In that case, you should go after iTunes, too. I could give my username & password to four of my best friends and let them all download the latest track I've purchased.
The component that you're missing is intent, and intent is a critical element of most crimes (yes, I know, copyright violation is not a crime, yet).
Go use an iPhone. It quickly becomes obvious why pinching zooms out and spreading zooms in. It maps very nicely to how your mind thinks of what you just did with your fingers. You put your fingertips on two points on the screen, and as you move your fingertips together or apart, the screen zooms so that those two points on the image remain under your fingertips. It maps nicely to what you'd expect in the physical world.
All of what you say may be fact. But Apple deserves credit for the one MOST IMPORTANT THING you did not mention. They actually produced a product with the technology. I don't care in the slightest if someone else demonstrated it at some show a few years back, I care if I can use it right now on my own computer. Apple gets credit for forcing the industry to move forward -- very soon all touchscreens & trackpads will need to support multitouch, or be considered stone-age. It's kinda similar to visual voicemail on the iphone -- so completely obvious, yet nobody bothered to do it until Apple did. How long until every cell phone has visual voice mail? How come it took this long to leverage the fancy graphical interfaces and break voicemail from the audio-only interface of the past?
Kudos to Apple for pushing the technology. I don't care that they did not invent it.
The real issue is that you cannot install OSX on non-Apple hardware. And by cannot, I do not mean because Apple says no, I mean because it simply won't install. To make a Hackintosh you have to mix OSX together with OpenDarwin and stir. That's not the copy of OSX you can buy at the store. Trying to pass it off as a legal copy of Leopard is fraud. Do anything you want with *your own* copy of Leopard, but if you try to sell modified copies, Apple can and should sue.
The article itself is from yesterday, not today, so I would not immediately jump to the conclusion that it is an April Fools joke just because Slashdot took a day to post a summary.
Exactly what I was thinking. I work for a CLEC, and I have a rough idea how much things cost -- compare what a Lucent 5E costs with what a top of the line Cisco router costs, and you have the answer why voice service achieves five-nines while data service typically does not.
I can't 'perform' my software as a software developer, but it can be distributed at zero cost.
You gave an example that refutes your own statement. We already live in a world where developers are paid to write software which is distributed at no cost.
Books have a tangible value, so they will continue to be sold. Electronic copies of books have no value, but many of us LIKE the physical books and will pay for their continued existence, so I think authors are safe. Drugs are not electronic in any situation so I do not know why you included those in your argument. Musicians will perform for a fee, and the free distribution of their music will benefit that more than hurt it.
Finally, as much as I hate to say it since I am a fan of the U.S. Constitution... you need to understand that it was written two centuries ago and the founders had not the slightest inkling of what was coming. No amount of legislation will ever overcome the reality of the digital world. Fighting it is doing far more harm then help to our nation's economy. We will quibble about the intellectual property, companies will suspend forward progress while fighting patent holding companies that don't produce *anything*, and in the meantime other countries without such qualms will march right on by and take the lead.
1. American automakers produce cars of all types, including ones that get super gas mileage.
2. Toyota makes cars other than the Yaris, including pickups which get abysmal gas mileage.
3. The Japanese automakers do not have the only engineers that can produce good cars (my Japanese car has been to the shop for repairs equaling anything I've ever experienced with my past Ford cars).
4. Nor do the Japanese hold the exclusive rights to competent economists.
5. My car is a high performance car, gets about ~20 mpg, and is made in Japan, not America.
Basically what I'm saying is... there is nothing unique about the American automakers that doesn't exist in Japan. If anything, the Japanese automakers are working overtime to become more like the big three with their vehicle offerings. At least one Japanese automaker (Subaru) is going to have a hard time meeting 35 mpg CAFE unless they fundamentally change their offering (drop the trademark AWD they use in all their cars). In the end, if prices start to go up for fuel, all manufacturers, including American ones, will adapt. It will mean fewer soccer moms with their prized 6000lb SUV, but I think that's a good thing.
And the free market will take care of things. The only reason electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, etc are not being used extensively right now is because oil is still cheaper. As it becomes scarce, the economics will change and the problem will solve itself.
You think Apple should leave posts in its own forums that are soliciting for participation in a class action lawsuit? That is absurd. If you want a soapbox, pay for it yourself. I do not see how any company (even Microsoft, as much as I despise them...) is required to support you in your quest to take money from them.
I keep seeing this argument. It's complete and utter bullshit. Hacking the iPhone to unlock it is not at all like installing third party software. It's more like taking Windows and hacking it to take an invalid key. And Microsoft *has* retaliated against OS hacks with service packs.
You assume that the application in question does not depend on network access. In these days of the Internet-connected world, that does not seem a safe assumption.
IMO, a lie detector test amounts to a statement by the defendant. And as such, I feel that it should be strictly under the control of the defendant whether it is admitted in the trial or not. The defendant can invoke their right against self incrimination and refuse to let it be admitted, or they can choose to testify and let it be admitted.
If you read the article, that is precisely what happened here. It would bother me if the court were introducing polygraph evidence over the objection of the defense.
It's hardly specific to Microsoft. It's the same reason we get so many Apple stories, as well. People like controversy, and they like to bash whatever they don't like. Welcome to Slashdot.
forgot to mention... (sorry, I hit submit before it occured to me;-))
OSX Terminal is one of the few terminal programs I've used on any OS that dynamically re-wraps existing text in a window if you resize the window. That is very handy. OSX Terminal is otherwise a fairly minimal setup, but it is reliable. I sometimes wish it had tabs, but I generally use screen in any case for session portability, so it's not super critical to me to have elaborate terminal management via the GUI.
If ideological reasons were the basis for wanting to run Linux on a Mac, then that is a half-assed conversion. Take an expensive, proprietary machine just to put a free OS on it? A better idea would be to sell the Mac (especially since they hold value so well) and build a PC from parts. That is more ideal, as it makes the hardware a bit more free as well. And financially it makes a lot more sense.
I don't see any other good reason to do the conversion except for ideology. I own a couple of Macs, and a couple of PCs -- and the only reason I forked over the premium for the Mac hardware was so I could run OSX. If I wanted to run Linux I'd save my money and buy another PC.
Ha, I was about to come in and say the same thing. I've always been disappointed in the Linux scheduler compared with my Solaris servers. I run an ISP and frequently get abnormally high load spikes -- my Linux servers handle the load poorly, degrading all of the sudden to gridlock. The Solaris servers, on the other hand, degrade gracefully, still serving up requests but getting slower as the load skyrockets.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, you should go after iTunes, too. I could give my username & password to four of my best friends and let them all download the latest track I've purchased.
The component that you're missing is intent, and intent is a critical element of most crimes (yes, I know, copyright violation is not a crime, yet).
On the bright side, that means there is hope for your comment, too.
Go use an iPhone. It quickly becomes obvious why pinching zooms out and spreading zooms in. It maps very nicely to how your mind thinks of what you just did with your fingers. You put your fingertips on two points on the screen, and as you move your fingertips together or apart, the screen zooms so that those two points on the image remain under your fingertips. It maps nicely to what you'd expect in the physical world.
All of what you say may be fact. But Apple deserves credit for the one MOST IMPORTANT THING you did not mention. They actually produced a product with the technology. I don't care in the slightest if someone else demonstrated it at some show a few years back, I care if I can use it right now on my own computer. Apple gets credit for forcing the industry to move forward -- very soon all touchscreens & trackpads will need to support multitouch, or be considered stone-age. It's kinda similar to visual voicemail on the iphone -- so completely obvious, yet nobody bothered to do it until Apple did. How long until every cell phone has visual voice mail? How come it took this long to leverage the fancy graphical interfaces and break voicemail from the audio-only interface of the past?
Kudos to Apple for pushing the technology. I don't care that they did not invent it.
The real issue is that you cannot install OSX on non-Apple hardware. And by cannot, I do not mean because Apple says no, I mean because it simply won't install. To make a Hackintosh you have to mix OSX together with OpenDarwin and stir. That's not the copy of OSX you can buy at the store. Trying to pass it off as a legal copy of Leopard is fraud. Do anything you want with *your own* copy of Leopard, but if you try to sell modified copies, Apple can and should sue.
The article itself is from yesterday, not today, so I would not immediately jump to the conclusion that it is an April Fools joke just because Slashdot took a day to post a summary.
Don't mix up aluminum foil and tin foil, they are very different things...
Exactly what I was thinking. I work for a CLEC, and I have a rough idea how much things cost -- compare what a Lucent 5E costs with what a top of the line Cisco router costs, and you have the answer why voice service achieves five-nines while data service typically does not.
I can't 'perform' my software as a software developer, but it can be distributed at zero cost.
... you need to understand that it was written two centuries ago and the founders had not the slightest inkling of what was coming. No amount of legislation will ever overcome the reality of the digital world. Fighting it is doing far more harm then help to our nation's economy. We will quibble about the intellectual property, companies will suspend forward progress while fighting patent holding companies that don't produce *anything*, and in the meantime other countries without such qualms will march right on by and take the lead.
You gave an example that refutes your own statement. We already live in a world where developers are paid to write software which is distributed at no cost.
Books have a tangible value, so they will continue to be sold. Electronic copies of books have no value, but many of us LIKE the physical books and will pay for their continued existence, so I think authors are safe. Drugs are not electronic in any situation so I do not know why you included those in your argument. Musicians will perform for a fee, and the free distribution of their music will benefit that more than hurt it.
Finally, as much as I hate to say it since I am a fan of the U.S. Constitution
American automaker sales depend on cheap gas
... there is nothing unique about the American automakers that doesn't exist in Japan. If anything, the Japanese automakers are working overtime to become more like the big three with their vehicle offerings. At least one Japanese automaker (Subaru) is going to have a hard time meeting 35 mpg CAFE unless they fundamentally change their offering (drop the trademark AWD they use in all their cars). In the end, if prices start to go up for fuel, all manufacturers, including American ones, will adapt. It will mean fewer soccer moms with their prized 6000lb SUV, but I think that's a good thing.
1. American automakers produce cars of all types, including ones that get super gas mileage.
2. Toyota makes cars other than the Yaris, including pickups which get abysmal gas mileage.
3. The Japanese automakers do not have the only engineers that can produce good cars (my Japanese car has been to the shop for repairs equaling anything I've ever experienced with my past Ford cars).
4. Nor do the Japanese hold the exclusive rights to competent economists.
5. My car is a high performance car, gets about ~20 mpg, and is made in Japan, not America.
Basically what I'm saying is
I'm not really sure why you're getting moderated insightful...
Because he was pointing out that anecdotal evidence is worthless.
Switchgrass. Before it was cut down for cornfields, that is what natively grew in much of the midwest, and it is a great source for making ethanol.
And the free market will take care of things. The only reason electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, etc are not being used extensively right now is because oil is still cheaper. As it becomes scarce, the economics will change and the problem will solve itself.
I believe that has been debunked as an urban legend. Read more here: http://www.dansdata.com/gz011.htm
You think Apple should leave posts in its own forums that are soliciting for participation in a class action lawsuit? That is absurd. If you want a soapbox, pay for it yourself. I do not see how any company (even Microsoft, as much as I despise them...) is required to support you in your quest to take money from them.
I keep seeing this argument. It's complete and utter bullshit. Hacking the iPhone to unlock it is not at all like installing third party software. It's more like taking Windows and hacking it to take an invalid key. And Microsoft *has* retaliated against OS hacks with service packs.
You assume that the application in question does not depend on network access. In these days of the Internet-connected world, that does not seem a safe assumption.
IMO, a lie detector test amounts to a statement by the defendant. And as such, I feel that it should be strictly under the control of the defendant whether it is admitted in the trial or not. The defendant can invoke their right against self incrimination and refuse to let it be admitted, or they can choose to testify and let it be admitted.
If you read the article, that is precisely what happened here. It would bother me if the court were introducing polygraph evidence over the objection of the defense.
It's hardly specific to Microsoft. It's the same reason we get so many Apple stories, as well. People like controversy, and they like to bash whatever they don't like. Welcome to Slashdot.
forgot to mention... (sorry, I hit submit before it occured to me ;-))
OSX Terminal is one of the few terminal programs I've used on any OS that dynamically re-wraps existing text in a window if you resize the window. That is very handy. OSX Terminal is otherwise a fairly minimal setup, but it is reliable. I sometimes wish it had tabs, but I generally use screen in any case for session portability, so it's not super critical to me to have elaborate terminal management via the GUI.
Ummm... when I hit Ctrl-D, it DOES close the terminal. Ever thought about examining the preferences? I guess not.
Oh how I wish I had mod points to give.
If ideological reasons were the basis for wanting to run Linux on a Mac, then that is a half-assed conversion. Take an expensive, proprietary machine just to put a free OS on it? A better idea would be to sell the Mac (especially since they hold value so well) and build a PC from parts. That is more ideal, as it makes the hardware a bit more free as well. And financially it makes a lot more sense.
I don't see any other good reason to do the conversion except for ideology. I own a couple of Macs, and a couple of PCs -- and the only reason I forked over the premium for the Mac hardware was so I could run OSX. If I wanted to run Linux I'd save my money and buy another PC.
Ha, I was about to come in and say the same thing. I've always been disappointed in the Linux scheduler compared with my Solaris servers. I run an ISP and frequently get abnormally high load spikes -- my Linux servers handle the load poorly, degrading all of the sudden to gridlock. The Solaris servers, on the other hand, degrade gracefully, still serving up requests but getting slower as the load skyrockets.
And Slashdot mangled that. Let's try again.
| +-o TPM <class IOACPIPlatformDevice, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain count 6>