I learned that that the Constitution does not "grant" rights. They are mine to start with. Hence the needs for laws to curb what may or may not be my right (for example copying other peoples stuff).
I've read the current copyright law. What in the HELL do we need to add MORE crap to it?
This goes beyond protection and borders on the edge of being a nightmarish "Clockwork Orangian" dystopia.
I've read the article and what I have read doesn't impress me. So, you added cost to the spammers. Have you seen how much money these bozos make? Sorry, I think everyone is underestimating the cost.
The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win. If we did it by popular vote, a Democrat would win nearly every time because CA, NY, and a couple of other states have the most population.
As a Texan, let me tell you what I see and hear every election:
"Candidate X went to Ohio." "More ads spent in Ohio, Virginia, etc."
Hell, Bush visited the midwest more than he did his "home state"! (I'm excluding vacations... er... "working" vactions).
I have a friend in Virginia who got up and close to candidates. Do I get that chance? Hell, no!
Ask Alaska and Hawaii how often they see candidates. Don't be ignorant.
I tell ya' what would help - get rid of these freakin' "winner take all". Only 2/3rd's of Texas voted Republican, yet Bush takes it all?
- 125 Khz square wave is a bad idea... you'll be squirting up the freakin' harmonics (odd ones). So, yeah, bandpass the puppy. Antenna's at that freq. are tricky. They tend to get big. Let's just say you'll be noticed ("Hey, lookit' the guy with the antenna on his back!"). Truly, to get any distance, you are going to have to have a big-ass antenna! (Speedpass used a approx 1 meter one and it got about 3 meters in terms of distance).
- Smaller the tag, the smaller the squeak. Remember, energy dissipate at a square of the distance. So a teeny-tiny coil/cap is not going to squirt much juice. If it is too small to find, it is too small to worry about.
- EMP: you would be the guy with the big-ass antenna strapped to his back. So, you WOULD kinda' stand out. Okay, not in Cupertino, but in normal places you would.
- What would they do? Well, if your a geek with an antenna on your back, at least in Texas, they'd probably kick your ass. As always, YMMV.:)
Stern: You're the judge, you're the arbiter, you're the one who tells us what we can and can't say on the air and yet I really don't think you're qualified to be the head of the commission. Do you deny that your father got you this job?
Powell later replied, "Yes." When asked to clarify, Powell said "no", slapped a fine on the station the reporter was from, and went back to his bunker to review, for the 147th time, Janet Jackson ripping off her bra. He was reported to have said, "We're really close to resolving this problem of costume failure. We think really big fines might do it."
Later, after 11:00 PM he was heard to utter "#@#$$# you @##@-sucking mother-@#$#er" -- all of which did NOT refer to the actual act of having sex.
Yah, but the transmitters are not clean (how the eff do they get them through FCC?). They splatter around their set frequency. Really a freakin mess.
-The energy sent BACK is very weak. So you really don't need much to block it. White noise around 125 Khz should be enough. Or, as I mentioned before, chewing gum wrapper. Take your pick.
-Random codes won't do it. Sorry, but there IS a check (pretty pitiful, but there is one) and if the checksum don't match, nothing goes through. Nothing gets stuffed. Most readers use 8051 or something lightweight. If it doesn't pass first base, it doesn't go no where.
-Pliers work real good at breaking them. Easier than EMP (which might be noticed). They also break pretty easily on their own.
18 million users means you care a heck a lot more about the impact of spam than pretty much any other network in the world.
Not exactly how you intuit that!
In fact, I suspect EVERY ISP will argue that they care a lot about spam. I know my local ISP cares (it sez so on their web-site!). I know that Cox Cable does (sez so on their website), yet when I tracked down spam FROM THEIR NETWORK and sent it to them what was the sound I heard?
The main reason that people fear nuclear technology is because our leaders (yeah, the fools we elect) are too damn short-sighted to understand the implications.
Let's see - we intentionally nuke our troops (even though we knew what it would do to them). We expose people (who are poor and black) to hazardous radiation, just to see what it would do to them. Rather than concieve of a way of make nuclear power stations safe, we just say "store it off-site, someone will let us bury it near them". And on and on and on.
There is nothing demonic about nuclear power. It is what runs all life on this planet (you can see it - it's this giant ball that's very, very bright). What is demonic is how it seems people progress from "oh, this would be good for humanity" to "oh, this would be great to wipe out those folks that crack the eggs on the wrong side".
If you disagree, look at what our leaders fear... others with nuclear power.
As someone who developed it into a product...
on
A Technical RFID Primer
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
... used by Exxon (and called Speedpass), I can tell you that they are pretty cool in technology... and yet lame at the same time.
Yes, it is true, there is a blast of energy (usually at a really low wave length - around 100Khz to 180Khz - they aren't very well tuned despite the lit).
For the paranoid, chewing gum wrappers do a good job of blocking them. Actually, a lot of tinted windshields do a good job as well (they tend to contain metal, typically iron from what I am told).
Interference is a big factor with these guys. A noisy engine (spark plugs badly gapped?) can cause problems. But the end result was that the company bought it.
Do I fear the use of it? Not really. But at the same time I don't like them used without my permission. As any device that is used to "track", it needs to have my consent.
As someone who has been monitoring the quality of software production (using our overhead satellite base station - don't bother looking for us, we cleverly painted stars on it - saved a buttload of $$$), I can tell you that it is not an oxy-moron.
After all, a certain company in Redmond has been using VB RAD tools for years...
When my wife doesn't yell in this long, loud, and rather strangulated way (one cannot adequately do it justice), then I know that the human interface works.
She is not a programmer. She is a user. Worse a user who sez "why can't it just do this". She is brilliant in that her view has nothing to do with programming and everything to do with human interface.
She is quite happy with her Mac. Oh, sure, there are things she would prefer to be different (and she NEVER touches the command line interface). But, for the most part, she is happy.
She uses Peecees at works and find them utterly baffling (not that she doesn't use them, but finds them to be an affront to the user).
Raskin may find XP to be the same as OS 10. Fine, he is entitled to his opinion. But real users know the difference.
I don't recall it. Have a reference? Hm. Here is (a relatively short) one.
Oh, I guess I made the mistake of not mailing you a book. But this is from www.copyright.gov (you know the folks).
"Copyright" literally means the right to copy. The term has come to mean that body of exclusive rights granted by statute to authors for protection of their work. The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and, in the case of certain works, publicly perform or display the work; to prepare derivative works; in the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission; or to license others to engage in the same acts under specific terms and conditions.
But you don't like that, then how about:
THEFT, crimes. This word is sometimes used as synonymous with larceny, (q.v.) but it is not so technical. Ayliffe's Pand. 581 2 Swift's Dig. 309.
2. In the Scotch law, this is a proper and technical word, and signifies the secret and felonious abstraction of the property of another for sake of lucre, without his consent. Alison, Princ. Cr. Law of Scotl. 250.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Th ef t
But lets look at what Justice Blackmun REALLY said:
(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.
But wait, he didn't say it WASN'T theft, he said it doesn't "easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud"... AND you may just want to read DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)... I do NOT think you want to make it the core of your argument. In fact, even in this ruling, which you flaunt as if it was impressive, argues that the language is "ill-fitting" in regards as to what it is and isn't.
But IANAL.
Of course you probably missed the 'No Electronic Theft' Act which was signed by President Clinton in 1997. In it there is the following:
[*2] SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term 'display', the following new paragraph:
"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.
Unless your argument is that Digital Theft is somehow NOT electronic theft (which I would LOVE for you to prove) you are wrong and I am right.
Now your argument may be "hey, I wasn't planning on making money off my theft" in which case I would say "prove it".
But, remember, IANAL...
P.S. Rather than rely on "sound bites" (quote bites?), it is best to read the resulting opinion. 1) you get a better sense of the problem that was being delt with 2) you find out that there may be some little things you missed..
Back around the middle 70's (don't remember the exact year -- we had good drugs back then), I remember a friend of mine, a great programmer, looking at the instruction set of the 80x86. He called it an abortion.
My view was that the engineers hated the programmers and went "segment registers! That will really piss them off!".
Over the decades we have seen Intel argue that "no, really, NOT having a linear address space is a GOOD thing" then eventually switch to a linear address space because they were wrong. Revise how segment registers REALLY work, etc.
Folks wonder why PPC, if it is better, doesn't take off (since the x86 is really on its last legs). Because, in this world, the best product doesn't always become the dominant product.
I like Macs, but have been using PC's since DOS 1.0. So there ya go.
That little fantasy you all have of buying "Windows for PPC", running it on some store-bought shitbox you purchased from the Apple store, and having it work as well as an x86 runs Windows XP today will NEVER come to pass. Apple has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.
Yeah, someone tell Apple to stop spending all that money on trying to get XP to run on the PPC and to write their own OS!
You could, in theory, have a cross-compiling assembler that turns PPC code into x86 code ahead of time, but this isn't really practical for emulating an entire OS.
Uh, I just think you merely repeated what I said. That in theory it could be done, but the reality is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Anyone who thinks that can get a complex system up to 80% of another complex systems is smoking something a tad harder than pot!:P
We've heard and seen these "ads" in the past and the reality has never lived up to what the PR folks can write. Oh, trust me, it is a lovely, lovely, dream... but it is just that, a dream.
If ya' are lusting after a Mac, just BUY the damn thing. You can get one for around 800 USD.
Sending money to these "make your PC into a Mac" outfits is a waste of time and money. You'll be pissed off and wonder where all your time went. Or worse yet, think that Mac's must suck because of a crappy piece of translation software.
There's no way you can emulate even a stripped-down PPC instruction set on x86 at 80% speed, let alone Altivec. The best I've seen any commercial editor come close to is a third, or maybe a half.
Okay, here's the deal. In theory you could probably run at 80% of the Mac code. B/S is what people say, Here is the theory:
First, you do NOT emulate the PPC instruction set. To do so IS to basically end up with the Pear PC.
Second, you create an assembler to assembler compiler. This has been done imperfectly in the past. But IF, and it is a very big if, you do manage to do so, you CAN get up to a theoretical 80%...
Finally, it is all lovely theory. But the reality is that it doesn't take much to kill these schemes. We've seen how hard it is to get code to run on REAL hardware, attempting to run OS X (recompiled) would be a freaking nightmare. Not to mention that eventually they will move to the G5. Then what?
So, I pretty much am looking at this as a B/S story. Not because of the "impossiblity", but because it sounds a lot like someone is going to give you something for free when basically they are going to give it to you in the end.
I want to see how much lampooning of the hollywood actors
Because America (the real place) can never get enough of it?!?
Sheesh...
When I saw the ads I thought "it could be funny or really awful". Based on this review I figure on the latter. "South Park" has been spitting up blood for years - it was only slightly better than those robots that fight.
Frankly, I'm tired of Hollywood making a bunch of in-jokes about Hollywood. Let's get back to stories that have meat in them (even funny ones). But leave out the "in jokes". They have the shelf life of an opened can of tuna.
Nor does it make trading music files online "stealing" no matter how much they want the world to believe that it is.
No, that is not what this sez. Not even vaguely. It is about whether you can go on a fishing expedition to find someone who MIGHT be stealing vs. KNOWING that someone is stealing. Altogether different.
Slashdot Mirror
I learned that that the Constitution does not "grant" rights. They are mine to start with. Hence the needs for laws to curb what may or may not be my right (for example copying other peoples stuff).
I've read the current copyright law. What in the HELL do we need to add MORE crap to it?
This goes beyond protection and borders on the edge of being a nightmarish "Clockwork Orangian" dystopia.
But better than Fallujah...
I've read the article and what I have read doesn't impress me. So, you added cost to the spammers. Have you seen how much money these bozos make? Sorry, I think everyone is underestimating the cost.
No, wait, that can't be done for another 16 years!
The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win. If we did it by popular vote, a Democrat would win nearly every time because CA, NY, and a couple of other states have the most population.
As a Texan, let me tell you what I see and hear every election:
"Candidate X went to Ohio." "More ads spent in Ohio, Virginia, etc."
Hell, Bush visited the midwest more than he did his "home state"! (I'm excluding vacations... er... "working" vactions).
I have a friend in Virginia who got up and close to candidates. Do I get that chance? Hell, no!
Ask Alaska and Hawaii how often they see candidates. Don't be ignorant.
I tell ya' what would help - get rid of these freakin' "winner take all". Only 2/3rd's of Texas voted Republican, yet Bush takes it all?
Oh, yeah, never mind. I live in a retard state.
Feloneous
- 125 Khz square wave is a bad idea... you'll be squirting up the freakin' harmonics (odd ones). So, yeah, bandpass the puppy. Antenna's at that freq. are tricky. They tend to get big. Let's just say you'll be noticed ("Hey, lookit' the guy with the antenna on his back!"). Truly, to get any distance, you are going to have to have a big-ass antenna! (Speedpass used a approx 1 meter one and it got about 3 meters in terms of distance).
:)
- Smaller the tag, the smaller the squeak. Remember, energy dissipate at a square of the distance. So a teeny-tiny coil/cap is not going to squirt much juice. If it is too small to find, it is too small to worry about.
- EMP: you would be the guy with the big-ass antenna strapped to his back. So, you WOULD kinda' stand out. Okay, not in Cupertino, but in normal places you would.
- What would they do? Well, if your a geek with an antenna on your back, at least in Texas, they'd probably kick your ass. As always, YMMV.
She's proved it for the last 22 (Oct 31st) years, so, yeah. Not only talked to her but did things that Michael Powell doesn't approve of!
Stern: You're the judge, you're the arbiter, you're the one who tells us what we can and can't say on the air and yet I really don't think you're qualified to be the head of the commission. Do you deny that your father got you this job?
Powell later replied, "Yes." When asked to clarify, Powell said "no", slapped a fine on the station the reporter was from, and went back to his bunker to review, for the 147th time, Janet Jackson ripping off her bra. He was reported to have said, "We're really close to resolving this problem of costume failure. We think really big fines might do it."
Later, after 11:00 PM he was heard to utter "#@#$$# you @##@-sucking mother-@#$#er" -- all of which did NOT refer to the actual act of having sex.
Yah, but the transmitters are not clean (how the eff do they get them through FCC?). They splatter around their set frequency. Really a freakin mess.
-The energy sent BACK is very weak. So you really don't need much to block it. White noise around 125 Khz should be enough. Or, as I mentioned before, chewing gum wrapper. Take your pick.
-Random codes won't do it. Sorry, but there IS a check (pretty pitiful, but there is one) and if the checksum don't match, nothing goes through. Nothing gets stuffed. Most readers use 8051 or something lightweight. If it doesn't pass first base, it doesn't go no where.
-Pliers work real good at breaking them. Easier than EMP (which might be noticed). They also break pretty easily on their own.
18 million users means you care a heck a lot more about the impact of spam than pretty much any other network in the world.
Not exactly how you intuit that!
In fact, I suspect EVERY ISP will argue that they care a lot about spam. I know my local ISP cares (it sez so on their web-site!). I know that Cox Cable does (sez so on their website), yet when I tracked down spam FROM THEIR NETWORK and sent it to them what was the sound I heard?
Silence.
Yeah, they care. Very little.
The main reason that people fear nuclear technology is because our leaders (yeah, the fools we elect) are too damn short-sighted to understand the implications.
Let's see - we intentionally nuke our troops (even though we knew what it would do to them). We expose people (who are poor and black) to hazardous radiation, just to see what it would do to them. Rather than concieve of a way of make nuclear power stations safe, we just say "store it off-site, someone will let us bury it near them". And on and on and on.
There is nothing demonic about nuclear power. It is what runs all life on this planet (you can see it - it's this giant ball that's very, very bright). What is demonic is how it seems people progress from "oh, this would be good for humanity" to "oh, this would be great to wipe out those folks that crack the eggs on the wrong side".
If you disagree, look at what our leaders fear... others with nuclear power.
... used by Exxon (and called Speedpass), I can tell you that they are pretty cool in technology... and yet lame at the same time.
Yes, it is true, there is a blast of energy (usually at a really low wave length - around 100Khz to 180Khz - they aren't very well tuned despite the lit).
For the paranoid, chewing gum wrappers do a good job of blocking them. Actually, a lot of tinted windshields do a good job as well (they tend to contain metal, typically iron from what I am told).
Interference is a big factor with these guys. A noisy engine (spark plugs badly gapped?) can cause problems. But the end result was that the company bought it.
Do I fear the use of it? Not really. But at the same time I don't like them used without my permission. As any device that is used to "track", it needs to have my consent.
That said, they are kinda' cool.
... by convincing (begging, whining, pleading) to a friend of mine to use anything, ANYTHING, but I.E.
She finally succumbed.
Her reaction: "Wow, it lets me do much more than I could before. I love it!"
If everyone tells two friends (and they tell two friends), we can finally eliminate I.E. from the universe! BWAHAHAHAHA!
As someone who has been monitoring the quality of software production (using our overhead satellite base station - don't bother looking for us, we cleverly painted stars on it - saved a buttload of $$$), I can tell you that it is not an oxy-moron.
After all, a certain company in Redmond has been using VB RAD tools for years...
When my wife doesn't yell in this long, loud, and rather strangulated way (one cannot adequately do it justice), then I know that the human interface works.
She is not a programmer. She is a user. Worse a user who sez "why can't it just do this". She is brilliant in that her view has nothing to do with programming and everything to do with human interface.
She is quite happy with her Mac. Oh, sure, there are things she would prefer to be different (and she NEVER touches the command line interface). But, for the most part, she is happy.
She uses Peecees at works and find them utterly baffling (not that she doesn't use them, but finds them to be an affront to the user).
Raskin may find XP to be the same as OS 10. Fine, he is entitled to his opinion. But real users know the difference.
$300-400 dollars for software doesn't sound like a whole lot (hell, Ballmer's SOCKS cost that much!).
However, in the Walmart world (pretty much where everyone else lives) that it a lot of money.
It's not the heat, it's the humidity!
It's a decent movie, but I'm sure you could find a single South Park episode that was better overall.
Actually, I think these folks haven't figured out that they are no longer hip.
Decent Movie? Hell, that rates as a "not even worth a Net Flicks rental"...
Meanwhile, back to the Anime...
I don't recall it. Have a reference? Hm. Here is (a relatively short) one.
h ef t
Oh, I guess I made the mistake of not mailing you a book. But this is from www.copyright.gov (you know the folks).
"Copyright" literally means the right to copy. The term has come to mean that body of exclusive rights granted by statute to authors for protection of their work. The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and, in the case of certain works, publicly perform or display the work; to prepare derivative works; in the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission; or to license others to engage in the same acts under specific terms and conditions.
But you don't like that, then how about:
THEFT, crimes. This word is sometimes used as synonymous with larceny, (q.v.) but it is not so technical. Ayliffe's Pand. 581 2 Swift's Dig. 309.
2. In the Scotch law, this is a proper and technical word, and signifies the secret and felonious abstraction of the property of another for sake of lucre, without his consent. Alison, Princ. Cr. Law of Scotl. 250.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/T
But lets look at what Justice Blackmun REALLY said:
(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.
But wait, he didn't say it WASN'T theft, he said it doesn't "easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud"... AND you may just want to read DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)... I do NOT think you want to make it the core of your argument. In fact, even in this ruling, which you flaunt as if it was impressive, argues that the language is "ill-fitting" in regards as to what it is and isn't.
But IANAL.
Of course you probably missed the 'No Electronic Theft' Act which was signed by President Clinton in 1997. In it there is the following:
[*2] SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term 'display', the following new paragraph:
"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.
Unless your argument is that Digital Theft is somehow NOT electronic theft (which I would LOVE for you to prove) you are wrong and I am right.
Now your argument may be "hey, I wasn't planning on making money off my theft" in which case I would say "prove it".
But, remember, IANAL...
P.S. Rather than rely on "sound bites" (quote bites?), it is best to read the resulting opinion. 1) you get a better sense of the problem that was being delt with 2) you find out that there may be some little things you missed..
Back around the middle 70's (don't remember the exact year -- we had good drugs back then), I remember a friend of mine, a great programmer, looking at the instruction set of the 80x86. He called it an abortion.
My view was that the engineers hated the programmers and went "segment registers! That will really piss them off!".
Over the decades we have seen Intel argue that "no, really, NOT having a linear address space is a GOOD thing" then eventually switch to a linear address space because they were wrong. Revise how segment registers REALLY work, etc.
Folks wonder why PPC, if it is better, doesn't take off (since the x86 is really on its last legs). Because, in this world, the best product doesn't always become the dominant product.
I like Macs, but have been using PC's since DOS 1.0. So there ya go.
That little fantasy you all have of buying "Windows for PPC", running it on some store-bought shitbox you purchased from the Apple store, and having it work as well as an x86 runs Windows XP today will NEVER come to pass. Apple has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.
Yeah, someone tell Apple to stop spending all that money on trying to get XP to run on the PPC and to write their own OS!
Some companies will never learn...
You could, in theory, have a cross-compiling assembler that turns PPC code into x86 code ahead of time, but this isn't really practical for emulating an entire OS.
:P
Uh, I just think you merely repeated what I said. That in theory it could be done, but the reality is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Anyone who thinks that can get a complex system up to 80% of another complex systems is smoking something a tad harder than pot!
We've heard and seen these "ads" in the past and the reality has never lived up to what the PR folks can write. Oh, trust me, it is a lovely, lovely, dream... but it is just that, a dream.
If ya' are lusting after a Mac, just BUY the damn thing. You can get one for around 800 USD.
Sending money to these "make your PC into a Mac" outfits is a waste of time and money. You'll be pissed off and wonder where all your time went. Or worse yet, think that Mac's must suck because of a crappy piece of translation software.
There's no way you can emulate even a stripped-down PPC instruction set on x86 at 80% speed, let alone Altivec. The best I've seen any commercial editor come close to is a third, or maybe a half.
Okay, here's the deal. In theory you could probably run at 80% of the Mac code. B/S is what people say, Here is the theory:
First, you do NOT emulate the PPC instruction set. To do so IS to basically end up with the Pear PC.
Second, you create an assembler to assembler compiler. This has been done imperfectly in the past. But IF, and it is a very big if, you do manage to do so, you CAN get up to a theoretical 80%...
Finally, it is all lovely theory. But the reality is that it doesn't take much to kill these schemes. We've seen how hard it is to get code to run on REAL hardware, attempting to run OS X (recompiled) would be a freaking nightmare. Not to mention that eventually they will move to the G5. Then what?
So, I pretty much am looking at this as a B/S story. Not because of the "impossiblity", but because it sounds a lot like someone is going to give you something for free when basically they are going to give it to you in the end.
You missed his point. It's not a case about stealing either. It's a case about copyright infringment.
Which, if I recall the history of copyright was ABOUT theft of intellectual property (although it wasn't referred to as such).
You are assuming that theft occurs only with tangible assets. This is a great assumption, but I do not believe that it is backed by U.S. law.
But, again, IANAL.
I want to see how much lampooning of the hollywood actors
Because America (the real place) can never get enough of it?!?
Sheesh...
When I saw the ads I thought "it could be funny or really awful". Based on this review I figure on the latter. "South Park" has been spitting up blood for years - it was only slightly better than those robots that fight.
Frankly, I'm tired of Hollywood making a bunch of in-jokes about Hollywood. Let's get back to stories that have meat in them (even funny ones). But leave out the "in jokes". They have the shelf life of an opened can of tuna.
Nor does it make trading music files online "stealing" no matter how much they want the world to believe that it is.
No, that is not what this sez. Not even vaguely. It is about whether you can go on a fishing expedition to find someone who MIGHT be stealing vs. KNOWING that someone is stealing. Altogether different.
But, hey, what do I know. IANAL.