Heck, no one sane believes that clones are good for Apple. Apple business model is based in control, and clones will take away that. But that is not what we're discussing here: the question is that a provision in an EULA should not inhibit you from using a piece of software you legally purchased. IMNSHO, this is BS, regardless of which side the courts take. If Apple don't want Leopard to be installed in non Apple hardware, simply don't fucking SELL IT. Bundle it with every Mac sold only, send updates to registered users. As long as I can walk into a store and buy a box of Leopard without signing a damn contract I should be morally able to do whatsoever comes into my mind with it.
And, yeah, I am typing this from a very expensive Macbook (brazilian taxes sucks).
You probably have a lot more money now, I guess. So the general idea of TFA is preserved: people who will pirate a certain game won't buy it, and people who buy won't pirate it. I agree with some comments that say the distinction is not so clear, but I tend to think this distinction is indeed clear in a per-game basis. People who buy game X may happily download game Y. Sometimes, by downloading it, he/she may become a fan and even buy the game. So, for a given game in a certain time in a gamer's life, I'd say this is pretty accurate.
Unless wikipedia has a very different definition of consensus than I do, it isn't happening. Go to the logs of the deleted articles and see for yourself: a lot of people argued against the deletion.
Like, someone other than me, the person that is paying for that connection? If my TOS does not forbid me to use VoIP over the network, why should Apple go over their heads to do it, when other plataforms don't?
I'd see someone defending these actions, at all places, here in/... So it is different from a standard laptop. So what? One can't cram C4 or some liquid explosive in a standard laptop with a HDD and a DVD drive? In fact, good luck finding any spare space to do that with a MacBook Air.
The question is, if a MBA can be concealing an explosive device, or been tampered with to interfere with the flight, so can any laptop out there. So ban all laptops in flight, and go live your 1984 paradise. Only a moron would be suspicious of a notebook because it has no parallel ports - I would be much more apprehensive of the opposite.
Schopenhauer wasn't familiar with the concept of relational databases. Having articles on fiction do not mess with or make non-fiction articles less available, unlike a physical lybrary. It is all a matter of image; deletionists want wikipedia to have an image of a traditional encyclopedia. What bothers me is that they want to impose their ideals of relevance and value to everyone else.
If there is more content on Scooby-doo, it means people (or the subset of people that reads AND writes Wikipedia) are more interested in Scooby-Doo than Napoleonic Wars. Dismissing Scooby-Doo articles because they are "less important" than historical facts is subjective; different things appeal to different people. The existence of the so-called "fancraft" by deletionists do not prevent them from adding content to topics they judge important; so why don't they do it instead of deleting other people's hard work? As someone pointed over, articles on the Christian Bible may be considered fiction to an atheist. Conversely, the theory of evolution may be unworthy of figuring in an encyclopedia for some religious groups. Are you willing to delete it all, since consensus is obviously impossible?
Way too conservative, I'd say. They deleted whole, complete and well researched articles on the Warcraft universe because it wasn't "encyclopedic". Also a lot of Star Wars stuff has been deleted too. Basically deletionists view with bad eyes everything that is fiction related, and dismiss it. Basically anything that is not traditionally accepted as "knowledge" has no place in Wikipedia in their eyes. It is an extremely prejudicial position, not to mention that deletion of articles should be done by consent - but it isn't. Deletionists are like trolls: since destroying content is much easier than creating, they can win over a similar number of inclusionists no matter how hard the latters try.
Based on the difficulties Wikipedia has had to raise money lately, I'd say most people don't like their stand. Fork wikipedia already, I say, and create an all inclusive wiki, before there is only a handfull of articles left which reference Britannica as their only reliable source. Sigh.
English is not my native language, but the parent has a point. If I were to mean (25mm)^2, I'd say 25 mm squared. 25mm square just doesn't have a proper meaning AFAIK, and can lead to confusion; 25 square mm is the right way to say it (25 mm^2) "aloud".
Sounds just like your description. Smaller screen, solid state storage (much less than what you expect, but one can always add a 16GB USB stick). Unfortunately its battery life is nowhere near 12 hours, but I guess it is a feasible goal.
According to the parent, copyrighted works do not constitute a free-market. They are a state-granted monopoly, and so the laws of supply and demand do not apply. And I can hardly disagree. Only MS can sell Vista. You may say there are viable alternatives, like Linux or OS X or BSD or whatever; but supposing you need Vista, you can only obtain it from MS. Just like if you need/want a Harry Potter book, you can just obtain it from Scholastic or whoever happen to be the publisher. Regardless of whether you think it should be a monopoly or not, it is hard to think otherwise.
I wholeheartedly agree that piracy isn't the right word to describe these phenomena - piracy is used to imply selling unauthorized copies, counterfeiting, cloning, file-sharing, cracking into remote machines, and possibly some other stuff I am forgetting right now. But just like I've given up trying to tell people that hacking != cracking, I am weary of repeating that copyright infringement is just that. There is no wooden-legged foul-stenched man trying to kill anyone with a dagger when a file is transferred via BT. But I am tired of arguing; I've come to accept that people might see the word "pirate" with a different meaning than it had before, and we might erase the bad concepts associated with it.
With a strong emphasis on "reasonable". Why was he awarded only about US$20k when RIAA asks for millions per song? Why didn't the FBI snoop on the publication (and all other publications) to cohibit the heinous offense of copyright infringement in printed media? All this make me sick. Corporations are allowed to rewrite the law, do away with far use, extend copyright and ask for immoral compensation - and yet they'd like all these laws were not applied when they are in the receiving end of the stick. In any case, I can see why some people may label this particular case as theft. Not only they used his work without his consent, but they also claimed it wasn't his, and that they in fact had the right to use instead of the original creator - via a fake document. So, I'd say in this case, they were stealing from him; had the judge sided with the other side he would be effectually unable to use his work anymore, and that might be equal to theft. But before all the "piracy is theft" crowd begin to cheer, I have never seen our mates at TPB claiming they own or produced any of the works their torrents lead to.
Yes, a replicator would disrupt current bussiness practices just like the Internet has disrupted the media distributing industry. Will that lead to anarchy? I don't know. We, as in our society, can simply adapt. How will "hardware" providers adapt to that is another question alltogether. If you can replicate (out of a bunch of almost free matter, I presume) a brand new Ferrari, how is anyone paying anything for a ferrari anymore? This would be probably be outlawed - out of pressure from the industry if nothing else. Curiously, IANAL, but I would defend that replicating something doesn't infringe on whatever patent was used to build it - since you don't have to *know* oe even *use* any of the methods described in the patent to replicate it. Weird.
You gave the answer yourself; he wasn't an employee. He wasn't "inside". So he couldn't have inside information. The ruling is right, in my eyes, however absurd that might seem at first.
it is probably going to work. Suppose your next president, whoever he/she may be, has the guts to do away wth this madness. All it takes is a small terrorist attack, and the government will back up. Look up at Israel. Every time there is a tiny hope of agreement, there are bombings and things go back to where they were. You've got yourselves in a pretty good mess my friends.
The guy is dead. Get over it. I didn't realize this Aussie was so popular as to have so much importance in American politics. Brokeback Mountain must've been a huge success.
After all, in a democratic country, if a very large percentage of the population willingly infringes a law, there is a very strong case that the law is wrong, not the people. So I guess in any (truly) democratic country file-sharing and similar attitudes regarding "intellectual property" should be legal.
Where is the part where we get off your lawn?;) But I really think story driven FPSs such as Halo don't have that kind of replayability. Not only FPSs have become shorter, adventure games as well. Most PS3s games are said to last only a few hours. I know increasing developing costs may be blamed for that, but for a certain type of game, just a few hours of gameplay won't cut it for me. I'd rather play longer, less detailed but more immersive games, where I can relate to the story and characters, than a short burst of super photorealistic graphics galore. This may be good enough to "Serious Sam" games, where you just shoot everything in sight. But heck, even the original Quake was way longer than what we get today and you can't call it exactly a story driven FPS.
So I won't get into the thick of the discussion.
but "8ish" hours isn't incredible short, for a full blown game??? Man, what have marketing people done to us gamers that we accept a game that lasts only 8 hours! These are sad times indeed. I wouldn't expect even an episode or expansion to last that little. A good FPS for me should have some 40-30 hours of gameplay, period.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, no one sane believes that clones are good for Apple. Apple business model is based in control, and clones will take away that. But that is not what we're discussing here: the question is that a provision in an EULA should not inhibit you from using a piece of software you legally purchased. IMNSHO, this is BS, regardless of which side the courts take. If Apple don't want Leopard to be installed in non Apple hardware, simply don't fucking SELL IT. Bundle it with every Mac sold only, send updates to registered users. As long as I can walk into a store and buy a box of Leopard without signing a damn contract I should be morally able to do whatsoever comes into my mind with it.
And, yeah, I am typing this from a very expensive Macbook (brazilian taxes sucks).
You probably have a lot more money now, I guess. So the general idea of TFA is preserved: people who will pirate a certain game won't buy it, and people who buy won't pirate it. I agree with some comments that say the distinction is not so clear, but I tend to think this distinction is indeed clear in a per-game basis. People who buy game X may happily download game Y. Sometimes, by downloading it, he/she may become a fan and even buy the game. So, for a given game in a certain time in a gamer's life, I'd say this is pretty accurate.
You should be happy both Wonkas were goatse-less instead of complaining.
Unless wikipedia has a very different definition of consensus than I do, it isn't happening. Go to the logs of the deleted articles and see for yourself: a lot of people argued against the deletion.
if it was that unthinkable, he wouldn't have bothered asking.
It should have been consensus.
Like, someone other than me, the person that is paying for that connection? If my TOS does not forbid me to use VoIP over the network, why should Apple go over their heads to do it, when other plataforms don't?
I'd see someone defending these actions, at all places, here in /... So it is different from a standard laptop. So what? One can't cram C4 or some liquid explosive in a standard laptop with a HDD and a DVD drive? In fact, good luck finding any spare space to do that with a MacBook Air.
The question is, if a MBA can be concealing an explosive device, or been tampered with to interfere with the flight, so can any laptop out there. So ban all laptops in flight, and go live your 1984 paradise. Only a moron would be suspicious of a notebook because it has no parallel ports - I would be much more apprehensive of the opposite.
Schopenhauer wasn't familiar with the concept of relational databases. Having articles on fiction do not mess with or make non-fiction articles less available, unlike a physical lybrary. It is all a matter of image; deletionists want wikipedia to have an image of a traditional encyclopedia. What bothers me is that they want to impose their ideals of relevance and value to everyone else.
If there is more content on Scooby-doo, it means people (or the subset of people that reads AND writes Wikipedia) are more interested in Scooby-Doo than Napoleonic Wars. Dismissing Scooby-Doo articles because they are "less important" than historical facts is subjective; different things appeal to different people. The existence of the so-called "fancraft" by deletionists do not prevent them from adding content to topics they judge important; so why don't they do it instead of deleting other people's hard work? As someone pointed over, articles on the Christian Bible may be considered fiction to an atheist. Conversely, the theory of evolution may be unworthy of figuring in an encyclopedia for some religious groups. Are you willing to delete it all, since consensus is obviously impossible?
Way too conservative, I'd say. They deleted whole, complete and well researched articles on the Warcraft universe because it wasn't "encyclopedic". Also a lot of Star Wars stuff has been deleted too. Basically deletionists view with bad eyes everything that is fiction related, and dismiss it. Basically anything that is not traditionally accepted as "knowledge" has no place in Wikipedia in their eyes. It is an extremely prejudicial position, not to mention that deletion of articles should be done by consent - but it isn't. Deletionists are like trolls: since destroying content is much easier than creating, they can win over a similar number of inclusionists no matter how hard the latters try.
Based on the difficulties Wikipedia has had to raise money lately, I'd say most people don't like their stand. Fork wikipedia already, I say, and create an all inclusive wiki, before there is only a handfull of articles left which reference Britannica as their only reliable source. Sigh.
English is not my native language, but the parent has a point. If I were to mean (25mm)^2, I'd say 25 mm squared. 25mm square just doesn't have a proper meaning AFAIK, and can lead to confusion; 25 square mm is the right way to say it (25 mm^2) "aloud".
Sounds just like your description. Smaller screen, solid state storage (much less than what you expect, but one can always add a 16GB USB stick). Unfortunately its battery life is nowhere near 12 hours, but I guess it is a feasible goal.
According to the parent, copyrighted works do not constitute a free-market. They are a state-granted monopoly, and so the laws of supply and demand do not apply. And I can hardly disagree. Only MS can sell Vista. You may say there are viable alternatives, like Linux or OS X or BSD or whatever; but supposing you need Vista, you can only obtain it from MS. Just like if you need/want a Harry Potter book, you can just obtain it from Scholastic or whoever happen to be the publisher. Regardless of whether you think it should be a monopoly or not, it is hard to think otherwise.
I wholeheartedly agree that piracy isn't the right word to describe these phenomena - piracy is used to imply selling unauthorized copies, counterfeiting, cloning, file-sharing, cracking into remote machines, and possibly some other stuff I am forgetting right now. But just like I've given up trying to tell people that hacking != cracking, I am weary of repeating that copyright infringement is just that. There is no wooden-legged foul-stenched man trying to kill anyone with a dagger when a file is transferred via BT. But I am tired of arguing; I've come to accept that people might see the word "pirate" with a different meaning than it had before, and we might erase the bad concepts associated with it.
With a strong emphasis on "reasonable". Why was he awarded only about US$20k when RIAA asks for millions per song? Why didn't the FBI snoop on the publication (and all other publications) to cohibit the heinous offense of copyright infringement in printed media? All this make me sick. Corporations are allowed to rewrite the law, do away with far use, extend copyright and ask for immoral compensation - and yet they'd like all these laws were not applied when they are in the receiving end of the stick. In any case, I can see why some people may label this particular case as theft. Not only they used his work without his consent, but they also claimed it wasn't his, and that they in fact had the right to use instead of the original creator - via a fake document. So, I'd say in this case, they were stealing from him; had the judge sided with the other side he would be effectually unable to use his work anymore, and that might be equal to theft. But before all the "piracy is theft" crowd begin to cheer, I have never seen our mates at TPB claiming they own or produced any of the works their torrents lead to.
Yes, a replicator would disrupt current bussiness practices just like the Internet has disrupted the media distributing industry. Will that lead to anarchy? I don't know. We, as in our society, can simply adapt. How will "hardware" providers adapt to that is another question alltogether. If you can replicate (out of a bunch of almost free matter, I presume) a brand new Ferrari, how is anyone paying anything for a ferrari anymore? This would be probably be outlawed - out of pressure from the industry if nothing else. Curiously, IANAL, but I would defend that replicating something doesn't infringe on whatever patent was used to build it - since you don't have to *know* oe even *use* any of the methods described in the patent to replicate it. Weird.
has the RAM soldered in the motherboard! I knew Apple was thinking of our security all along!!!
/*ducks*/
You gave the answer yourself; he wasn't an employee. He wasn't "inside". So he couldn't have inside information. The ruling is right, in my eyes, however absurd that might seem at first.
it is probably going to work. Suppose your next president, whoever he/she may be, has the guts to do away wth this madness. All it takes is a small terrorist attack, and the government will back up. Look up at Israel. Every time there is a tiny hope of agreement, there are bombings and things go back to where they were. You've got yourselves in a pretty good mess my friends.
The guy is dead. Get over it. I didn't realize this Aussie was so popular as to have so much importance in American politics. Brokeback Mountain must've been a huge success.
After all, in a democratic country, if a very large percentage of the population willingly infringes a law, there is a very strong case that the law is wrong, not the people. So I guess in any (truly) democratic country file-sharing and similar attitudes regarding "intellectual property" should be legal.
emigrate to Sweden? Man, not only they make the best pr0n, now they will (hopefully) legalize file-sharing...
Where is the part where we get off your lawn? ;) But I really think story driven FPSs such as Halo don't have that kind of replayability. Not only FPSs have become shorter, adventure games as well. Most PS3s games are said to last only a few hours. I know increasing developing costs may be blamed for that, but for a certain type of game, just a few hours of gameplay won't cut it for me. I'd rather play longer, less detailed but more immersive games, where I can relate to the story and characters, than a short burst of super photorealistic graphics galore. This may be good enough to "Serious Sam" games, where you just shoot everything in sight. But heck, even the original Quake was way longer than what we get today and you can't call it exactly a story driven FPS.
So I won't get into the thick of the discussion. but "8ish" hours isn't incredible short, for a full blown game??? Man, what have marketing people done to us gamers that we accept a game that lasts only 8 hours! These are sad times indeed. I wouldn't expect even an episode or expansion to last that little. A good FPS for me should have some 40-30 hours of gameplay, period.