublished or not was considered a large enough factor to merit a specific line about it and falls heavily into part 2 of the 4 part test. Whether the other parts are sufficient to override that would indeed be a matter for the courts.
Right, trying to silence critics, so tell me, where is the C&D letter telling them to remove the entire discussion?
An interested public is not the same as public interest. In short, yes this senario is different because:
a) Apple is not breaking any laws
b) The heating issue is not causing any systems to catch fire nor is anyone claiming that it will
c) It is not disclosing any other public danger
So why fiddle around with Boot Camp when Virtual PC already lets you run Windows on your Mac, and access your OS X stuff at the same time?
That's easy. Virtual PC doesn't run on Intel Macs. Only Paralells will give you a similar device.
On that note, according to anandtech, paralells actualy gives better performance for some things than running windows native on the hardware.
Mostly my point was that the tax system was fucked up. It takes and takes and takes, then pays to the bottom 20% but in a manner that's useless and worthless to them.
But they pay more in other taxes too. They may have saved a percentage point on the sales tax, but now part of that money is taxed as income for the gardener as well (even more so if the gardener is part of a business rather than an individual. Furthermore, while each 1 item may take a larger chunk from the poor, the richer tend to buy larger chunks of things. When I last did my taxes I calculated out to have spent roughly $270 in sales taxes. I paid more than that in income taxes to the state, never mind the federal taxes. The bottom 20% get all except medicare and SS taxes back.
In short the tax system is fucked up because it gives to the poor (while still fucking them over), screws the middle class, and attempts to punish the succesful.
Oh I fully understand that insurance is a free market development and that the only way to eliminate it is to outlaw it, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing (or that I want it outlawed for that matter) Insurance, like any other free market devvelopment when a collection of people on one side of the equation band together produces a shift in the market. Idealy insurance should lower the costs for the consumer for things, the problem is, insurance as it's used and implemented now is not insuring against the big costs, it's insuring the little costs too which is driving all the prices up. The equation has shifted, but has in effect shifted too far and the consumer power is now forcing costs up and not down.
And because that doctor had to write off $85 that you cost him because of your insurance, the rest of us who can't afford or choose not to buy insurance have to foot the bill. That's why I hate health insurance as it is designed, because it's used for stupid shit that doctors should be competing on while driving the rates of EVERYTHING else up.
Since the top 10% make over 90% of the wealth, shouldn't they be paying 90% of the taxes? The taxes should be distributed by wealth, not numbers of people. There is nothing wrong with someone with a one billion/year income paying as much in taxes as 50,000 people making 20k/year. Or for one 100,000/year income invidual paying as much as 5 20k/year. That's right, the average joe income of 20k is sitting in Microsofts cash reserves 1.5 million times over.
No. Our tax system taxes (or is supposed to tax) income not wealth. Or would you like to be paying taxes on the money you have in the bank?
You are right about social security, but social security is not what we are discussing. Social security is a retirement program. As for taxes, if you were just above the poverty line (defined by the no tax line) that would still put at an income well under 20k. At that level of income I highly doubt you paid more than 2000 after refund. At 30k as single white male with no dependants I paid far less than that after refund.
You're right, I paid that 12% or so that medicare and social security were (since you don't get those back in your refund). My point was that hundred someodd I was losing each month that I would not get back (or even that which I would get back) could have been better used to fund my own health and nutrition. It would have been nice to have an extra $100 to spend on eating and living healthier.
Ah, but markets are two sided. While 10 people may be willing to pay 50,000 12 people may be willing to pay 25,000, and the doctor that charges 25,000 will get all 12 (AOTBE). The market will bear a lower price if there is more money to be made. And yes, people do forgo surguries because they don't want to pay it.
Health insurance is NOT privitized healthcare in the truest sense. It's socialized but you get to choose (to a degree) the people paying in. Truely private healthcare would be doctors competeing for cash paying customers having to match their rates to what people can actualy afford rather than what they can get out of insurance companies.
Except it isn't just the wealthy that are paying. My effective tax rate when I was making just above the poverty line for each paycheck after state and federal taxes was about 21%. Nearly 12% of that was paid into social security and medicare/medicaid. In ortherwords HALF of the money I was paying out in taxes was going into systems that I am ineligable to bennefit from. In the mean time, I had to scrape together $125 to get a simple checkup at a doctor (which would have been covered easily if I wasn't paying for someone elses health.
Furthermore, here's another figure to add to your collection. Nearly 50% of the taxes in the US are paid by the top 10% of the wage earners. The bottom 20% of the wage earners not only don't pay taxes but actualy MAKE money off the tax system. In otherwords, pick the nearest 10 people to you. One of them pays 50% of the taxes you all pay, 2 of them recieve money rather than loose it, and the last 7 divide the other 50% between you.
That's why insurance companies suck, and why I can't understand why people continue to buy into them (or why people think giving everyone health insurance is a good idea). If most people didn't have health insurance they wouldn't want to pay all the god awful costs that doctors charge (like $125 for a checkup), and doctors would be forced to reduce prices or go out of business.
Oddly enough there are plenty of softwares out there that make use of Apple's installer to install system level software all the time. Very few things use their own (Symanitc being one of those exceptions) There's little Apple can do to force people to use the proper installer.
To have the right key, you need the right program. I can't open PGP encrypted files without PGP, is it so supprising you can't open windows encrypted files without windows?
It was an individual plan.
And yes, I agree the system is fucked and the government would fuck it up worse. I don't want them involved either. I just wish more people would fight for a better system. The insurance companies are a business, let's treat them like one and start doing some consumer negotiation.
You're right. Having read more into the plan after I posted I found that there was a cap. $5000 after the deductable. So another year that I need to stay out of the hospital. In short, the system is still fucked up for all but the absolute WORST case senarios.