Compare the open letter to this, from Karelia's Watson FAQ:
Q. What is the relationship between Watson and the new Sherlock 3?
A. When Watson -- openly inspired by Sherlock for the concept of bypassing the Web browser -- was first released in 2001, it was envisioned as Sherlock's "companion" application, focusing on Web "services" rather than being a "search" tool like Sherlock.
Sherlock 3, part of Apple's new 10.2 "Jaguar" release, has now changed its focus to Web services. It bears a great resemblance to Watson -- almost its entire capability (image search, news, stocks, movies, phone listings, eBay auctions, reference, and translation) is found in Watson's tool set, and many individual tools behave remarkably like their Watson counterparts.
Many users have contacted Karelia, congratulating us on Apple "buying out" Watson. However, Karelia Software was not involved in any aspect of Sherlock 3, other than serving as... shall we say... inspiration. While Apple recently recognized Watson as 2002's "Most Innovative Mac OS X Product" -- and we appreciate the recognition -- the company didn't hesitate to make use of Watson's specific innovations for its next OS release, without any concessions to Karelia.
But we're not that upset anymore. Really. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Unfortunately for Apple, Sherlock 3 is not quite up to par with Watson in terms of speed or capability, so we're not that worried. With the addition of the new Google searching Tool for Watson -- much more useful than the web-searching feature that is part of Sherlock 3 -- we are confident that Watson will continue to be the market leader in Web services, in spite of Sherlock 3.
Technical readers may be interested in a comparison of Watson's and Sherlock's plug-in architecture on this page.
Dan Wood, Watson's creator, has a much more legitimate beef, but you don't see him whinning. No, he sucks it up and gets back to business. He improves Watson, so there will be no doubt it is better than Sherlock and worth paying for.
You are mistaken. You wrongly assume that I was analyzing the argument in your post, when I was just lightly poking fun at you.
However, to please you, I will destroy the central part of your argument, which is the false analogy of crack and MP3s. Crack is an illegal substance that is documented to hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community. Mp3s are not illegal, and whether they hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community in general is an opinion and not one backed up by any real facts.
"Ahh," you say, "I'm not talking about just any Mp3s, but unathorized copies of MP3s." Unfortunately for you, your analogy breaks down further here. Possesion of crack is illegal. Possesion of an unauthorized MP3 is not illegal. Frankly, a better analogy would be comparing MP3 to stolen ice cream, but eben that is problematical.
Now for your supplementary argument that "There is no right to express the cheapest places to purchase crack in an attempt to sell the controlled substance - hence intent is important." Firstly, you are factually wrong; it is legal to express the cheapest place to purchase crack. There is nothing to prevent me from telling you, if asked, to go down to the village square as that's where all the crack stores are. Secondly, even if your interpretation of the law were correct, you have failed to make a logical connection as to just how intent is "hence important".
Basically, your argument is hyperbole. But to make you feel better, let me add some more ad hominem. Your hyperbolic argument is stupid, like you are. =)
" If you intend to stand at the corner of a school and get kids to buy crack by telling them to go to the store then it is illegal."
Uh, yeah, the CRACK STORE. That's where I buy all my crack. When I feel like some heroin, I go to the HEROIN STORE.
"If you tell them where to go buy ice cream ral cheap and it just so happens that the place also sells crack then it is not. Or at least that is what the founding fathers meant - which we have drifted quite a bit in the last 50 or so years from that."
I must have been asleep in civics class when the covered how Ice Cream fits into the Bill of Rights. Which amendment was that? The "right to bear double scoops" one, right?
"It is clear that the site was linking to copyrighted MP3 websites for the purpose of downloading them."
Is it clear? Wouldn't it be funny if you actually went to the site and found out it wasn't what you thought it was?
"(and not being a lawyer only what I understand it to be in the US, which could be wrong)"
At least you got that one right.
OK, I'm being mean. But just as I shouldn't be suprised by ill conceived posts like yours, you shouldn't be suprised by someone making fun.
The last point reminds me that OS X users will pay for good software. Even though Apple computers are no where near as expensive as they are perceived to be, they aren't the cheapest hardware on the market either.
So this should tell the developer something: Mac users are willing to pay money for a good product. Some further proof: I know a number of people that have been downloading and using the various builds of Panther from bit torrent and the P2Ps. Most, if not all, are purchasing Panther tonite or in the near future, despite already having it installed. (Sure, there is a lot of moaning about the price, but a great deal of this is from folks that haven't tried it, not the 'unofficial beta testers".)
Now, are mac users inherently more honest than other computer users? I doubt it. No, they're just willing to spend their money on a good product. I even know of a few developers that are supplemeting their income by writing donation-ware. Mac users are willing to pay money for good software, even when not required to do so. Does donation-ware even exist on the windows side?
It's a process that involves using tools. Now, do you want a workbench with Makita, Dewalt, Milwaulke, and Porter Cable tools, or do you want the Playskool workbench?
"they will go to work for a non-OSS company and any contributions to OSS will again be made while living off the money that the non-OSS company pays them to do their job. Again, you have OSS subsidized by non-OSS companies, in effect."
I infer from this statement that you believe a company owns it's employees, since it is paying for employees' upkeep.
Just curious, but where did you get your figure of 99.99%? iTunes is my personal choice, and I think it's a great solution (maybe even the best solution for now) for a great many people, but their is room for other models. No need to pull numbers out of your ass, as it makes you look stupid, rather than proving your point.
Sounds like you've found a good solution for your needs. More power to you!
I'm one of those frothing-at-the-mouth mindless Steve Jobs worshipping fanatics, and I'd *HATE* it if iTunes were the only solution. It won't be a one-size-fits-all world until they erase our individuality.
Yeah, Goldstein. He lives in a complex world, and is not married to an ideology. Substituting an ideology for thinking when faced with complexiity is the sign of a weak mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare the open letter to this, from Karelia's Watson FAQ:
... shall we say ... inspiration. While Apple recently recognized Watson as 2002's "Most Innovative Mac OS X Product" -- and we appreciate the recognition -- the company didn't hesitate to make use of Watson's specific innovations for its next OS release, without any concessions to Karelia.
Q. What is the relationship between Watson and the new Sherlock 3?
A. When Watson -- openly inspired by Sherlock for the concept of bypassing the Web browser -- was first released in 2001, it was envisioned as Sherlock's "companion" application, focusing on Web "services" rather than being a "search" tool like Sherlock.
Sherlock 3, part of Apple's new 10.2 "Jaguar" release, has now changed its focus to Web services. It bears a great resemblance to Watson -- almost its entire capability (image search, news, stocks, movies, phone listings, eBay auctions, reference, and translation) is found in Watson's tool set, and many individual tools behave remarkably like their Watson counterparts.
Many users have contacted Karelia, congratulating us on Apple "buying out" Watson. However, Karelia Software was not involved in any aspect of Sherlock 3, other than serving as
But we're not that upset anymore. Really. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Unfortunately for Apple, Sherlock 3 is not quite up to par with Watson in terms of speed or capability, so we're not that worried. With the addition of the new Google searching Tool for Watson -- much more useful than the web-searching feature that is part of Sherlock 3 -- we are confident that Watson will continue to be the market leader in Web services, in spite of Sherlock 3.
Technical readers may be interested in a comparison of Watson's and Sherlock's plug-in architecture on this page.
Dan Wood, Watson's creator, has a much more legitimate beef, but you don't see him whinning. No, he sucks it up and gets back to business. He improves Watson, so there will be no doubt it is better than Sherlock and worth paying for.
I was under the impression that the RIAA was going after the uploaders, not the downloaders. Am I mistaken?
Apparently, the Beatles refuse to release their music to any legal download service at this time.
The Who is on iTMS, but I didn't see "Greatest Hits"
War wasn't on iTunes, but they could be on another service, for all I know.
You are mistaken. You wrongly assume that I was analyzing the argument in your post, when I was just lightly poking fun at you.
However, to please you, I will destroy the central part of your argument, which is the false analogy of crack and MP3s. Crack is an illegal substance that is documented to hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community. Mp3s are not illegal, and whether they hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community in general is an opinion and not one backed up by any real facts.
"Ahh," you say, "I'm not talking about just any Mp3s, but unathorized copies of MP3s." Unfortunately for you, your analogy breaks down further here. Possesion of crack is illegal. Possesion of an unauthorized MP3 is not illegal. Frankly, a better analogy would be comparing MP3 to stolen ice cream, but eben that is problematical.
Now for your supplementary argument that "There is no right to express the cheapest places to purchase crack in an attempt to sell the controlled substance - hence intent is important." Firstly, you are factually wrong; it is legal to express the cheapest place to purchase crack. There is nothing to prevent me from telling you, if asked, to go down to the village square as that's where all the crack stores are. Secondly, even if your interpretation of the law were correct, you have failed to make a logical connection as to just how intent is "hence important".
Basically, your argument is hyperbole. But to make you feel better, let me add some more ad hominem. Your hyperbolic argument is stupid, like you are. =)
making fun of you.
" If you intend to stand at the corner of a school and get kids to buy crack by telling them to go to the store then it is illegal."
Uh, yeah, the CRACK STORE. That's where I buy all my crack. When I feel like some heroin, I go to the HEROIN STORE.
"If you tell them where to go buy ice cream ral cheap and it just so happens that the place also sells crack then it is not. Or at least that is what the founding fathers meant - which we have drifted quite a bit in the last 50 or so years from that."
I must have been asleep in civics class when the covered how Ice Cream fits into the Bill of Rights. Which amendment was that? The "right to bear double scoops" one, right?
"It is clear that the site was linking to copyrighted MP3 websites for the purpose of downloading them."
Is it clear? Wouldn't it be funny if you actually went to the site and found out it wasn't what you thought it was?
"(and not being a lawyer only what I understand it to be in the US, which could be wrong)"
At least you got that one right.
OK, I'm being mean. But just as I shouldn't be suprised by ill conceived posts like yours, you shouldn't be suprised by someone making fun.
Who's a good developer!
That must be David Boise's brother? Is he somehow involved with the case?
But you are fantastically literal minded!
Captialism: Man exploits his fellow man.
Communism: The other way around.
Yes, I've read this several times now, but each times, there is no evidence to back this up. Please provide a cite.
Last I checked, you couldn't do drugs with fiber optic. It's too hard to inhale.
Better solution:
Use *nix on energy efficient PPC.
This should be modded up as the most creative variation so far.
Check out smalldog.com as well. Powermax has always been a little high priced for used/refurbs.
The last point reminds me that OS X users will pay for good software. Even though Apple computers are no where near as expensive as they are perceived to be, they aren't the cheapest hardware on the market either.
So this should tell the developer something: Mac users are willing to pay money for a good product. Some further proof: I know a number of people that have been downloading and using the various builds of Panther from bit torrent and the P2Ps. Most, if not all, are purchasing Panther tonite or in the near future, despite already having it installed. (Sure, there is a lot of moaning about the price, but a great deal of this is from folks that haven't tried it, not the 'unofficial beta testers".)
Now, are mac users inherently more honest than other computer users? I doubt it. No, they're just willing to spend their money on a good product. I even know of a few developers that are supplemeting their income by writing donation-ware. Mac users are willing to pay money for good software, even when not required to do so. Does donation-ware even exist on the windows side?
It's a process that involves using tools. Now, do you want a workbench with Makita, Dewalt, Milwaulke, and Porter Cable tools, or do you want the Playskool workbench?
IIRC, Walt used to be quite a bit tougher on Apple, for legitimate reasons. He seems pretty happy with the products nowdays.
"they will go to work for a non-OSS company and any contributions to OSS will again be made while living off the money that the non-OSS company pays them to do their job. Again, you have OSS subsidized by non-OSS companies, in effect."
I infer from this statement that you believe a company owns it's employees, since it is paying for employees' upkeep.
Ever hear of the Thirteenth Amendment?
Lars has big Kleenex bills.
I think it's more something like this:
Studio Master > AAC > WAV(or AIFF) >mp3
vs.
Studio Master > Audio CD (WAV or AIFF equivalent) > mp3
Just curious, but where did you get your figure of 99.99%? iTunes is my personal choice, and I think it's a great solution (maybe even the best solution for now) for a great many people, but their is room for other models. No need to pull numbers out of your ass, as it makes you look stupid, rather than proving your point.
Sounds like you've found a good solution for your needs. More power to you!
I'm one of those frothing-at-the-mouth mindless Steve Jobs worshipping fanatics, and I'd *HATE* it if iTunes were the only solution. It won't be a one-size-fits-all world until they erase our individuality.
Well, at least the poster wasn't whoring for karma.
Yeah, Goldstein. He lives in a complex world, and is not married to an ideology. Substituting an ideology for thinking when faced with complexiity is the sign of a weak mind.
Wrong. You are ignorant and misinformed.
If you had named that industry as being David Pogue, you would have had a point.