Having used one of these myself allow me to brush aside some of your fears.
1) The mouse provides tactile feedback. You push, the mouse gives and then clicks, just like any other mouse.
The difference is in what happens when it clicks. In standard two button mode, if the mouse senses your fingers on the left side of the mouse or covering both left and right, it will act as a left click. If it senses your fingers on the right, it's a right click. And this can all be configured for however you want it to work. In short, it's a pretty damn elegant and functional solution to making a 0 button two button mouse. I would highly suggest if you get the chance to head to an Apple store and try it out, it's a lot better than the description makes it sound and feels quite natural.
2) Scrolling is not via some touch area, it's done with the little ball that sits at the top of the mouse and operates much like a trackball does, giving you scrolling in all directions.
Having been lucky enough to use one today, I can assure you that it functions just like any other mouse, with a tactile click when you press down. The second button functionality comes from resting fingers on the mouse. Remove your index finger so that you're only touching the right side, and it's a right click. Put it back or touch only the left side and it's a regular click. It's actually pretty neat.
No, they are two very different domains and not interchangeable at all. The fact that you view them as interchangeable is one of the reasons that IP laws are so fucked up in the first place
You are now arguing patents, which is an entirely different field than copyright. Please get your terms straight before continuing with this line of discussion. I don't mean to be short but I have no intention of defending a position I have not taken.
As far as covering songs, yes and no. Copyright has some very loose grey areas in the arena of performance. That's why college a capella groups get away with what they do. But performance is different from recording. The moment a group goes to record and or distribute, then things change and rights must be negotiated, even for interpreted covers.
am with you as long as "copying the source"=="copying or plagiarizing the book". But the movie (rights) would be..? I don't think that comparison really fits the issue I have.. (one could say "movie rights"=="allowing someone to build a program interoperating with A's code" or something like that..)
Movie rights would be direct derrivative work using actual code from the original coder.
Competeing productions are free to produce any and however many fantasy wizards comming of age movies they want. However, Harry Potter is the creation of the author, and as such the author has rights to those characters.
The characters and specific elements of the story are the code of the story if you will. The finished book is the compiled program.
Vendor B doesn't have a right to Vendor A's code. Nor does production house B have a right to A's characters.
No they aren't. People will naturally be creative & problem-solvers. Artificial restrictions on the transfer of information serve only to put limits on peoples' creativity & ability to solve problems.
So you are arguing that without copyright, there would be MORE content overall?
Tell me, how does me preventing you from using MY creation prevent you from creating your OWN creation?
Everyone and their mother is a creator. The thing is, most people don't give a rats ass about what you've created. As soon as people begin to take an interest in what you create though, someone is going to try and copy you and undercut you using your own work. Every single publisher online is using copyright and I assure you they see the bennefit of it. Yes, these protections are needed to encourage protection and creativity.
What property rights do the buyers have if they didn't buy the product to begin with? I don't want to pay X hundred dollars for some good pro audio software, but that doesn't mean I have the right to make a copy of it from my friends disk for use in my recording business because I never paid for it.
The point was, people are idiots and it doesn't matter what Apple's "official" policy is, no matter how big it's written, they ignore it and then bitch when Apple enforces it. Simply put, OS X on generic hardware means Apple supports it or Apple gets a bad rap.
You missed the point. It may be cheaper and functional, but Apple won't support it. And every time some idiot goes for cheaper and functional (OS X on knockoff hardware) when they have a problem, they're comming back to Apple and they'll bitch when Apple says that they won't support third party products.
Bottomline is I fall in the camp that if they were really Al Qaeda website you would have been way better off cracking their codes and reading their mail.
This line of reasoning amuses me. So if it's a real enemy, shutting it down is bad cause censorship is bad, but hey, violate right to privacy all you want.
clearly, it's in their best interest to let people run os x on any computer, but officially state they won't get any support for it. that way people can try it out and use it and apple could still continue making closed systems that they profit from.
Because quite frankly, people are fucking idiots.
HP iPods are unsupported by Apple. They clearly state this. They are constantly revieving complaints that HP iPods aren't being supported.
Apple doesn't cover user stupidity in Apple care. This is also clearly stated, and yet they continue to recieve complaints about this as well.
Non-Apple RAM is not supported by Apple, if the memory turns out to be the cause of a problem, then you need to buy new memory if you want Apple techs to probe deeper into the problem, and no Apple will not install third party stuff. This is clearly stated, and yet again, is another complaint source.
Apple does not support transfering music from the iPod, this is again clearly stated. Care to guess what Apple recieves about this?
Apple does not do repiar or waranty work and service for any third party products, and yet you would be amazed at the number of people that come into the stores looking for Apple to fix their third party product.
Simply put people are stupid and don't understand the concept of something being an unsupported hack. As far as they are concerned, it has X company name on it, so no matter what they do with it, X company should support it.
This is even further compounded by the fact that Apple continualy emphisises it's "Whole Widget" philosophy where you go to one company for your hardware and software problems.
I've done my work in retail thankyou. And I've done my time at minimum wage too (real minimum wage mind you, $5.15, not almost minimum wage like burger flippers).
I also coincidentaly happen to be a musician. And I'm in the process of recroding something with a group. Allow me to enlighten you a bit.
Aside from having to create the music in the first place and making it sound right, we have to negotiate rights for any covers we do. we then have to perform, at the very minimum weekly, and that's only if we don't want to make any money. Anything to cover extra costs like recording means we have to perform more often.
Recording costs $700+ for 10 hours of studio time, and that doesn't include any mixing or mastering, that's all just raw recording. And that comes out of our personal pockets, before we can record. Then we have to actually get in and record. Instruments are no problem, but vocals are a whole different story.
In the last year, we have been working on recording 5 songs. We have over 40 hours of recorded vocals, none of which is useable in the finished product. For those of you keeping score, that means we have $2800 in recording that we can't use, and all of that comes out of pocket. We also have about 15 hours of usable product.
Then comes mastering and production. If we don't do it ourselves, we're talking easily $30 - $100/hr with about 7 hours per song.
Then comes the actual production, and ordering. To be cost effective, CDs need to be ordered in bulk, and we have to sell them. In order to sell them, we need to perform, and if we're lucky we break even on the cost of the CDs after we've sold half, and we begin making back the money we spent in mastering on the rest of it.
Did I mention we all have to do this while working other jobs because in order to properly pay the group to live off this we would need to perform every morning afternoon and night and not incur any expenses?
So don't give me any bullshit about working a shovel or flipping burgers. I've done it all, and I would rather live off manual labor than try to live off music.
However, his actions in thise case were more akin to him going to Al Queda Summer Camp and giving a speech about how if you look really closely at the blue prints for some major US landmarks and look at how certain things have changed over the years, you can find exploit a major structural failing in the buildings capable of bringing them down.
And if your job doing what you like with a company in a stable employment without a no compete contract is important, then don't threaten to leave every time the wind blows. If you're going to act like you're transient, you'll be treated as such. It's not personal, it's just business.
Can a contract, that is valid in Washington be enforced in California where it is invalid? Is the contract prejudicial if applied to the employee who lives in Washington but not one who immigrates to California? Pejudicial to whom?
Sure it can. The contract was entered into legally, and thus is a binding contract. Moving out of jurisdiction is not immunity to the law.
Both my grandfathers got gold watches, and never thought of changing careers or companies for thirty years.
And it's entirely possible that they never thought of changing companies. Not so in the modern world. People jump jobs all the time for the "better offer"
And that configuration file is where?/etc/configMyAss means jack shit to most users and it damn well should mean jack shit. As a rule, you should not require the user to manualy fuck with config files to use the program for its intended purpose. It's just good software protection.
In all, you are needlessly complicating what should be a very simple process merely because you are too lazy to develop and impliment a better distribution system.
Unless there's a GUI walkthrough for new sources for APT (with a good explination of why that needs to be done) or for make install, then it's still a bad system. If it isn't brainless and transparent to the user, then it's worthless to most of them. That's why I can't figure out why the OSS community hasn't adopted the package system for their applications like OS X uses. It doesn't get any simpler to install than a drag and drop, and if Microsoft Office can be drag and drop, surely just about any other program can be too.
Slashdot Mirror
Having used one of these myself allow me to brush aside some of your fears.
1) The mouse provides tactile feedback. You push, the mouse gives and then clicks, just like any other mouse.
The difference is in what happens when it clicks. In standard two button mode, if the mouse senses your fingers on the left side of the mouse or covering both left and right, it will act as a left click. If it senses your fingers on the right, it's a right click. And this can all be configured for however you want it to work. In short, it's a pretty damn elegant and functional solution to making a 0 button two button mouse. I would highly suggest if you get the chance to head to an Apple store and try it out, it's a lot better than the description makes it sound and feels quite natural.
2) Scrolling is not via some touch area, it's done with the little ball that sits at the top of the mouse and operates much like a trackball does, giving you scrolling in all directions.
Having been lucky enough to use one today, I can assure you that it functions just like any other mouse, with a tactile click when you press down. The second button functionality comes from resting fingers on the mouse. Remove your index finger so that you're only touching the right side, and it's a right click. Put it back or touch only the left side and it's a regular click. It's actually pretty neat.
They aren't shipping computers with the new mouse.
No, it's not the same. There is an entirely different set of rules governing such things, Again, pick one or the other for the discussion.
No, they are two very different domains and not interchangeable at all. The fact that you view them as interchangeable is one of the reasons that IP laws are so fucked up in the first place
You are now arguing patents, which is an entirely different field than copyright. Please get your terms straight before continuing with this line of discussion. I don't mean to be short but I have no intention of defending a position I have not taken.
As far as covering songs, yes and no. Copyright has some very loose grey areas in the arena of performance. That's why college a capella groups get away with what they do. But performance is different from recording. The moment a group goes to record and or distribute, then things change and rights must be negotiated, even for interpreted covers.
am with you as long as "copying the source"=="copying or plagiarizing the book". But the movie (rights) would be..?
I don't think that comparison really fits the issue I have..
(one could say "movie rights"=="allowing someone to build a program interoperating with A's code" or something like that..)
Movie rights would be direct derrivative work using actual code from the original coder.
Competeing productions are free to produce any and however many fantasy wizards comming of age movies they want. However, Harry Potter is the creation of the author, and as such the author has rights to those characters.
The characters and specific elements of the story are the code of the story if you will. The finished book is the compiled program.
Vendor B doesn't have a right to Vendor A's code. Nor does production house B have a right to A's characters.
No they aren't. People will naturally be creative & problem-solvers. Artificial restrictions on the transfer of information serve only to put limits on peoples' creativity & ability to solve problems.
So you are arguing that without copyright, there would be MORE content overall?
Tell me, how does me preventing you from using MY creation prevent you from creating your OWN creation?
Right, the creator is not entitled to profit. Likewise, the consumer isn't entitled to the product.
Everyone and their mother is a creator. The thing is, most people don't give a rats ass about what you've created. As soon as people begin to take an interest in what you create though, someone is going to try and copy you and undercut you using your own work. Every single publisher online is using copyright and I assure you they see the bennefit of it. Yes, these protections are needed to encourage protection and creativity.
What property rights do the buyers have if they didn't buy the product to begin with? I don't want to pay X hundred dollars for some good pro audio software, but that doesn't mean I have the right to make a copy of it from my friends disk for use in my recording business because I never paid for it.
The point was, people are idiots and it doesn't matter what Apple's "official" policy is, no matter how big it's written, they ignore it and then bitch when Apple enforces it. Simply put, OS X on generic hardware means Apple supports it or Apple gets a bad rap.
You missed the point. It may be cheaper and functional, but Apple won't support it. And every time some idiot goes for cheaper and functional (OS X on knockoff hardware) when they have a problem, they're comming back to Apple and they'll bitch when Apple says that they won't support third party products.
Bottomline is I fall in the camp that if they were really Al Qaeda website you would have been way better off cracking their codes and reading their mail.
This line of reasoning amuses me. So if it's a real enemy, shutting it down is bad cause censorship is bad, but hey, violate right to privacy all you want.
clearly, it's in their best interest to let people run os x on any computer, but officially state they won't get any support for it. that way people can try it out and use it and apple could still continue making closed systems that they profit from.
Because quite frankly, people are fucking idiots.
HP iPods are unsupported by Apple. They clearly state this. They are constantly revieving complaints that HP iPods aren't being supported.
Apple doesn't cover user stupidity in Apple care. This is also clearly stated, and yet they continue to recieve complaints about this as well.
Non-Apple RAM is not supported by Apple, if the memory turns out to be the cause of a problem, then you need to buy new memory if you want Apple techs to probe deeper into the problem, and no Apple will not install third party stuff. This is clearly stated, and yet again, is another complaint source.
Apple does not support transfering music from the iPod, this is again clearly stated. Care to guess what Apple recieves about this?
Apple does not do repiar or waranty work and service for any third party products, and yet you would be amazed at the number of people that come into the stores looking for Apple to fix their third party product.
Simply put people are stupid and don't understand the concept of something being an unsupported hack. As far as they are concerned, it has X company name on it, so no matter what they do with it, X company should support it.
This is even further compounded by the fact that Apple continualy emphisises it's "Whole Widget" philosophy where you go to one company for your hardware and software problems.
I've done my work in retail thankyou. And I've done my time at minimum wage too (real minimum wage mind you, $5.15, not almost minimum wage like burger flippers).
/hr with about 7 hours per song.
I also coincidentaly happen to be a musician. And I'm in the process of recroding something with a group. Allow me to enlighten you a bit.
Aside from having to create the music in the first place and making it sound right, we have to negotiate rights for any covers we do. we then have to perform, at the very minimum weekly, and that's only if we don't want to make any money. Anything to cover extra costs like recording means we have to perform more often.
Recording costs $700+ for 10 hours of studio time, and that doesn't include any mixing or mastering, that's all just raw recording. And that comes out of our personal pockets, before we can record. Then we have to actually get in and record. Instruments are no problem, but vocals are a whole different story.
In the last year, we have been working on recording 5 songs. We have over 40 hours of recorded vocals, none of which is useable in the finished product. For those of you keeping score, that means we have $2800 in recording that we can't use, and all of that comes out of pocket. We also have about 15 hours of usable product.
Then comes mastering and production. If we don't do it ourselves, we're talking easily $30 - $100
Then comes the actual production, and ordering. To be cost effective, CDs need to be ordered in bulk, and we have to sell them. In order to sell them, we need to perform, and if we're lucky we break even on the cost of the CDs after we've sold half, and we begin making back the money we spent in mastering on the rest of it.
Did I mention we all have to do this while working other jobs because in order to properly pay the group to live off this we would need to perform every morning afternoon and night and not incur any expenses?
So don't give me any bullshit about working a shovel or flipping burgers. I've done it all, and I would rather live off manual labor than try to live off music.
You clearly have no concept at all of the work that goes into music or video production.
However, his actions in thise case were more akin to him going to Al Queda Summer Camp and giving a speech about how if you look really closely at the blue prints for some major US landmarks and look at how certain things have changed over the years, you can find exploit a major structural failing in the buildings capable of bringing them down.
And if your job doing what you like with a company in a stable employment without a no compete contract is important, then don't threaten to leave every time the wind blows. If you're going to act like you're transient, you'll be treated as such. It's not personal, it's just business.
Can a contract, that is valid in Washington be enforced in California where it is invalid? Is the contract prejudicial if applied to the employee who lives in Washington but not one who immigrates to California? Pejudicial to whom?
Sure it can. The contract was entered into legally, and thus is a binding contract. Moving out of jurisdiction is not immunity to the law.
Both my grandfathers got gold watches, and never thought of changing careers or companies for thirty years.
And it's entirely possible that they never thought of changing companies. Not so in the modern world. People jump jobs all the time for the "better offer"
And that configuration file is where? /etc/configMyAss means jack shit to most users and it damn well should mean jack shit. As a rule, you should not require the user to manualy fuck with config files to use the program for its intended purpose. It's just good software protection.
In all, you are needlessly complicating what should be a very simple process merely because you are too lazy to develop and impliment a better distribution system.
Unless there's a GUI walkthrough for new sources for APT (with a good explination of why that needs to be done) or for make install, then it's still a bad system. If it isn't brainless and transparent to the user, then it's worthless to most of them. That's why I can't figure out why the OSS community hasn't adopted the package system for their applications like OS X uses. It doesn't get any simpler to install than a drag and drop, and if Microsoft Office can be drag and drop, surely just about any other program can be too.
Even without knowing this exists, if one needs anonymity, one should be smarter than to distribute original printouts.