2. Track actual downloads from the Internet. Think about it -- to accurately divide a >$2B pie will take a very thorough analysis to get all parties comfortable. It's easy to legislate: either all download sites or sharing systems aggregate their download data in a central database or they will be considered illegally supporting piracy. IMHO this will very shortly be a part of the proposal.
What a TERRIBLE idea! There are obvious privacy concerns, no one has the right to spy on you just because they're afraid you might be downloading copyrighted material, in the US we theoretically have something called due process, where people are not to be spied on without evidence of wrongdoing. An even bigger problem with this idea is that it goes on the assumption that copyrighted material that is downloaded is done so illegally. Very often I download mp3s or videos that I already have a license for, as I own a video tape or audio tape and want a copy for my PC, and this is by most people considered to be legal 'fair use'. There's yet an additional problem with this idea, and that is identifying who is doing the download.
You're missing the whole point, and that is that MS doesn't want ANY platform-independent language to succeed, as that would be a threat to their Windows monopoly, since software developers would no longer be writing windows-specific software. Java is under Sun's control, and Sun won't let MS get away with fragmenting it by creating system-specific versions of java. If java goes away and is replaced by C#, MS is under no such compulsion to not fragment it and make it fail. I doubt that MS has any interest in making C# succeed other than taking some of the steam out of java.
What I said (in so many words) was that if you are going to defend someone's freedom of speech without so much as acknowledging the content, then you show yourself to be either a) moronic, or b) implying you agree with what they're saying.
I will always defend freedom of speech, regardless of content, and without any need to support or disagree with the content itself. If you want to think me moronic, that's your business.
If you stand up and say, 'The KKK is wrong, but that have a right to state their opinion', I can respect that. If you say, 'These people shouldn't be allowed to silence the KKK' and you don't say *anything* else, then I'm gonna guess you may agree with their views.
How is your thinking that I may be pro-KKK in any way relevant to the free speech issue?
My original post, which you chose to reply to, specifically stated that I was commenting not on the legal arguments around free speech, but on the lack of acknowledgement that Apple was wronged here.
Ah, now we're talking about a seperate issue altogether. As far as Apple being wronged, were they really? If I already have a spare license of 10.0 I'm not using, why can't I use this hack to change the upgrade software to a 10.1 installer so I only have to do 1 install instead of the install + the upgrade? And why can't I, as a free public service, help others by telling them on my website how to do so? To the best of my knowledge, no one was advocating piracy, or using the upgrade as the full OS without having a spare license.
This was kind of the point of the original post. It's great that people defend the KKK's right to march and speak. But when they do it without acknowledging that the KKK is awful, horrible, and evil, that bugs me. Because it does, in effect, imply that they don't care.
So what you're saying is that it's OK to defend someone's freedom of speech, but only if you pass some kind of moral judgement of their value as a person. Consider the absurdity of what you're saying.
.
First, may I suggest that when you reply to a post, that you quote from THAT post, and not from a reply to that post.
How did Apple screw up exactly? The updater is functional. It updates your system from 10.0 to 10.1... exactly as advertised.
You're right, it does do exactly that, and that's fine. However, judging from the response from their legal dept, they obviously don't want people to know how to cirvumvent their upgrade check. That being the case, they could have easily put a more robust check in place, so it's in that sense I mean they screwed up.
Making your installer mechanism easy to modify is a choice of the developers making it. Personally, if I was working on a project like that, I'd want to do exactly the same thing.
I agree with you. But siccing the dogs on someone whose web page describes how to do just that is wrong.
People payed for an update CD. Not a Full Install.
Correct. And if I already have a spare license of 10.0 I'm not using, why can't I use this hack to change the upgrade software to a 10.1 installer so I only have to do 1 install instead of the install + the upgrade? And why can't I, as a free public service, help others by telling them on my website how to do so?
Modifying that CD if a breach of the EULA that you agree to when you break the seal (it also pops it down during the Install). Thus, telling other people through a popular website how to breach their EULA is also not cosher...
I've never read or agreed to an EULA. An EULA is a legalistic attempt by a corporation to dictate terms-of-use to its customers. It is not an "agreement" in any sense of the word I know. You may believe that if I don't agree to the EULA I don't have a right to use the software. But if I've exchanged money for some software, I consider myself to have that right, regardless of what restrictions a corporation might want to impose on -legitimate- users for the sake of their crusade against piracy.
Currently, as I'm sure you're aware, many laws harmful to basic freedom in this country, such as the DMCA, are being passed, largely due to bribery (although they call it campaign contributions to make it seem legitimate) from large corporations in exchange for laws that favor them. I am doing my part as a citizen to fight these unjust laws (as hopeless as it sometimes seems), but in the meantime I'm not going to feel compelled to live my life according to some corrupt laws.
I really fail to understand how people find this so hard to take.
What's really hard to take is apple's harassment and legal bullying of someone who is exercising their constitutional right to free speech regarding some software that he legitimately obtained!
They not only want to control how, when, and where you'll use this software that you purchased, but now they want to control HOW YOU CAN COMMUNICATE WITH OTHERS ABOUT IT!
.
Actually, no that was the point exactly. You just want to argue the free speech legal issue completely outside the context.
Yes, you're right, I do. I, you, and everyone else have a right to say whatever we like, with a few exceptions like not threatening people or yelling "fire" in a theater. Outside of those exceptions, context simply does not matter, and free speech is guaranteed, period. As well it should be.
You argue to me all day that it's your free speech right to announce to the world that my front door is unlocked. And you might be legally correct.
So we agree on this point. That's all I care about!
But this wouldn't make you any less of an asshole for doing it.
And it's hard to feel sorry for assholes...
I couldn't care less what you think of the person who posted the exploit, or who you feel sorry for. That's simply not relevant to what is a straightforward free speech issue. If you want to discuss your emotions, I suggest you take it up with a therapist.
Incidentally, if you were to assume that the exploit posted could only be used for piracy, you would be incorrect. One has only to read farther in the thread to see that another/.er who had a legitimately owned OSX and had a problem with the upgrade, found the exploit useful: he had to reinstall, and could have installed OSX and then the upgrade, but instead he just installed the full version using the exploit, saving himself time and effort.
.
But agreed, if you point out to everyone that my door is unlocked and I get robbed, I'm gonna be (rightfully so) pissed off at you regardless of the fact that it was dumb to leave the door open.
Sigh. There you go, changing the subject. It's not about whether you're pissed off or not, it's not about whether you get robbed or not, it's about whether you have the right to suppress the free speech of others (hint: the answer starts with "n").
I suppose if I screw up by leaving my front door unlocked, you'd feel justified in stealing from me? Or keeping the wallet you found on the street because someone screwed up and left it on the hood of their car?
Oh wait! Then you can go post on the web how it was really their fault, not yours and point out everything they're doing wrong in an attempt to get their stuff back...
I'm not sure if you're a moron or a troll, but if you're a troll I'm not going to bother with you, so I'll assume you're a moron.
Your analogy is way off-base. A good analogy would be if I told someone that you left your door unlocked, or your wallet on your dashboard. No, I don't steal, not that it's any of your business.
It's one thing for someone to try to "get their stuff back", or go after those who pirate software. It's a completely different, and unjustified, thing to go suppress the rights of others, who are guilty of no crime, to express whatever they choose.
.
But if you want me to believe the poster had no intention or expectation of anyone using the info to steal from Apple, then give me a break. It may have been legal, but it was wrong.
I DON'T CARE WHAT THEIR INTENTION WAS! I'm not even considering their intention. This is a plain, straightforward free speech issue.
Argue free speech all day (I'm not disagreeing). I just prefer my free speech arguments to be made on the behalf of people who I can actually sympathize with.
That's really unfortunate. I prefer to defend the freedom of speech for ALL people, not just those whom I like.
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the gays, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gay.
Then they came for the jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a jew.
Then they came for me, and by then there was no one left to speak up.
The original posting told people how to get OS X for free, without ever buying the software. Either you support that type of piracy (I don't) or you shouldn't be painting Apple out to be the villian here.
Your statement is false. I do not support piracy (except against criminal enterprises such as MS), and Apple IS the villain in this case - they're trying to use legal bullying to supress free speech to cover for their own mistakes. Interfering with the right of someone else to say what they want ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE is NEVER the answer.
.
You're missing the boat entirely. The main issue here is NOT whether you have a right to modify the update to provide a full install. The main issue here is that I, and everyone else, have a right to the freedom to express that Apple screwed up on their release, and we have a right to provide information as to how to take advantage of that screw-up, just as we have a right to convey any other information, or express any opinion.
Apple, on the other hand, want to use strong-arm legal tactics to suppress free speech, to cover their own sorry asses as to how badly they fucked up. That's the real issue.
.
For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity or perception to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), German philosopher. Twilight of the Idols, "Expeditions of an Untimely Man," aph. 8 (1889).
Each of these attributes gives a starting bonus, and each civ starts with 2 of these. The starting 16 civs are on a chart on the civ3 website (http://www.civ3.com/devupdate_civspecific.cfm). Now my math says that with 6 characteristics, there should be possible 15 unique combos (and there are on the chart).
You *would* expect there to be 15 combos, 1 per civ. Instead, there's 2-3 civs with the same combo, and 2-3 combos with no civ associated with them.
I can point you at many places in San Francisco that have a California flag flying right next to a US flag, at the same height.
That "only Texas can fly the state flag at the same height" thing is an urban legend.
AFAIK, A state flag can be flown either:
-underneath the US flag on the same flagpole
-on another flagpole to the right of the first one, as long it's not flown higher.
I also like the special units that each race gets, let me tell you...don't [] with the Aztecs. Those Jaguar Warriors (2/1/2 I think) are nasty! They actually retreat from battle if they are losing making them a PITA to kill.
Jaguar Warriors are 1/1/2:
http://civ3.com/civoftheweek.cfm?civ=Aztecs
I like the idea of strategice resources as well! They don't show up on the map until you have researched the technology. You can't build units without it either! For example, Musketmen require saltpeter. You must also connect your cities to these resources via roads. If a city can't get to the resource via a road, it can build units that require that resource! VERY cool!
I agree, strategic resources BELONG in civ! A great addition. But it makes it harder to pursue a build strategy: Let's say I focus my tech research on getting literacy. In the meantime my rivals who have the wheel and ironworking know where the horse and iron resources are and have grabbed them before I even know where they are!
Things I'd like to see:
Female rulers. While female rulers were historically uncommon, they were there. (Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, various European queens, the current president of Finland, Indira Gandhi, etc., etc.) I almost always choose to play female rulers in Civ2.
Um, they DO have Catherine the great and Queen Elizabeth.
My usual Civ2 strategy is to expand my enemies to death -- expand at the maximum possible rate your civilization can tolerate. This is harder to do in Civ3, mainly because your rivals all have the same idea! (I've found that choosing an Expansionist civilization will help you get the edge in this area, though.)
Yeah, it's really all about having more cities and more territory. It's hard to do in civ3 because it takes 2 population points to make a settler, and because cities far-away from your capitol lose a huge percentage of their commerce/productivity to corruption. And when 90% of your production is lost, you'll be lucky just to be able to build defenders for the city, never mind having it do something useful.
Slashdot Mirror
2. Track actual downloads from the Internet.
Think about it -- to accurately divide a >$2B pie will take a very thorough analysis to get all parties comfortable. It's easy to legislate: either all download sites or sharing systems aggregate their download data in a central database or they will be considered illegally supporting piracy. IMHO this will very shortly be a part of the proposal.
What a TERRIBLE idea!
There are obvious privacy concerns, no one has the
right to spy on you just because they're afraid you
might be downloading copyrighted material, in the
US we theoretically have something called due
process, where people are not to be spied on
without evidence of wrongdoing.
An even bigger problem with this idea is that it
goes on the assumption that copyrighted material
that is downloaded is done so illegally. Very
often I download mp3s or videos that I already
have a license for, as I own a video tape or audio
tape and want a copy for my PC, and this is by
most people considered to be legal 'fair use'.
There's yet an additional problem with this idea,
and that is identifying who is doing the download.
.
You're missing the whole point, and that is that MS doesn't want ANY platform-independent language to succeed, as that would be a threat to their Windows monopoly, since software developers would no longer be writing windows-specific software. Java is under Sun's control, and Sun won't let MS get away with fragmenting it by creating system-specific versions of java. If java goes away and is replaced by C#, MS is under no such compulsion to not fragment it and make it fail. I doubt that MS has any interest in making C# succeed other than taking some of the steam out of java.
.
Apparently no one noticed this bit:
The discovery was made on 1 April by a joint team of divers...
.
What I said (in so many words) was that if you are going to defend someone's freedom of speech without so much as acknowledging the content, then you show yourself to be either a) moronic, or b) implying you agree with what they're saying.
I will always defend freedom of speech, regardless of content, and without any need to support or disagree with the content itself. If you want to think me moronic, that's your business.
If you stand up and say, 'The KKK is wrong, but that have a right to state their opinion', I can respect that. If you say, 'These people shouldn't be allowed to silence the KKK' and you don't say *anything* else, then I'm gonna guess you may agree with their views.
How is your thinking that I may be pro-KKK in any way relevant to the free speech issue?
My original post, which you chose to reply to, specifically stated that I was commenting not on the legal arguments around free speech, but on the lack of acknowledgement that Apple was wronged here.
Ah, now we're talking about a seperate issue altogether. As far as Apple being wronged, were they really? If I already have a spare license of 10.0 I'm not using, why can't I use this hack to change the upgrade software to a 10.1 installer so I only have to do 1 install instead of the install + the upgrade? And why can't I, as a free public service, help others by telling them on my website how to do so? To the best of my knowledge, no one was advocating piracy, or using the upgrade as the full OS without having a spare license.
This was kind of the point of the original post. It's great that people defend the KKK's right to march and speak. But when they do it without acknowledging that the KKK is awful, horrible, and evil, that bugs me. Because it does, in effect, imply that they don't care.
So what you're saying is that it's OK to defend someone's freedom of speech, but only if you pass some kind of moral judgement of their value as a person. Consider the absurdity of what you're saying.
.
First, may I suggest that when you reply to a post, that you quote from THAT post, and not from a reply to that post.
How did Apple screw up exactly? The updater is functional. It updates your system from 10.0 to 10.1... exactly as advertised.
You're right, it does do exactly that, and that's fine. However, judging from the response from their legal dept, they obviously don't want people to know how to cirvumvent their upgrade check. That being the case, they could have easily put a more robust check in place, so it's in that sense I mean they screwed up.
Making your installer mechanism easy to modify is a choice of the developers making it. Personally, if I was working on a project like that, I'd want to do exactly the same thing.
I agree with you. But siccing the dogs on someone whose web page describes how to do just that is wrong.
People payed for an update CD. Not a Full Install.
Correct. And if I already have a spare license of 10.0 I'm not using, why can't I use this hack to change the upgrade software to a 10.1 installer so I only have to do 1 install instead of the install + the upgrade? And why can't I, as a free public service, help others by telling them on my website how to do so?
Modifying that CD if a breach of the EULA that you agree to when you break the seal (it also pops it down during the Install). Thus, telling other people through a popular website how to breach their EULA is also not cosher...
I've never read or agreed to an EULA. An EULA is a legalistic attempt by a corporation to dictate terms-of-use to its customers. It is not an "agreement" in any sense of the word I know. You may believe that if I don't agree to the EULA I don't have a right to use the software. But if I've exchanged money for some software, I consider myself to have that right, regardless of what restrictions a corporation might want to impose on -legitimate- users for the sake of their crusade against piracy.
Currently, as I'm sure you're aware, many laws harmful to basic freedom in this country, such as the DMCA, are being passed, largely due to bribery (although they call it campaign contributions to make it seem legitimate) from large corporations in exchange for laws that favor them. I am doing my part as a citizen to fight these unjust laws (as hopeless as it sometimes seems), but in the meantime I'm not going to feel compelled to live my life according to some corrupt laws.
I really fail to understand how people find this so hard to take.
What's really hard to take is apple's harassment and legal bullying of someone who is exercising their constitutional right to free speech regarding some software that he legitimately obtained!
They not only want to control how, when, and where you'll use this software that you purchased, but now they want to control HOW YOU CAN COMMUNICATE WITH OTHERS ABOUT IT!
.
Actually, no that was the point exactly. You just want to argue the free speech legal issue completely outside the context.
/.er who had a legitimately owned OSX and had a problem with the upgrade, found the exploit useful: he had to reinstall, and could have installed OSX and then the upgrade, but instead he just installed the full version using the exploit, saving himself time and effort.
Yes, you're right, I do. I, you, and everyone else have a right to say whatever we like, with a few exceptions like not threatening people or yelling "fire" in a theater. Outside of those exceptions, context simply does not matter, and free speech is guaranteed, period. As well it should be.
You argue to me all day that it's your free speech right to announce to the world that my front door is unlocked. And you might be legally correct.
So we agree on this point. That's all I care about!
But this wouldn't make you any less of an asshole for doing it.
And it's hard to feel sorry for assholes...
I couldn't care less what you think of the person who posted the exploit, or who you feel sorry for. That's simply not relevant to what is a straightforward free speech issue. If you want to discuss your emotions, I suggest you take it up with a therapist.
Incidentally, if you were to assume that the exploit posted could only be used for piracy, you would be incorrect. One has only to read farther in the thread to see that another
.
But agreed, if you point out to everyone that my door is unlocked and I get robbed, I'm gonna be (rightfully so) pissed off at you regardless of the fact that it was dumb to leave the door open.
Sigh. There you go, changing the subject. It's not about whether you're pissed off or not, it's not about whether you get robbed or not, it's about whether you have the right to suppress the free speech of others (hint: the answer starts with "n").
I suppose if I screw up by leaving my front door unlocked, you'd feel justified in stealing from me? Or keeping the wallet you found on the street because someone screwed up and left it on the hood of their car?
Oh wait! Then you can go post on the web how it was really their fault, not yours and point out everything they're doing wrong in an attempt to get their stuff back...
I'm not sure if you're a moron or a troll, but if you're a troll I'm not going to bother with you, so I'll assume you're a moron.
Your analogy is way off-base. A good analogy would be if I told someone that you left your door unlocked, or your wallet on your dashboard. No, I don't steal, not that it's any of your business.
It's one thing for someone to try to "get their stuff back", or go after those who pirate software. It's a completely different, and unjustified, thing to go suppress the rights of others, who are guilty of no crime, to express whatever they choose.
.
But if you want me to believe the poster had no intention or expectation of anyone using the info to steal from Apple, then give me a break. It may have been legal, but it was wrong.
I DON'T CARE WHAT THEIR INTENTION WAS! I'm not even considering their intention. This is a plain, straightforward free speech issue.
Argue free speech all day (I'm not disagreeing). I just prefer my free speech arguments to be made on the behalf of people who I can actually sympathize with.
That's really unfortunate. I prefer to defend the freedom of speech for ALL people, not just those whom I like.
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the gays, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gay.
Then they came for the jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a jew.
Then they came for me, and by then there was no one left to speak up.
Thanks! :)
Not that I intend to use it, I neither mac nor pirate, but I'm curious about it.
.
Those that would give up a little essential litigation to obtain a little essential advertising deserve neither advertising nor litigation.
.
Infringing sentence: Make a copy of the CD without the line "CheckforOSX" in the System/Installation/Packages/Essentials.pkg file".
Hey! that fits on one line! You can have an illegal sig!
.
What is with that page with the insructions !?
The page tries to re-load like 5 times a second, I can't even read it.
.
The original posting told people how to get OS X for free, without ever buying the software. Either you support that type of piracy (I don't) or you shouldn't be painting Apple out to be the villian here.
Your statement is false. I do not support piracy (except against criminal enterprises such as MS), and Apple IS the villain in this case - they're trying to use legal bullying to supress free speech to cover for their own mistakes. Interfering with the right of someone else to say what they want ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE is NEVER the answer.
.
You're missing the boat entirely. The main issue here is NOT whether you have a right to modify the update to provide a full install. The main issue here is that I, and everyone else, have a right to the freedom to express that Apple screwed up on their release, and we have a right to provide information as to how to take advantage of that screw-up, just as we have a right to convey any other information, or express any opinion.
Apple, on the other hand, want to use strong-arm legal tactics to suppress free speech, to cover their own sorry asses as to how badly they fucked up. That's the real issue.
.
For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity or perception to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), German philosopher. Twilight of the Idols, "Expeditions of an Untimely Man," aph. 8 (1889).
Google is second rate; logically incapable of an exact phrase search.
If google is second rate, what is first rate?
Actually, that's not true. Ask twice. The second time they'll apologize profusely and pop outside of your borders.
I found it took 3 tries for it to happen.
Each of these attributes gives a starting bonus, and each civ starts with 2 of these. The starting 16 civs are on a chart on the civ3 website (http://www.civ3.com/devupdate_civspecific.cfm). Now my math says that with 6 characteristics, there should be possible 15 unique combos (and there are on the chart).
You *would* expect there to be 15 combos, 1 per civ. Instead, there's 2-3 civs with the same combo, and 2-3 combos with no civ associated with them.
Someone please tell me that Civ III gets beyond the Despotism/Feudalism/Democracy/Communism/etc. categories and colonialist values.
Unfortunately, no, and I think it's even shrunk to just 5 possibilities: Despotism, Monarchy, Republic, Communism, and Democracy.
As great as this game is, this is one area that's disappointing, especially with the variety that SMAC gives with SE choices.
I can point you at many places in San Francisco that have a California flag flying right next to a US flag, at the same height.
That "only Texas can fly the state flag at the same height" thing is an urban legend.
AFAIK, A state flag can be flown either:
-underneath the US flag on the same flagpole
-on another flagpole to the right of the first one, as long it's not flown higher.
I also like the special units that each race gets, let me tell you...don't [] with the Aztecs. Those Jaguar Warriors (2/1/2 I think) are nasty! They actually retreat from battle if they are losing making them a PITA to kill.
Jaguar Warriors are 1/1/2:
http://civ3.com/civoftheweek.cfm?civ=Aztecs
I like the idea of strategice resources as well! They don't show up on the map until you have researched the technology. You can't build units without it either! For example, Musketmen require saltpeter. You must also connect your cities to these resources via roads. If a city can't get to the resource via a road, it can build units that require that resource! VERY cool!
I agree, strategic resources BELONG in civ! A great addition. But it makes it harder to pursue a build strategy: Let's say I focus my tech research on getting literacy. In the meantime my rivals who have the wheel and ironworking know where the horse and iron resources are and have grabbed them before I even know where they are!
Things I'd like to see:
Female rulers. While female rulers were historically uncommon, they were there. (Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, various European queens, the current president of Finland, Indira Gandhi, etc., etc.) I almost always choose to play female rulers in Civ2.
Um, they DO have Catherine the great and Queen Elizabeth.
My usual Civ2 strategy is to expand my enemies to death -- expand at the maximum possible rate your civilization can tolerate. This is harder to do in Civ3, mainly because your rivals all have the same idea! (I've found that choosing an Expansionist civilization will help you get the edge in this area, though.)
Yeah, it's really all about having more cities and more territory. It's hard to do in civ3 because it takes 2 population points to make a settler, and because cities far-away from your capitol lose a huge percentage of their commerce/productivity to corruption. And when 90% of your production is lost, you'll be lucky just to be able to build defenders for the city, never mind having it do something useful.
Ok, I give. What the hell is an SOE? And shouldn't stories expand the acronyms they use at least once?
Standard Operating Environment. Duh. And you should know what it means if you're a slashdot reader. Shame on you.
Actually, I was wondering what it meant myself, and that's my guess based on context.