"It's normally Microsoft that is derided (sp?) for bundling apps with their OS.
However I guess with Apple being the manufacture of machine you could argue that the rules are slightly different. I suppose they are trying to sell the Mac as an "Experience", ie buy a Mac no need to buy extra software everything works out of the box."
Apple can bundle anything they want on their OS because they aren't considered a monopoly, and therefore, the govt. doesn't infringe on their rights the way they do with MS.
"they cannot compete with Apple, a company with significantly fewer software titles and an overwhelming demand for the portage of many common applications"
I think Adobe disagrees with you on the overwhelming demand point.
No one has a basic right to another's work. Apparently this foundation of Communism is still alive and well in Estonia. Such a policy is an enslavement of those who provide a particular service. The article is vague, but no doubt the industry is regulated, and paid for by taxes at least in part by taxes that unfairly tax the rich. This type of thinking is even invading the US, where Maine now is starting to try and regulate prescription drug prices, essentially saying to Pfiser etc., I have a right to your work at a price of my choosing. This type of thinking is an infringement on a basic right of a producer, to choose the price of a product. No consumer has the right to dictate the price of a product to a producer, and the result of such policies are shown by the failure of the USSR.
"If you move into a house somebody just moved out of and receieve their junk mail (which is really all that they're getting here) do you think they're really going to care?"
Who do you think you are, that you can make that decision for the actual mail recipient?
It's not a crime to build and require proprietary parts for your products. If GM did what your saying, go buy a Toyota. Toyota solved the planned obsolescence problem in the US auto industry buy building better cars. Natural market forces should be allowed to resolve these problems when necessary to avoid infringing on people's freedoms (yes, manufacturers should have rights too). The real isssue is, is reverse engineering copyrighted code legal?
"Also... Toshiba is lazy and isn't really trying hard... as all PC makers are... lazy and complacent... nothing new happens in the x86 world... a PC is a PC is a PC... there is nothing to distinguish one box from another"
Isn't this sort of comment a flamebait or troll? Why has this comment been modded up? The 64-bit Athlon was out before the G5, and even though it's advertised as a workstation chip, a system with this chip costs the same as the lowest price G5 system, the supposed 1st 64-bit pc. The truth of the matter is that competition in the PC market has allowed for low priced pcs that outperform machines costing twice as much from Apple. And people wonder why Apple's market share is a 2% and will be surpassed by Linux soon. As for "incredibly energy efficient", that is a spin on lower performance, since clock rate is directly proportional to performance and power.
An average pc that outperforms a mac in that price catagory costs under $1000. The parent may be exagerating, but his point is correct. You can actually get a low-end pc for about $300.
"A pro-spammer bill, backed by the big media sites including Microsoft, passed through committee."
from abc7news: "According to an Assembly analysis, the spammer could be fined $1,000 per unwanted e-mail or $1 million per incident, whichever was less, plus actual damages to the recipient. An incident is defined in the bill as "a single transmission of substantially similar content." But Givens complained the bill would allow a judge to reduce the penalties to actual damages and $100 per e-mail or $100,000 per incident, whichever was less, if the advertiser had taken "due care" to prevent the transmission of unsolicited ads. ", under the bill that passed. Doesn't sound very pro-spammer to me even under the reduced penalty.
The point is, it doesn't matter whether you agree to something, or nothing. The person who wrote the software is still liable if you feel like suing him, because Germany feels obligated to provide consumer protection.
"Actually, I believe SCO is under a restraining order in Germany that prohibits them from making the kinds of outrageous claims about Linux that they have been making in the US."
I think their is a difference between introducing something as GPL and redistributing something as GPL. I doubt any court is going to say by redistributing, you automatically introduce code, if the code happens to be stolen from you, and is in there.
"This, of course, means that they don't understand the GPL. Nobody can redistribute GPL'ed software unless it is free and clear of non-GPL'ed intellectual property."
Think about what you just wrote. If the code contains their IP, the GPL is invalid. Therefore, a court will rule that the GPL doesn't apply, and force company to pay SCO damages (licensing, basically).
"Consider the following argument from IBM:
"We have copied code we think is ours into linux, however SCO then also distributed the same code under the GPL. If the code ever was questionable they have granted permission to use it at that moment. And thus set a precedent for more copying"
"
People post this arguement all the time. But it's flawed because SCO did NOT release their code themselves. Therefore, GPL and copyright in general were violated on the copy SCO received and distributed. So, first GPL is not valid on the copy SCO distributed. Second, unless SCO specifically put their stamp of apporval on code released by others, I doubt any court is going to say that they therefore released it to GPL.
If I violate your copyright, and give away your hit song to everyone on the planet for free, I have taken the net worth of your song from $0.99 to $0. This is as harmful as if I went into a warehouse and stole the CDs and distributed them for free. The arguement that copy does no harm to the copyright holder is flawed.
No one is denying that constitutional rights are given out and protected using force. The trick is to develop a govt. that protects the rights of individuals rather than abusing the rights of individuals to gain unfair rights for others. Again, copyright is protected under the constitution. The RIAA is asking the govt. to use its force to stop people from infringing on their rights. The US was founded on ideals of individual freedom, including copyright, not "Might makes right", as you suggest. That's why we have a supreme court: To strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. So if you don't like what the lawmakers are doing, you can take it to court.
"If the US was to use its position to aid peace and democracy then most of the countries that you think 'hate' America would soon start to respect the US. It would not involve 'caving' in to anyone, just advocating equality regardless of creed or colour etc."
When's the last time America attacked a peaceful democracy?
A govt. that supress fundamental individual freedoms has no moral right to rule. Claiming they do is a type of moral relativism that is not rational. It's no more rational than if 1 person says the earth is round and the other says it's flat, and you say they both are correct. There is a difference between overthrowing a dictatorship and overthrowing a govt that at least attempts to secure the rights of individuals. The difference is clear but your morally relativistic thinking has been used by many to disarm people of their most powerful tool, reason.
"Ghandi did it without an army and he beat the British when they were the strongest force on the planet."
Ghandi beat the British without an army because he understood ultimately that they would be reasonable, and would not try to rule a people that refused to be ruled. If Ghandi had tried the same approach in Saddam's Iraq or Stalin's USSR, and they would have simply executed him and his followers. They aren't worried about public opinion like the British were.
"You do realize, of course, that the complaint that is typically raised by opponents of pre-emptive and unprovoked war is that US foreign policy has changed since those days. Changed in a dangerous, unstable way."
Yeah, everyones sheeding tears over saddams demise. And now the middle east is a much worse off. What world are you living in? Your problem is you believe every place that calls itself a country has an equal right to existance under its current govt. regardless of its record of violations of fundamental freedoms of its citizens.
To be fair, Bill Gates didn't call Linux a "passing through" technology. That was the poster's choice of words. A more accurate statement statement would be that Linux is Windows latest competition. Gates never came out and said Windows would actually beat Linux, but instead lais out their plan to maintain supremacy. Ultimately, they can't beat Linux on price, so Windows will need to be able to boast better features (ease of use, for example) to maintain their desktop monopoly. Personally, I think Windows will die a slow death.
First of all, the recording industry is making strides in providing online music. Even if they didn't however, consumers have no right steal from producers if they don't like the legitimate ways the product is sold. This is a clear violation of everything the US stands for (or at least used to stand for). Copyright is meant to protect producers and stimulate free trade. It is not free trade when consumers steal a product because they refuse the terms of the seller. The fact that the EFF is sticking up for criminals, just proves that they're so consumer-biased, that they are willing to trample over the rights of producers at every turn to protect the imagined freedoms of consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's normally Microsoft that is derided (sp?) for bundling apps with their OS. However I guess with Apple being the manufacture of machine you could argue that the rules are slightly different. I suppose they are trying to sell the Mac as an "Experience", ie buy a Mac no need to buy extra software everything works out of the box."
Apple can bundle anything they want on their OS because they aren't considered a monopoly, and therefore, the govt. doesn't infringe on their rights the way they do with MS.
"they cannot compete with Apple, a company with significantly fewer software titles and an overwhelming demand for the portage of many common applications"
I think Adobe disagrees with you on the overwhelming demand point.
No one has a basic right to another's work. Apparently this foundation of Communism is still alive and well in Estonia. Such a policy is an enslavement of those who provide a particular service. The article is vague, but no doubt the industry is regulated, and paid for by taxes at least in part by taxes that unfairly tax the rich. This type of thinking is even invading the US, where Maine now is starting to try and regulate prescription drug prices, essentially saying to Pfiser etc., I have a right to your work at a price of my choosing. This type of thinking is an infringement on a basic right of a producer, to choose the price of a product. No consumer has the right to dictate the price of a product to a producer, and the result of such policies are shown by the failure of the USSR.
"If you move into a house somebody just moved out of and receieve their junk mail (which is really all that they're getting here) do you think they're really going to care?"
Who do you think you are, that you can make that decision for the actual mail recipient?
I submitted this design to slashdot, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt (and a $75 gift certificate) :-)
It's not a crime to build and require proprietary parts for your products. If GM did what your saying, go buy a Toyota. Toyota solved the planned obsolescence problem in the US auto industry buy building better cars. Natural market forces should be allowed to resolve these problems when necessary to avoid infringing on people's freedoms (yes, manufacturers should have rights too). The real isssue is, is reverse engineering copyrighted code legal?
"Also ... Toshiba is lazy and isn't really trying hard... as all PC makers are... lazy and complacent... nothing new happens in the x86 world... a PC is a PC is a PC... there is nothing to distinguish one box from another"
Isn't this sort of comment a flamebait or troll? Why has this comment been modded up? The 64-bit Athlon was out before the G5, and even though it's advertised as a workstation chip, a system with this chip costs the same as the lowest price G5 system, the supposed 1st 64-bit pc. The truth of the matter is that competition in the PC market has allowed for low priced pcs that outperform machines costing twice as much from Apple. And people wonder why Apple's market share is a 2% and will be surpassed by Linux soon. As for "incredibly energy efficient", that is a spin on lower performance, since clock rate is directly proportional to performance and power.
"Most Apple hardware is in the $1500-2500 range."
An average pc that outperforms a mac in that price catagory costs under $1000. The parent may be exagerating, but his point is correct. You can actually get a low-end pc for about $300.
"Grates cheese AND out performs a dual Xeon system? And people say Mac's aren't bargains."
when apple cripples the dell box to slow it down by about 30%-40%
"A pro-spammer bill, backed by the big media sites including Microsoft, passed through committee."
from abc7news: "According to an Assembly analysis, the spammer could be fined $1,000 per unwanted e-mail or $1 million per incident, whichever was less, plus actual damages to the recipient. An incident is defined in the bill as "a single transmission of substantially similar content." But Givens complained the bill would allow a judge to reduce the penalties to actual damages and $100 per e-mail or $100,000 per incident, whichever was less, if the advertiser had taken "due care" to prevent the transmission of unsolicited ads. ", under the bill that passed. Doesn't sound very pro-spammer to me even under the reduced penalty.
The point is, it doesn't matter whether you agree to something, or nothing. The person who wrote the software is still liable if you feel like suing him, because Germany feels obligated to provide consumer protection.
"Actually, I believe SCO is under a restraining order in Germany that prohibits them from making the kinds of outrageous claims about Linux that they have been making in the US."
So much for free speech in Germany.
I think their is a difference between introducing something as GPL and redistributing something as GPL. I doubt any court is going to say by redistributing, you automatically introduce code, if the code happens to be stolen from you, and is in there.
"This, of course, means that they don't understand the GPL. Nobody can redistribute GPL'ed software unless it is free and clear of non-GPL'ed intellectual property."
Think about what you just wrote. If the code contains their IP, the GPL is invalid. Therefore, a court will rule that the GPL doesn't apply, and force company to pay SCO damages (licensing, basically).
"Consider the following argument from IBM: "We have copied code we think is ours into linux, however SCO then also distributed the same code under the GPL. If the code ever was questionable they have granted permission to use it at that moment. And thus set a precedent for more copying" "
People post this arguement all the time. But it's flawed because SCO did NOT release their code themselves. Therefore, GPL and copyright in general were violated on the copy SCO received and distributed. So, first GPL is not valid on the copy SCO distributed. Second, unless SCO specifically put their stamp of apporval on code released by others, I doubt any court is going to say that they therefore released it to GPL.
Both systems are wrong since the govt. is using force to deny basic individual freedoms. So I'm not sure why you're arguing with the parent about it.
If I violate your copyright, and give away your hit song to everyone on the planet for free, I have taken the net worth of your song from $0.99 to $0. This is as harmful as if I went into a warehouse and stole the CDs and distributed them for free. The arguement that copy does no harm to the copyright holder is flawed.
No one is denying that constitutional rights are given out and protected using force. The trick is to develop a govt. that protects the rights of individuals rather than abusing the rights of individuals to gain unfair rights for others. Again, copyright is protected under the constitution. The RIAA is asking the govt. to use its force to stop people from infringing on their rights. The US was founded on ideals of individual freedom, including copyright, not "Might makes right", as you suggest. That's why we have a supreme court: To strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. So if you don't like what the lawmakers are doing, you can take it to court.
"If the US was to use its position to aid peace and democracy then most of the countries that you think 'hate' America would soon start to respect the US. It would not involve 'caving' in to anyone, just advocating equality regardless of creed or colour etc."
When's the last time America attacked a peaceful democracy?
A govt. that supress fundamental individual freedoms has no moral right to rule. Claiming they do is a type of moral relativism that is not rational. It's no more rational than if 1 person says the earth is round and the other says it's flat, and you say they both are correct. There is a difference between overthrowing a dictatorship and overthrowing a govt that at least attempts to secure the rights of individuals. The difference is clear but your morally relativistic thinking has been used by many to disarm people of their most powerful tool, reason.
"Ghandi did it without an army and he beat the British when they were the strongest force on the planet."
Ghandi beat the British without an army because he understood ultimately that they would be reasonable, and would not try to rule a people that refused to be ruled. If Ghandi had tried the same approach in Saddam's Iraq or Stalin's USSR, and they would have simply executed him and his followers. They aren't worried about public opinion like the British were.
"You do realize, of course, that the complaint that is typically raised by opponents of pre-emptive and unprovoked war is that US foreign policy has changed since those days. Changed in a dangerous, unstable way."
Yeah, everyones sheeding tears over saddams demise. And now the middle east is a much worse off. What world are you living in? Your problem is you believe every place that calls itself a country has an equal right to existance under its current govt. regardless of its record of violations of fundamental freedoms of its citizens.
To be fair, Bill Gates didn't call Linux a "passing through" technology. That was the poster's choice of words. A more accurate statement statement would be that Linux is Windows latest competition. Gates never came out and said Windows would actually beat Linux, but instead lais out their plan to maintain supremacy. Ultimately, they can't beat Linux on price, so Windows will need to be able to boast better features (ease of use, for example) to maintain their desktop monopoly. Personally, I think Windows will die a slow death.
Isn't posting about the article responding to a troll? Shame on all of you. :-)
First of all, the recording industry is making strides in providing online music. Even if they didn't however, consumers have no right steal from producers if they don't like the legitimate ways the product is sold. This is a clear violation of everything the US stands for (or at least used to stand for). Copyright is meant to protect producers and stimulate free trade. It is not free trade when consumers steal a product because they refuse the terms of the seller. The fact that the EFF is sticking up for criminals, just proves that they're so consumer-biased, that they are willing to trample over the rights of producers at every turn to protect the imagined freedoms of consumers.