I had to look up the stats for her to show her that grazing land in the US is 8.5 times the size of all of NZ.
Wouldn't the more relevant statistic be the amount of grazing land per cow? If the US raises more than 8.5 times more head of cattle than NZ, it could be the case that the NZ beef has a higher proportion of grass in its diet. Of course, that's still an average; the reality is that some cattle are fed 100% grass and others are fed 100% processed feed.
I'd say the reasoning was not just absurd, but multiply absurd: not even does the US have more grass than NZ, but that statistic is pretty much useless anyway!
I don't see any reference to "tiers" in that link.
Look at the sidebar on the left on this page, as well as the listing for each school. Also note that many of the better public universities are "Tier 1," not just the ivy-league schools. Granted, it takes a little while to get to them (unless I'm mistaken, the first is UC Berkeley at #21), but they're there.
My problem with "moissanite" is that all the jewelers feel the need to be pretentious about it. Why can't they just call it "silicon carbide," which is what it actually is?
People go on and on about how intelligent he was. Clearly not so much.
Intelligence is not one-dimensional. It's entirely possible to be brilliant at something like math or logic, but be completely socially inept (even to the point of autism) or sociopathic.
He is able to write, so technically he can help the community - say by documenting Reiser4, or writing down some of his ideas.
Murder isn't a computer-related offense, so I don't see why he can't just keep working on ReiserFS (as opposed to merely documenting it) while he's incarcerated. The way I see it, it's a win-win situation (for us): he's removed from society and punished by being unable to profit from his work (i.e., he won't be able to run Namesys from prison), but he'd have all the free time in the world to write code for us!
Posting this for the third fucking time in this thread! Woo!
USC Title 17, Section 117:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
As you can see, installing the program does not count as copyright infringement.
First, I think a lot of people who would, had they been born 30 years earlier, have been working on cars got into computers instead. Second, some of us weren't fortunate enough to grow up in an environment where we were able to do stuff like work on cars. I, for example, was prohibited from even attempting such a thing because my parents didn't want me to "mess up the garage." They wouldn't even let me so much as change my own oil! And of course, now that I'm no longer living at home I still can't do it because the apartment complex prohibits it too!
Personally, I'd like to see GPUs socketed in the motherboard in the same way floating point coprocessors used to be. I think AMD/ATI would be well-positioned to do this, considering that they have both good GPU technology and good bus technology (HyperTransport).
Nope, he really did mean "troll". Not only is it a real word, they even make motors for that purpose. (In contrast, there is no such thing as a "trawling motor.")
That's not true. See Wikipedia. (I could find specific cases to refute you with, but I'm not going to waste my time doing so just to debate a dumbass on Slashdot).
Yes, but your property does not extend one inch beyond what was purchased. Since what you describe is not within your property, it is a moot point.
What are you, stupid? What was purchased was the software!
The answer is that physical reality and the law are independent of each other. Yes, it's a copy, but it doesn't count for the purposes of copyright. See USC Title 17, 117:
Section 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Alright, let's say that I did that instead. Then I used the computer for some period of time. Then I got tired of the thing, and sold it ad a garage sale. Is Apple justified in suing me now, too? What makes me different from Psystar?
I say there's no difference, and that Psystar has the same rights as anybody else.
Sorry, but even if there is some kind of fair use exception for the incidental copy during the installation, I'm doubtful even that would apply here. Psystar has created a business from creating unauthorized modified copies of someone else's copyrighted work.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Clause 1 gives Psystar the right to modify (i.e., "adapt") OS X and install it on their hardware, and clause 2 gives Psystar the right to resell the result provided that it includes the original disks as part of the sale, which it does.
Why should they be forced to sell OS X unencumbered?
Because to do otherwise violates the customer's fundamental right to use his own property in whatever manner he pleases within the bounds of the law. (And note that "within the bounds of the law" means within restrictions imposed by the State, not ones attempted to be imposed by Apple.)
Would you try to force IBM to sell AIX so I can run it on some other PPC-based computer?
If IBM sells boxed copies of AIX separate from its workstations, and that those copies of AIX happened to be compatible with the other PPC-based computer, such that the only thing stopping you was the AIX EULA? Then yes!
Incidentally, you seem to think that I'm basing my opinion on anti-trust grounds. I'm not. I'm basing my opinion purely on the idea that EULAs -- all EULAs, not just Apple's -- are not valid contracts because they are imposed after the sale (and thus are contracts of adhesion) and don't give the owner any rights that he didn't already have anyway (and thus provide no "valuable consideration").
If it is not being sold, it is ipso facto prohibited.
You apparently don't understand what I said. I merely suggested that the correct course of action would be for Apple to continue to do what it's already doing: selling boxed copies of OS X that claim to only be compatible with Macs, and ignore people who run it on something else.
You have the right to purchase a copy for your Macintosh. You have no right to prepare or distribute a derivative work. Those rights are expressly reserved by Apple.
Functionally modifying it no more creates a derivative work than writing notes in the margins of a book does. And people resell books modified in that manner all the time, perfectly legally!
There is no such dichotomy. A functional adaptation more than passes the bar to copyrightability, and thus, infringement.
Go re-read the example I just gave.
Of course it can be.
Not by the copyright holder, it can't! Sure, use of a lot of things can be restricted by law: copyright law, laws restricting firearms, etc. But Apple is not the government, and it has no such right to impose restrictions.
It's simply not a right you possess.
WTF? USING MY OWN FUCKING PROPERTY most certainly IS a right that I possess!
Nothing is imposed after the sale.
Exactly: nothing can be imposed after the sale, which means that those words that Apple claims represent an EULA have no legal weight. They certainly weren't imposed before the sale, nor were they imposed during the sale -- if they were, then the Apple salesperson would be able to show me the contract I signed. But I signed no such contract, so no terms were imposed. All that leaves is the possibility that they were imposed after the sale, but you just agreed with me that that didn't happen either. Therefore, no terms were imposed by the alleged "EULA," ever. QED.
The contents of the box don't magically change--it was there from the start.
I never claimed that it did. What I claim is that, since those box contents are my property, I have the right to execute them using my computer, and ignore any bits that I don't like.
If there were a genuine contract imposed and agreed to before the sale, then it'd be different. But there was no such contract!
DO you get all pissy that you can't install your TV's firmware on other TVs?
If the firmware was substantially different and better than that on the other TV (enough to make me care strongly enough about it), and the other TV were capable of running said firmware, and I had a legally-obtained copy to install, such that the only restriction would be the EULA of the firmware?
That's a fucked up use of an anti-trust law, though. Calling Apple a monopoly is a stretch, even by Ayn Rand looter's standards. Looks like everyone wants their 'fair chance' in the real world too.
In a lawsuit, both parties tend to try to throw everything at the wall that they can, and see what sticks. Psystar's anti-trust argument isn't gonna stick IMO, but their lawyer's would be negligent if they didn't try it.
They're under no obligation to do so, particularly because authorizing such use comes with it consumer protection mandates requiring warranty and support.
They're under no obligation to officially sanction it, I agree. However, that doesn't mean they have the right to prohibit it either. The proper course of action, in my opinion, would have been for Apple to ignore it, as it is doing with the OSx86 people.
If what you want to buy is not available in the form you want, too bad. They don't have to sell it to you, and you don't have any right to take it.
Right, but I do have the right to buy it in the form that Apple is offering it, and then modify it to suit my needs.
The question then becomes, "do I have the right to re-sell my modified version?" If we were talking about a physical product (like a car with a tuned engine) then the answer would be simply "yes." But since we're talking about a copyrighted work, the answer might be "no" because it could be considered a derivative work. However, I argue that in this case it ought to be allowed, because the modification is functional (rather than creative) in nature.
Au contraire, that is the entire basis of their counterclaim. They are claiming a nonexistent per se rule that the sale of [Apple's] OS cannot be restricted. Period.
Au contraire yourself! They're not claiming that there's a rule that the sale can't be restricted; in fact, they've already bought the copies! They're claiming that there's a rule that the use can't be restricted. And that's true: the rule is called "the principle of private ownership of property!"
Offering a product based on the existing ownership of a qualifying product does not mean that the product has to be offered to an audience outside that group at any price, let alone the favorable price.
But OS X is being offered to an audience outside the group of Mac owners. You don't have to prove you own a Mac before the salesperson will allow you to buy it, after all. We're talking about an unreasonable restriction imposed after the sale here.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't the more relevant statistic be the amount of grazing land per cow? If the US raises more than 8.5 times more head of cattle than NZ, it could be the case that the NZ beef has a higher proportion of grass in its diet. Of course, that's still an average; the reality is that some cattle are fed 100% grass and others are fed 100% processed feed.
I'd say the reasoning was not just absurd, but multiply absurd: not even does the US have more grass than NZ, but that statistic is pretty much useless anyway!
Look at the sidebar on the left on this page, as well as the listing for each school. Also note that many of the better public universities are "Tier 1," not just the ivy-league schools. Granted, it takes a little while to get to them (unless I'm mistaken, the first is UC Berkeley at #21), but they're there.
Tax advantages, maybe?
Not to mention... if she's your true love, do you really want the Dark Lord Sauron coming after her?!
My problem with "moissanite" is that all the jewelers feel the need to be pretentious about it. Why can't they just call it "silicon carbide," which is what it actually is?
What, where should it be?
Should I be concerned with Hans' happiness? No, he's a murderer.
Should I be concerned with Nina's happiness? No, she's dead.
Should I be concerned with Nina's family's and children's happiness? Sure, but what do they care whether Hans does programming in prison or not?
Yeah, it's a crappy situation, but we might as well make the best of it.
He already has a business.
Intelligence is not one-dimensional. It's entirely possible to be brilliant at something like math or logic, but be completely socially inept (even to the point of autism) or sociopathic.
Murder isn't a computer-related offense, so I don't see why he can't just keep working on ReiserFS (as opposed to merely documenting it) while he's incarcerated. The way I see it, it's a win-win situation (for us): he's removed from society and punished by being unable to profit from his work (i.e., he won't be able to run Namesys from prison), but he'd have all the free time in the world to write code for us!
Posting this for the third fucking time in this thread! Woo!
USC Title 17, Section 117:
As you can see, installing the program does not count as copyright infringement.
First, I think a lot of people who would, had they been born 30 years earlier, have been working on cars got into computers instead. Second, some of us weren't fortunate enough to grow up in an environment where we were able to do stuff like work on cars. I, for example, was prohibited from even attempting such a thing because my parents didn't want me to "mess up the garage." They wouldn't even let me so much as change my own oil! And of course, now that I'm no longer living at home I still can't do it because the apartment complex prohibits it too!
Personally, I'd like to see GPUs socketed in the motherboard in the same way floating point coprocessors used to be. I think AMD/ATI would be well-positioned to do this, considering that they have both good GPU technology and good bus technology (HyperTransport).
Nope, he really did mean "troll". Not only is it a real word, they even make motors for that purpose. (In contrast, there is no such thing as a "trawling motor.")
That's not true. See Wikipedia. (I could find specific cases to refute you with, but I'm not going to waste my time doing so just to debate a dumbass on Slashdot).
What are you, stupid? What was purchased was the software!
The answer is that physical reality and the law are independent of each other. Yes, it's a copy, but it doesn't count for the purposes of copyright. See USC Title 17, 117:
Alright, let's say that I did that instead. Then I used the computer for some period of time. Then I got tired of the thing, and sold it ad a garage sale. Is Apple justified in suing me now, too? What makes me different from Psystar?
I say there's no difference, and that Psystar has the same rights as anybody else.
It's not a fair use exception, it's affirmative and explicit permission codified into the law. See USC Title 17 section 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs:
Clause 1 gives Psystar the right to modify (i.e., "adapt") OS X and install it on their hardware, and clause 2 gives Psystar the right to resell the result provided that it includes the original disks as part of the sale, which it does.
Because to do otherwise violates the customer's fundamental right to use his own property in whatever manner he pleases within the bounds of the law. (And note that "within the bounds of the law" means within restrictions imposed by the State, not ones attempted to be imposed by Apple.)
If IBM sells boxed copies of AIX separate from its workstations, and that those copies of AIX happened to be compatible with the other PPC-based computer, such that the only thing stopping you was the AIX EULA? Then yes!
Incidentally, you seem to think that I'm basing my opinion on anti-trust grounds. I'm not. I'm basing my opinion purely on the idea that EULAs -- all EULAs, not just Apple's -- are not valid contracts because they are imposed after the sale (and thus are contracts of adhesion) and don't give the owner any rights that he didn't already have anyway (and thus provide no "valuable consideration").
It would also be difficult for Mac owners whose hard drives failed, who lost their original CDs, or who otherwise no longer had their original copy.
You apparently don't understand what I said. I merely suggested that the correct course of action would be for Apple to continue to do what it's already doing: selling boxed copies of OS X that claim to only be compatible with Macs, and ignore people who run it on something else.
Functionally modifying it no more creates a derivative work than writing notes in the margins of a book does. And people resell books modified in that manner all the time, perfectly legally!
Go re-read the example I just gave.
Not by the copyright holder, it can't! Sure, use of a lot of things can be restricted by law: copyright law, laws restricting firearms, etc. But Apple is not the government, and it has no such right to impose restrictions.
WTF? USING MY OWN FUCKING PROPERTY most certainly IS a right that I possess!
Exactly: nothing can be imposed after the sale, which means that those words that Apple claims represent an EULA have no legal weight. They certainly weren't imposed before the sale, nor were they imposed during the sale -- if they were, then the Apple salesperson would be able to show me the contract I signed. But I signed no such contract, so no terms were imposed. All that leaves is the possibility that they were imposed after the sale, but you just agreed with me that that didn't happen either. Therefore, no terms were imposed by the alleged "EULA," ever. QED.
I never claimed that it did. What I claim is that, since those box contents are my property, I have the right to execute them using my computer, and ignore any bits that I don't like.
If there were a genuine contract imposed and agreed to before the sale, then it'd be different. But there was no such contract!
Not quite; big chunks of it are from BSD, GNU, and others.
If the firmware was substantially different and better than that on the other TV (enough to make me care strongly enough about it), and the other TV were capable of running said firmware, and I had a legally-obtained copy to install, such that the only restriction would be the EULA of the firmware?
Then yes, I would get all pissy about it!
In a lawsuit, both parties tend to try to throw everything at the wall that they can, and see what sticks. Psystar's anti-trust argument isn't gonna stick IMO, but their lawyer's would be negligent if they didn't try it.
They're under no obligation to officially sanction it, I agree. However, that doesn't mean they have the right to prohibit it either. The proper course of action, in my opinion, would have been for Apple to ignore it, as it is doing with the OSx86 people.
Right, but I do have the right to buy it in the form that Apple is offering it, and then modify it to suit my needs.
The question then becomes, "do I have the right to re-sell my modified version?" If we were talking about a physical product (like a car with a tuned engine) then the answer would be simply "yes." But since we're talking about a copyrighted work, the answer might be "no" because it could be considered a derivative work. However, I argue that in this case it ought to be allowed, because the modification is functional (rather than creative) in nature.
Au contraire yourself! They're not claiming that there's a rule that the sale can't be restricted; in fact, they've already bought the copies! They're claiming that there's a rule that the use can't be restricted. And that's true: the rule is called "the principle of private ownership of property!"
But OS X is being offered to an audience outside the group of Mac owners. You don't have to prove you own a Mac before the salesperson will allow you to buy it, after all. We're talking about an unreasonable restriction imposed after the sale here.
See my response to a similar argument here.