Or admit that the requirements are somewhat in flux and take an iterative approach. There's nothing wrong with building a small chunk of the app all the way through, then expanding it. Depending on the specific app, of course.
There are flaws in virtually all physical construction that would never be tolerated in software design.
For instance, the one that collapsed a few years ago and made national news. It turns out that they never specced a particular load-bearing part properly and ended up using one half as thick as they needed. It lasted 40 years before failing, and there wasn't anything in standard test procedures to spot it.
If you owned the content you would not be restricted by copyright.
You're confused: I own the content, not the copyright to the content. It's irrelevant that companies offer software as a download or on CD, since we're talking about what happens when I buy a CD in a box.
It sure as hell isn't their fault people don't read.
Yes it is - there is court precedent in some places that people not reading EULAs is a reasonable basis for disregarding them.
You don't own the content, then you don't own the distribution rights, you only have whatever rights that were assigned to you as part of the purchase.
No, you own a copy of the CD and the right to use that CD, which generally means that you can in stall it in one place for software. I don't need any rights assigned to me.
his is what people do not understand.
No, it's what people dispute. You're being dishonest by casting this as a misunderstanding and assuming that Apple's position is absolutely right.
Did you get the security guy who came in and told you not to surf porn on company time, then ramble about how the USPS computer network was more important than the DOD? I got that, and they tried to do good cop/bad cop on us - it was comical.
Yes I do. I don't own the copyright, but I own the content. If it was otherwise, there'd be a way to replace the content when the medium was damaged, but there isn't. Everything about CD sales implies simple sale, so it is thus.
Nothing in the law says that a producer cannot add more restrictions and nothing in the law forces you to buy (and agree to) those restrictions.
But they didn't - these conditions are not part of the sale transaction.
If Psystar is allowed to do this GPL goes tits up because then anyone can grab it and say "I downloaded it (purchase for $0) now I own it and can ignore the additional licesning attached".
No they can't, because by default, they haven't acquired any distribution rights. Sure, they can ignore the GPL and use it to their hearts content, but they have to agree to the GPL in order to modify and redistribute it legally.
It just kills me to watch people sit here and defend Psystar as some hero. They are being arrogant little pricks selling other peoples work for a profit.
Um, that's what everybody does in a market economy. Borders sells Stephen King's work for a profit.
The whole point of Psystar is that they think they can ignore the EULA, and you nor I don't know if they're right. Of course, nothing that Psystar does violates copyright, and arguably, you do own every CD you buy. If I buy a cpy of Jaguar (or whatever cat version they're up to), I own a copy of the OS and have the impled right to use it, which means I can install it somewhere. The meat of the dispute is whether Apple can put restrictions on that. I don't really see how your whole ripoff thing is at all relevant - psystar isn't making macs, they're making mac compatible-ish PCs. Making a crappy product that works with Apple software isn't really actionable unless they confuse consumers into thinking that their stuff is apple stuff.
You seem confused; CDs are not licensed, they are sold. The reaosn you can't sell copies of your CD is copyright law. In point of fact, I do argue that shrinkwrap licenses are crap, and that's consistent with the GPL, as the GPL doesn't restrict me without recompense, it allows me to use someone else's works in exchange for agreeing to certain conditions. By contrat, apple's license tells me what I can do with stuff I already paid for without offering anything in exchange.
Theft is an established legal concept, and it's been around for 10,000 years. What I'm talking about is that the CD has no conditions associated with it post-sale. If you buy an Apple OS the same way, there should be no difference. You do have the right to do what you want with it; the only difference should be the idea that one copy of an OS can only go on one computer at a time without actual licensing of install rights.
Shouldn't it be possible for the operating system to provide a milticore framework-layer that will allow normal single core algorithms and applications to run in a quasi virtual mode by splitting or taking advantage of the paralel processing and reporting it back as if a single processor?
No. What you asked for is an auto-parallelizer hunk of code, which we don't have, at least, not in any useful way.
What treaties? All I heard about was carter banning fuel reprocessing. Anyway, we can always modify those treaties to allow reprocessing under certain circumstances that line up with what we want to do.
Where did you get the idea that bias was something you could even get away from? All reporting of any merit contains at least some bias. It's the crap news shows that pretend to be fair and balanced.
The common terms of sale are the same as for a CD - I bought it, I own it. I'm not really keen on implied contracts; anything worth going to court over ought to be explicit, and if you value it at all, it should be written and signed. Oral contracts are garbage.
Apple set its price of $129 with the condition that it only can be used on Macs. They are well within their right to do that.
Sure they are, but they should make you sign a contract before purchase stipulating that. If they just sell you a box, then you can do anything you like with it (within copyright law).
Umm, would you like to bet? If it's not stored in physical RAM, there's only two other place to store, processor cache or a slower storage medium.
Sure, I'll take that bet. I have 2G of virtual memory right now, and it's mapped to physical memory. I have another 1G of virtual memory in a page file, but so what?
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, I don't care. I live near portland, so I can get endless variations of good beer. No reason for Budweiser.
Or admit that the requirements are somewhat in flux and take an iterative approach. There's nothing wrong with building a small chunk of the app all the way through, then expanding it. Depending on the specific app, of course.
All this posting and nobody referenced the wikipedia page. Tut, tut.
nah, I got a callus in my thumb from whacking the button so much.
What about Atari thumb?
This is true - they really hate it when the fedex guy shows up.
There are flaws in virtually all physical construction that would never be tolerated in software design.
For instance, the one that collapsed a few years ago and made national news. It turns out that they never specced a particular load-bearing part properly and ended up using one half as thick as they needed. It lasted 40 years before failing, and there wasn't anything in standard test procedures to spot it.
perhaps MS has different priorities than its users - after all, why fix it if we still get sales?
If you owned the content you would not be restricted by copyright.
You're confused: I own the content, not the copyright to the content. It's irrelevant that companies offer software as a download or on CD, since we're talking about what happens when I buy a CD in a box.
It sure as hell isn't their fault people don't read.
Yes it is - there is court precedent in some places that people not reading EULAs is a reasonable basis for disregarding them.
You don't own the content, then you don't own the distribution rights, you only have whatever rights that were assigned to you as part of the purchase.
No, you own a copy of the CD and the right to use that CD, which generally means that you can in stall it in one place for software. I don't need any rights assigned to me.
his is what people do not understand.
No, it's what people dispute. You're being dishonest by casting this as a misunderstanding and assuming that Apple's position is absolutely right.
Did you get the security guy who came in and told you not to surf porn on company time, then ramble about how the USPS computer network was more important than the DOD? I got that, and they tried to do good cop/bad cop on us - it was comical.
You do not own the content of every CD you buy.
Yes I do. I don't own the copyright, but I own the content. If it was otherwise, there'd be a way to replace the content when the medium was damaged, but there isn't. Everything about CD sales implies simple sale, so it is thus.
Nothing in the law says that a producer cannot add more restrictions and nothing in the law forces you to buy (and agree to) those restrictions.
But they didn't - these conditions are not part of the sale transaction.
If Psystar is allowed to do this GPL goes tits up because then anyone can grab it and say "I downloaded it (purchase for $0) now I own it and can ignore the additional licesning attached".
No they can't, because by default, they haven't acquired any distribution rights. Sure, they can ignore the GPL and use it to their hearts content, but they have to agree to the GPL in order to modify and redistribute it legally.
It just kills me to watch people sit here and defend Psystar as some hero. They are being arrogant little pricks selling other peoples work for a profit.
Um, that's what everybody does in a market economy. Borders sells Stephen King's work for a profit.
The whole point of Psystar is that they think they can ignore the EULA, and you nor I don't know if they're right. Of course, nothing that Psystar does violates copyright, and arguably, you do own every CD you buy. If I buy a cpy of Jaguar (or whatever cat version they're up to), I own a copy of the OS and have the impled right to use it, which means I can install it somewhere. The meat of the dispute is whether Apple can put restrictions on that. I don't really see how your whole ripoff thing is at all relevant - psystar isn't making macs, they're making mac compatible-ish PCs. Making a crappy product that works with Apple software isn't really actionable unless they confuse consumers into thinking that their stuff is apple stuff.
You seem confused; CDs are not licensed, they are sold. The reaosn you can't sell copies of your CD is copyright law. In point of fact, I do argue that shrinkwrap licenses are crap, and that's consistent with the GPL, as the GPL doesn't restrict me without recompense, it allows me to use someone else's works in exchange for agreeing to certain conditions. By contrat, apple's license tells me what I can do with stuff I already paid for without offering anything in exchange.
Theft is an established legal concept, and it's been around for 10,000 years. What I'm talking about is that the CD has no conditions associated with it post-sale. If you buy an Apple OS the same way, there should be no difference. You do have the right to do what you want with it; the only difference should be the idea that one copy of an OS can only go on one computer at a time without actual licensing of install rights.
Shouldn't it be possible for the operating system to provide a milticore framework-layer that will allow normal single core algorithms and applications to run in a quasi virtual mode by splitting or taking advantage of the paralel processing and reporting it back as if a single processor?
No. What you asked for is an auto-parallelizer hunk of code, which we don't have, at least, not in any useful way.
how is there a difference? Ruby is an OO/functional language. Who cares what it runs on?
No, the question is whether it can provide power for less than it costs currently. Baseline renewable is nice, but we don't need that right now.
What treaties? All I heard about was carter banning fuel reprocessing. Anyway, we can always modify those treaties to allow reprocessing under certain circumstances that line up with what we want to do.
If you break even and you're regulated, there's no impetus to change, and any change is extra work for no money; why would you go for that?
Where did you get the idea that bias was something you could even get away from? All reporting of any merit contains at least some bias. It's the crap news shows that pretend to be fair and balanced.
The common terms of sale are the same as for a CD - I bought it, I own it. I'm not really keen on implied contracts; anything worth going to court over ought to be explicit, and if you value it at all, it should be written and signed. Oral contracts are garbage.
Apple set its price of $129 with the condition that it only can be used on Macs. They are well within their right to do that.
Sure they are, but they should make you sign a contract before purchase stipulating that. If they just sell you a box, then you can do anything you like with it (within copyright law).
If the windows swapper knows so much, why does it suck so bad?
I think you might have awfully high expectations of the paging algorithm
Can you blame him? Linux does a far better job, so you'd think the biggest software company in the world could put in a good show.
Umm, would you like to bet? If it's not stored in physical RAM, there's only two other place to store, processor cache or a slower storage medium.
Sure, I'll take that bet. I have 2G of virtual memory right now, and it's mapped to physical memory. I have another 1G of virtual memory in a page file, but so what?