Obama has views different from me. I strongly disagree with his 2nd amendment and intellectual property stances among others.
You don't disagree with his 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendment stances strongly enough to mention them here?
That bastard got my vote before because he called himself a "constitutional scholar" and promised to end the civil rights violations of the Bush administration, and instead the only parts of the Bill of Rights he hasn't shat all over are the irrelevant ones (about quartering troops and civil lawsuits)!
For instance, feel free to explain how to obtain something as basic as toilet paper without corporations.
You have framed the question in such a way as to exclude the reasonable solutions.
In other words, the real problem is not "how do we make toilet paper?" but rather "what else can we use to clean our asses instead?" Off the top of my head, two possibilities would be bidets and washable and reusable towels (hey, it works for diapers...).
Give me a few examples of stuff you own that the ideas weren't "stolen" from somewhere else. Let me guess - you're an American. Let's take the automobile. If I ask, you'll probably tell me (better than 80% chance here) that Henry Ford invented the automobile.
Nobody thinks Henry Ford invented the automobile, you dolt! He invented something much more important: the assembly line.
Car batteries discharge if the car isn't driven regularly, so people have to hook them up to trickle chargers. This would build a trickle charger into the window tint.
Besides, its no more impractical than it would be on a house, anyway!
I think car windows are an ideal application of this technology: lots of people want them tinted anyway, so now they can get that and a solar battery charger all at once!
I just wonder if this stuff can be stretched, since car windows tend to be curved in multiple dimensions.
China has entire cities that got built speculatively that none of their citizens can afford to live in. You think the US housing bubble was bad? Wait till China's bubble bursts!
According to his autobiography, George Takei was Hell-bent on having Sulu be made a captain in the name of "character development," which is why he (and not any of the other crew, who all had ridiculous seniority by that point) finally got the Excelsior in Star Trek 6.
(That book is completely worthless, by the way: how do you write an autobiography and completely leave out the fact that you're gay?!)
The bounds of the law specifically say you cannot modify and redistribute without the copyright owner's permission.
[citation needed]
I've shown you the law that supports my argument; now you show me the law that makes all sales of used books with notes in the margin illegal.
If the court had decided that Apple cannot dictate terms of their software, it means the GPL has no enforceability.
No it doesn't. Apple attempted to dictate terms of use; the GPL attempts to dictate terms of distribution of copies. As I've been attempting over and over to explain to you, they are not the same thing!
Do you not understand Psystar is distributing a modified copy?
Installing OS X on a hackintosh one at a time the way home users do and then selling it would be distributing a modified original, not a copy, and therefore be OK (which is the point I've been trying to make).
Admittedly, the bit about Psystar making a modified master and then imaging all the disks from that (which I indeed did not realize until recently) screws up my argument a bit.
If you were a real estate agent with a contract to sell a property, then having somebody scrape and repost your ad is just more free advertising for you.
It's the photographer who should be mad, in the (unlikely) event he had plans to sell copies of those photos for their artistic value or something.
If that were true, then any creative work that did not include a license would have no restrictions. The fact that all creative works, including those that contain merely a notice of copyright (such as most books) or even nothing at all (such as most paintings) are nevertheless protected by those restrictions, proves that you're wrong.
Fine: the "imaging station" and "master copy" part makes it make sense that Psystar got in trouble; had Psystar done the modification at install time on each individual machine I assert that the Apple claims against them would not have been upheld.
Except you never bought a copy of the OS. You licensed from Apple, who can choose to license it to whomever they choose, under whatever terms they want. Don't like the terms, don't license it.
Bullshit. Unless the cashier makes me sign a license contract before taking my money, I damn well bought the thing!
The/. crowd seems to simply ignore the fact that they haven't bought anything. Thy licensed it.
On the contrary, the Slashdot crowd disputes that fact!
Tell me how modifying something then selling it is selling an original.
It's the original because it's not a new copy. It's not a difficult concept!
If somebody drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa hanging in the Louvre, it doesn't suddenly stop being the one painted by da Vinci, does it? What do you think happens, the painting magically divides as if by mitosis into a mustached copy and a non-mustached "original?!"
[Y]ou don't get to modify and redistribute GPL but under certain circumstances. In proprietary software like OS X, Windows, AIX, the copyright owners have to give you explicit permission.
On the contrary, if you don't make a copy, you can redistribute your modified instance all you want -- the license is irrelevant.
Think of what your argument implies: by your logic, reselling any random Windows computer (which might have some unique combination of registry edits, patches, maybe Tweak UI or Stardock or some other more invasive customizations) would violate copyright, and reality simply just doesn't work that way!
You can install AIX on a Sun box for all your hearts desire. The minute you make it a business and start selling those Sun boxes, IBM would likely sue you into oblivion.
Assuming you bought and installed a separate copy of AIX for each of those boxes, and assuming that those copies were sold as a normal retail transaction (as opposed to an actual negotiated contract where the First Sale Doctrine wouldn't apply), I don't see how IBM could win that suit.
That's the point: I'm not reprinting the book! Similarly, merely getting the OS X software to run on a non-Apple machine is not the same as remastering the OS disc.
A lot of products impose limits and void warranties by modifying the product. It's a lot easier for Apple to stop Psystar than to tell thousands of people to get bent when they ask for support...
So you're saying that using the court system to subjugate actual ownership of property to the whims of copyright holders just because it's convenient is okay?!?!
[I]f you take, for instance a console mod it and then sell it you'll catch hell from the hardware manufacturer's lawyers.
If you mod it to circumvent DRM sure, but that's because you're violating the DMCA. If you mod it to play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" as its startup sound the lawyers have nothing to complain about.
I'm sure you'd catch hell from lawyers by making your own car and placing a chevy engine in it and selling it as a chevy too.
But that's not the situation we're discussing. The problem is the "selling it as a Chevy" part, not the "making your own car and placing a Chevy engine in it" part. If I did that and then called it a "mrchaotica car (powered by Chevy)" or something like that, Chevy's lawyers would have nothing to complain about. Also, even if I did call it a Chevy, the lawyer's complaint would be over violating the Chevy trademark, not over the use of the engine.
Was Psystar claiming that the hardware they were selling was from Apple too, or was your argument irrelevant?
Slashdot Mirror
The only step that remains is to re-name LibreOffice to OpenOffice.
What if your arm got chopped off? No blood circulation, but the battery would still be good and the strap would still be intact.
I wish I had a woodlot (or any other sort of income-producing property)!
I'm pretty sure a household supply of lye soap shouldn't require more than a normal backyard's worth of wood, though.
You don't disagree with his 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendment stances strongly enough to mention them here?
That bastard got my vote before because he called himself a "constitutional scholar" and promised to end the civil rights violations of the Bush administration, and instead the only parts of the Bill of Rights he hasn't shat all over are the irrelevant ones (about quartering troops and civil lawsuits)!
If 'released from bondage,' a fetus' natural state would be death.
You have framed the question in such a way as to exclude the reasonable solutions.
In other words, the real problem is not "how do we make toilet paper?" but rather "what else can we use to clean our asses instead?" Off the top of my head, two possibilities would be bidets and washable and reusable towels (hey, it works for diapers...).
Eh, even if the other reply were correct and Ransom Olds invented the assembly line, it was still invented by an American!
Nobody thinks Henry Ford invented the automobile, you dolt! He invented something much more important: the assembly line.
I think most houses old enough to be haunted would have been framed with wood rather than light-gauge steel anyway.
Car batteries discharge if the car isn't driven regularly, so people have to hook them up to trickle chargers. This would build a trickle charger into the window tint.
Besides, its no more impractical than it would be on a house, anyway!
I think car windows are an ideal application of this technology: lots of people want them tinted anyway, so now they can get that and a solar battery charger all at once!
I just wonder if this stuff can be stretched, since car windows tend to be curved in multiple dimensions.
That's kind of the point: this policy is specifically designed to kill the likes of Gamestop.
China has entire cities that got built speculatively that none of their citizens can afford to live in. You think the US housing bubble was bad? Wait till China's bubble bursts!
According to his autobiography, George Takei was Hell-bent on having Sulu be made a captain in the name of "character development," which is why he (and not any of the other crew, who all had ridiculous seniority by that point) finally got the Excelsior in Star Trek 6.
(That book is completely worthless, by the way: how do you write an autobiography and completely leave out the fact that you're gay?!)
Don't forget Chairman of Kitchen Stadium (briefly)!
[citation needed]
I've shown you the law that supports my argument; now you show me the law that makes all sales of used books with notes in the margin illegal.
No it doesn't. Apple attempted to dictate terms of use; the GPL attempts to dictate terms of distribution of copies. As I've been attempting over and over to explain to you, they are not the same thing!
Installing OS X on a hackintosh one at a time the way home users do and then selling it would be distributing a modified original, not a copy, and therefore be OK (which is the point I've been trying to make).
Admittedly, the bit about Psystar making a modified master and then imaging all the disks from that (which I indeed did not realize until recently) screws up my argument a bit.
If you were a real estate agent with a contract to sell a property, then having somebody scrape and repost your ad is just more free advertising for you.
It's the photographer who should be mad, in the (unlikely) event he had plans to sell copies of those photos for their artistic value or something.
If that were true, then any creative work that did not include a license would have no restrictions. The fact that all creative works, including those that contain merely a notice of copyright (such as most books) or even nothing at all (such as most paintings) are nevertheless protected by those restrictions, proves that you're wrong.
Fine: the "imaging station" and "master copy" part makes it make sense that Psystar got in trouble; had Psystar done the modification at install time on each individual machine I assert that the Apple claims against them would not have been upheld.
Bullshit. Unless the cashier makes me sign a license contract before taking my money, I damn well bought the thing!
On the contrary, the Slashdot crowd disputes that fact!
It's the original because it's not a new copy. It's not a difficult concept!
If somebody drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa hanging in the Louvre, it doesn't suddenly stop being the one painted by da Vinci, does it? What do you think happens, the painting magically divides as if by mitosis into a mustached copy and a non-mustached "original?!"
On the contrary, if you don't make a copy, you can redistribute your modified instance all you want -- the license is irrelevant.
Think of what your argument implies: by your logic, reselling any random Windows computer (which might have some unique combination of registry edits, patches, maybe Tweak UI or Stardock or some other more invasive customizations) would violate copyright, and reality simply just doesn't work that way!
Assuming you bought and installed a separate copy of AIX for each of those boxes, and assuming that those copies were sold as a normal retail transaction (as opposed to an actual negotiated contract where the First Sale Doctrine wouldn't apply), I don't see how IBM could win that suit.
That's the point: I'm not reprinting the book! Similarly, merely getting the OS X software to run on a non-Apple machine is not the same as remastering the OS disc.
Yes you did; you said:
The license does not do those things; copyright law does.
So you're saying that using the court system to subjugate actual ownership of property to the whims of copyright holders just because it's convenient is okay?!?!
If you mod it to circumvent DRM sure, but that's because you're violating the DMCA. If you mod it to play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" as its startup sound the lawyers have nothing to complain about.
But that's not the situation we're discussing. The problem is the "selling it as a Chevy" part, not the "making your own car and placing a Chevy engine in it" part. If I did that and then called it a "mrchaotica car (powered by Chevy)" or something like that, Chevy's lawyers would have nothing to complain about. Also, even if I did call it a Chevy, the lawyer's complaint would be over violating the Chevy trademark, not over the use of the engine.
Was Psystar claiming that the hardware they were selling was from Apple too, or was your argument irrelevant?