Even a warrented wiretap is given by someone we have to 'trust'.
I've never heard the arguments for a wiretap or a warrent. It happens in a judges chambers, behind closed doors.
Even when done perfectly by the book, we still have to trust someone else that we don't know or see/hear the arguments.
We don't vote on these things. They are never truely a public matter when they are issued.
They are however, in theory, done by two seperate branchs of government and hopefully the two work together to get the job done, but not so together that we get screwed.
In the end though, if you have a judge in your pocket, its not really that different than a warrentless search.
So when theres a line that says, 'stand here to respect our constitution', and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded, are you going to get in it? Based purely on your blanket statement?
Now before you tell us yes, realize that no one is actually going to believe that bullshit.
'These people' that we're 'fighting' believe THEY have the moral high ground and that we are scum of the Earth. Nothing anyone does is going to change that.
Its easy to say 'Fuck the cowards' when you aren't in any threat yourself. Its easy to say 'There are some things you don't do' when your life, or your families life isn't on the line. Its easy to make blanket statements with no consideration for the situation. Its also extremely ignorant
I doubt there should be any warrentless wiretaps, and in principal I am against it, but I've come to many cross roads in my short little life where my principals and morals were highly conflicted, several choices I've made were 100% moral from one perspective, and practically evil from another. Sometimes in the end I got it right, sometimes I didn't and others were hurt. Most of the time it falls somewhere in the middle and everyone got hurt. Life simply isn't some fairytale perfect world where choices are easy and clear cut, especially in war, which is a prime example of moral confliction for most people that I know.
The world isn't as clear cut as you would like to pretend. Get some perspective.
Voting for the pirate party is a waste. Not because 'its a waste of a vote since they wont win', the only wasted vote in that sense is one that isn't cast.
Voting for the pirate party is a waste because contrary to your rebellious beliefs, the entire concept would be far more damaging than any perceived or realized benefit from doing so.
We never did, go back to school and get an education. You'd be amazed at how much it can help.
You most certainly can choose someone else, but your ignorance prevents you from realizing it. The fact that most of the rest of the country is just as ignorant and lazy as yourself is why it always comes down to 'two people' anyway.
You have a choice, you just don't realize it cause rather than learning what you can do, you spend your time whining about how it sucks.
Bitching to people that don't care won't do anyone any good, and regardless of your comment score, no one on slashdot actually cares.
Get some education, stop voting for a party, spread the word. You can do something about it, if you actually care enough to do so, but that probably means leaving your nice cushie comfort zone.
Illegal? Thats open to debate, but well beyond my paygrade. I'm going to say that if it isn't, it probably should be.
Immoral? I see absolutely no reason to place a blanket statement like that on it. Of course if they weren't secret would could make an actual determination, but its not immoral on principal, its immoral if used for the wrong reason. There is no proof that in general it has been used for immoral reasons, no more than there is any proof that its being used for the right reasons.
Considering the government makes the laws they can change them to make convictions pretty easy if they wanted to. They'd probably have a hard time dealing with the revolt, but thats another issue.
You are generalizing well beyond the point of having a logical discussion.
I have no problem with warrentless wiretaps if they are used against criminals, no one should.
The problem is, our founders realized how easy that sort of thing turns bad. The only real prevention you have against it is to throw out evidence obtained without permission, so the law enforcement and judicial branches of the government have something to prevent them from using wiretaps in a a bad way..
Warrentless wiretaps aren't inherently evil, its silly to say they are. We just don't allow them because we believe that allowing that would be far more damaging to the nation as a whole and could easily be used to hurt and control innocent people.
We don't deny these sorts of things because 'they are evil', we deny these sorts of things because evil people will take advantage of them.
I had to deal with this with MS Windows - it's one of the many reasons I use Linux.
Perhaps you jumped to Linux without considering that it wasn't the end all be all solutions that you were told it was?
When switching from Windows to Linux you give certain things up, when switching from Windows to MacOS you give certain things up, and indeed when switching from Linux to * you give certain things up. If you didn't, they would all be equal/the exact same and you'd have no reason to switch at all.
You can do that without Skype's source code. There are plenty of SIP clients out there and in fact an entire PBX system for Linux that includes the ability to war dial and use text to speech scripts on calls already.
I'd almost wager someone has already written an asterisk script to order for them.
This has nothing to do with copying in RAM... your VM instance has a separate copy on disk as well.
Actually, thats not strictly true. I have several virtual machines that share the same virtual disk image. Netbooting would be another example of one copy on disk, multiple copies in RAM.
Doesn't change your point, just felt the need to be pedantic.
GPL is about certain freedoms, not all. And that is where you are incorrect.
GPL is about insuring users can do whatever they want with it PERSONALLY. Which is fine, thats an acceptable agreement to most people.
GPL is not about freedom for you to distribute however you want.
GPL is about freedom for personal use.period It ends there. There are no other freedoms that GPL promotes, from there on out it becomes restrictives.
The problem of GPL zealots is that they only talk about that part and ignore the fact that outside of personal use it is more restrictive than some commercial licenses.
I don't know about reasonable in your last statement, but you are definitely entitled to your opinion, and I should certainly be obliged to follow any restrictions you put on your work when you share it with me. You could, after all, simply not share it with me.
And thats the point to all this. I personally do not appreciate the GPL, it puts restrictions on me that I'm not OK with. BUT, the solution is simple, I don't HAVE to use works covered by it. People using GPL on their works say, "I'll share this with you as long as you agree to these rules", I can then say no. Or, in almost every case, as much as I do not like those restrictions, its more to my benefit if I just agree to not like it, but follow the rules anyway because that 'costs me less' than the alternatives, such as buying it or writing it myself. When that costs me more than the alternatives theres a good chance I'll go with the alternative.
If you don't want to agree to my conditions, be it GPL or otherwise, you don't have to, and I don't have to share it with you.
I really wish people would get that last part, regardless of which license covers the work. Someone elses 'stuff' is not yours by any 'right'. Your stuff is, not mine.
GPL uses copyright to enforce its own agenda, which is perfectly acceptable and in fact the entire point. Just like Apple's license supports its agenda, and MS's license supports its agenda.
You can do whatever you want with what you bought...
But...
You didn't buy the right to use OS X, you bought a revokable license.
You can resell that too actually, they don't mind really if you stop using it yourself. You can do whatever you want with the CD, the box, the leaflets that come with it. You can sell the license to someone else.
You are confused about 'owning the OS' however. Windows, OS X, and yes, even Linux are licensed to you, with restrictions.
Sorry you misunderstand.
Personally, I would like to end this bullshit and make them start selling the right to use the copy of the OS however I want, but no one anywhere really does that.
If you completely agree, why do you continue buying Mac Mini's?
It would seem to me that you don't agree enough to buy something that fits your needs better or that Macs actually do fit your needs better than the alternative.
Your friend bought a machine he couldn't upgrade, it happened to be a Mac... because no Windows PCs come that way... except... well most of the lower end machines that come with onboard video and no connector on the MOBO where the AGP/PCIE slot is supposed to go. Obviously Apple is evil.
2500 Euros? I call bullshit. A 2500 Euro Apple is a nice machine. I play the latest DirectX 10.1 games on a 1400 USD MacBook Pro, so there is definitely some bullshit in your statement. So why not include the fact that the machine is several years old and can be bought now for a few hundred bucks from eBay, just upgrading the video card probably wasn't going to give him the AWESOME GAME MASTER MACHINE you're implying it would.
Are we supposed to be impressed that you spent $1500 to build a machine incapable of running without special cooling? I just spent 450 on a quad core, 3ghz machine that can run everything I throw at it without resorting to needing a water pump to do so. That doesn't make me cool, or special, or edgy. Your ePenis is very impressive, enjoy your jerking off with it and putting it in your sig while you post on forums and having wet dreams in your moms basement. I'll continue to use my tiny penis which I only use when the lights off to make my wife scream like a banshee. No one is going to be any more impressed by my retarded bragging than they are of yours.
As has been shown god knows how many times, here on slashdot none the less, the 'Apple is more expensive' myth is just that, a myth. Yes you can get similure hardware for the for less or better hardware for the same price, and as a general rule you can deal with all the issues of reliability that go with it. I drive a car that costs FAR FAR less than a Porchse, and performs only marginally less, on paper. Having driven both, I'm under no illusion that my car which cost 1/3rd the cost of the cheapest porsche is not even in the same playing field during my wet dreams.
The problem is that pound for pound, dollar for dollar, generic PCs are crappy hardware. You are indeed experiencing some delusions.
Apple does plenty of shitty things, but no where in your post did you actually name one of those things. Let your Mac envy go dude, no one is telling you to buy one, no one that matters is going to point out that your ePenis, while 'big' is rather deformed and needs some watery Viagra to keep it going.
It isn't sold as a full stand alone copy when sold without a Mac. Every boxed copy is an upgrade copy for an existing Mac.
No one argues that Microsoft is 'evil' because they license the software and require you to pay for it. Okay, some people do, but we tend to ignore ignorant teenagers. Microsoft is 'evil' for the practices they employ to the spread and continued dominance of their empire. Microsoft is 'evil' for using dirty tricks to suppress the competition. Microsoft is not 'evil' because they expect to get paid for their work.
I agree, licensing is a restriction on what you can do with software.
This is true of every software package that is not public domain.
Including software that uses GPL as its distribution license.
I understand your point of view, though I do not agree with it. You go protest Apple, I'll enjoy my MacBook running OS X.
You have three choices: 1 - Not agree with their terms, don't buy it, don't use it. 2 - Agree to it, buy it, use it, legally 3 - Use it illegally and risk the consequences of doing so.
The first 2 are acceptable, the last is not.
The problem I have with your post is that you seem to imply that this is different than every other business transaction on the planet, you either agree to the terms and proceed or you don't.
Do you feel that you, as a customer of a farmer, should dictate what price the farmer sells you his crops at? I'm sure you do, but this is a rather retarded and unrealistic view of the world that will result in your starvation as the rest of us aren't so... dumb, for lack of a better description.
Just for reference, 'fanbois' stopped being cool around the age of 12.
They paid for a license to use the software and a CD with a copy of the program, neither is any good without the other. The CD is not revokable, the license is.
It says no such thing. It says it has to run on Apple BRANDED hardware. It never defines what that actually is.
Stick one of the Apple stickers on your PC that comes in the OS X box and you meet the requirement in my eyes, since its not defined and my vision of it isn't utterly insane, I'd be pretty confident I'd do alright in court.
Of course, having ran OS X on a PC for a year or so, in my experience, you're far better off just buying a Mac.
The support costs can be stopped rather quickly. Please read the serial number shown in the About This Mac dialog to continue or if your computer will not boot, please bring it to your local Apple store, thank you.
It would be rather annoying to customers and is not really in Apples MO, but it'd stop it pretty quick.
Its rather common to map files to an applications virtual address space to facilitate working with io devices or files larger than physical memory.
OSes do this regularly, in fact, I bet some part of the process your using to read this comment is functioning because one of the two functions above.
Your OS, assuming you're using a modern OS and not a Wii or PS3 to browse the web, is using that very concept right this instant. In short, computing would be far different if our operating systems didn't regularly map disk space to memory space.
AND just about ALL will SINK TO THE GROUND. So wether you inject it into the soil, OR you lay it on the top, it is the same.
No, it won't be the same. In the atmosphere it will disperse over a much larger area, rather than directly into the plants. In the air the sun shines through it, it interacts with other things in the air. In the ground there is certainly less light, usually none, and since the air isn't going to be flowing with the wind its not going to mix with nearly as many other gases so all those chemical reactions are out of the question, possibly replaced with a new set from chemicals in the ground itself.
I don't know if thats good or bad, but its ignorant to think its going to turn out the same way.
When you do things different, its not the same, regardless of how little thought you put into figuring out whats different about it.
The solar system is not a closed system, its part of the universe and you can't base anything on the solar system alone.
As far as we know at this moment, our universe is a closed system, however I would just like to point out that most of the time when talking about things that we don't understand, we are more often than not, wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Even a warrented wiretap is given by someone we have to 'trust'.
I've never heard the arguments for a wiretap or a warrent. It happens in a judges chambers, behind closed doors.
Even when done perfectly by the book, we still have to trust someone else that we don't know or see/hear the arguments.
We don't vote on these things. They are never truely a public matter when they are issued.
They are however, in theory, done by two seperate branchs of government and hopefully the two work together to get the job done, but not so together that we get screwed.
In the end though, if you have a judge in your pocket, its not really that different than a warrentless search.
Just playing devils advocate ... but ...
So when theres a line that says, 'stand here to respect our constitution', and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded, are you going to get in it? Based purely on your blanket statement?
Now before you tell us yes, realize that no one is actually going to believe that bullshit.
'These people' that we're 'fighting' believe THEY have the moral high ground and that we are scum of the Earth. Nothing anyone does is going to change that.
Its easy to say 'Fuck the cowards' when you aren't in any threat yourself. Its easy to say 'There are some things you don't do' when your life, or your families life isn't on the line. Its easy to make blanket statements with no consideration for the situation. Its also extremely ignorant
I doubt there should be any warrentless wiretaps, and in principal I am against it, but I've come to many cross roads in my short little life where my principals and morals were highly conflicted, several choices I've made were 100% moral from one perspective, and practically evil from another. Sometimes in the end I got it right, sometimes I didn't and others were hurt. Most of the time it falls somewhere in the middle and everyone got hurt. Life simply isn't some fairytale perfect world where choices are easy and clear cut, especially in war, which is a prime example of moral confliction for most people that I know.
The world isn't as clear cut as you would like to pretend. Get some perspective.
Voting for the pirate party is a waste. Not because 'its a waste of a vote since they wont win', the only wasted vote in that sense is one that isn't cast.
Voting for the pirate party is a waste because contrary to your rebellious beliefs, the entire concept would be far more damaging than any perceived or realized benefit from doing so.
We never did, go back to school and get an education. You'd be amazed at how much it can help.
You most certainly can choose someone else, but your ignorance prevents you from realizing it. The fact that most of the rest of the country is just as ignorant and lazy as yourself is why it always comes down to 'two people' anyway.
You have a choice, you just don't realize it cause rather than learning what you can do, you spend your time whining about how it sucks.
Bitching to people that don't care won't do anyone any good, and regardless of your comment score, no one on slashdot actually cares.
Get some education, stop voting for a party, spread the word. You can do something about it, if you actually care enough to do so, but that probably means leaving your nice cushie comfort zone.
God, how ignorant people all sound like the same broken record.
Illegal? Thats open to debate, but well beyond my paygrade. I'm going to say that if it isn't, it probably should be.
Immoral? I see absolutely no reason to place a blanket statement like that on it. Of course if they weren't secret would could make an actual determination, but its not immoral on principal, its immoral if used for the wrong reason. There is no proof that in general it has been used for immoral reasons, no more than there is any proof that its being used for the right reasons.
Considering the government makes the laws they can change them to make convictions pretty easy if they wanted to. They'd probably have a hard time dealing with the revolt, but thats another issue.
You are generalizing well beyond the point of having a logical discussion.
I have no problem with warrentless wiretaps if they are used against criminals, no one should.
The problem is, our founders realized how easy that sort of thing turns bad. The only real prevention you have against it is to throw out evidence obtained without permission, so the law enforcement and judicial branches of the government have something to prevent them from using wiretaps in a a bad way..
Warrentless wiretaps aren't inherently evil, its silly to say they are. We just don't allow them because we believe that allowing that would be far more damaging to the nation as a whole and could easily be used to hurt and control innocent people.
We don't deny these sorts of things because 'they are evil', we deny these sorts of things because evil people will take advantage of them.
Get some perspective.
Some details may be different, but both certainly live in a fantasy world.
Meet the old boss same as the new.
They are the same after all.
Perhaps you jumped to Linux without considering that it wasn't the end all be all solutions that you were told it was?
When switching from Windows to Linux you give certain things up, when switching from Windows to MacOS you give certain things up, and indeed when switching from Linux to * you give certain things up. If you didn't, they would all be equal/the exact same and you'd have no reason to switch at all.
You can do that without Skype's source code. There are plenty of SIP clients out there and in fact an entire PBX system for Linux that includes the ability to war dial and use text to speech scripts on calls already.
I'd almost wager someone has already written an asterisk script to order for them.
And get it completely wrong in the process. You're fired.
Apple doesn't say booting makes an unauthorized copy.
Apple says booting an unauthorized copy makes unauthorized copy.
Actually, thats not strictly true. I have several virtual machines that share the same virtual disk image. Netbooting would be another example of one copy on disk, multiple copies in RAM.
Doesn't change your point, just felt the need to be pedantic.
GPL is about certain freedoms, not all. And that is where you are incorrect.
GPL is about insuring users can do whatever they want with it PERSONALLY. Which is fine, thats an acceptable agreement to most people.
GPL is not about freedom for you to distribute however you want.
GPL is about freedom for personal use. period It ends there. There are no other freedoms that GPL promotes, from there on out it becomes restrictives.
The problem of GPL zealots is that they only talk about that part and ignore the fact that outside of personal use it is more restrictive than some commercial licenses.
I don't know about reasonable in your last statement, but you are definitely entitled to your opinion, and I should certainly be obliged to follow any restrictions you put on your work when you share it with me. You could, after all, simply not share it with me.
And thats the point to all this. I personally do not appreciate the GPL, it puts restrictions on me that I'm not OK with. BUT, the solution is simple, I don't HAVE to use works covered by it. People using GPL on their works say, "I'll share this with you as long as you agree to these rules", I can then say no. Or, in almost every case, as much as I do not like those restrictions, its more to my benefit if I just agree to not like it, but follow the rules anyway because that 'costs me less' than the alternatives, such as buying it or writing it myself. When that costs me more than the alternatives theres a good chance I'll go with the alternative.
If you don't want to agree to my conditions, be it GPL or otherwise, you don't have to, and I don't have to share it with you.
I really wish people would get that last part, regardless of which license covers the work. Someone elses 'stuff' is not yours by any 'right'. Your stuff is, not mine.
GPL uses copyright to enforce its own agenda, which is perfectly acceptable and in fact the entire point. Just like Apple's license supports its agenda, and MS's license supports its agenda.
You can do whatever you want with what you bought ...
But ...
You didn't buy the right to use OS X, you bought a revokable license.
You can resell that too actually, they don't mind really if you stop using it yourself. You can do whatever you want with the CD, the box, the leaflets that come with it. You can sell the license to someone else.
You are confused about 'owning the OS' however. Windows, OS X, and yes, even Linux are licensed to you, with restrictions.
Sorry you misunderstand.
Personally, I would like to end this bullshit and make them start selling the right to use the copy of the OS however I want, but no one anywhere really does that.
If you completely agree, why do you continue buying Mac Mini's?
It would seem to me that you don't agree enough to buy something that fits your needs better or that Macs actually do fit your needs better than the alternative.
I think you are confused about what you want.
Oh I love these posts, just too much damn fun.
Your friend bought a machine he couldn't upgrade, it happened to be a Mac ... because no Windows PCs come that way ... except ... well most of the lower end machines that come with onboard video and no connector on the MOBO where the AGP/PCIE slot is supposed to go. Obviously Apple is evil.
2500 Euros? I call bullshit. A 2500 Euro Apple is a nice machine. I play the latest DirectX 10.1 games on a 1400 USD MacBook Pro, so there is definitely some bullshit in your statement. So why not include the fact that the machine is several years old and can be bought now for a few hundred bucks from eBay, just upgrading the video card probably wasn't going to give him the AWESOME GAME MASTER MACHINE you're implying it would.
Are we supposed to be impressed that you spent $1500 to build a machine incapable of running without special cooling? I just spent 450 on a quad core, 3ghz machine that can run everything I throw at it without resorting to needing a water pump to do so. That doesn't make me cool, or special, or edgy. Your ePenis is very impressive, enjoy your jerking off with it and putting it in your sig while you post on forums and having wet dreams in your moms basement. I'll continue to use my tiny penis which I only use when the lights off to make my wife scream like a banshee. No one is going to be any more impressed by my retarded bragging than they are of yours.
As has been shown god knows how many times, here on slashdot none the less, the 'Apple is more expensive' myth is just that, a myth. Yes you can get similure hardware for the for less or better hardware for the same price, and as a general rule you can deal with all the issues of reliability that go with it. I drive a car that costs FAR FAR less than a Porchse, and performs only marginally less, on paper. Having driven both, I'm under no illusion that my car which cost 1/3rd the cost of the cheapest porsche is not even in the same playing field during my wet dreams.
The problem is that pound for pound, dollar for dollar, generic PCs are crappy hardware. You are indeed experiencing some delusions.
Apple does plenty of shitty things, but no where in your post did you actually name one of those things. Let your Mac envy go dude, no one is telling you to buy one, no one that matters is going to point out that your ePenis, while 'big' is rather deformed and needs some watery Viagra to keep it going.
My guess is the 'guest' just left and doesn't come back. Even hookers have limits.
It isn't sold as a full stand alone copy when sold without a Mac. Every boxed copy is an upgrade copy for an existing Mac.
No one argues that Microsoft is 'evil' because they license the software and require you to pay for it. Okay, some people do, but we tend to ignore ignorant teenagers. Microsoft is 'evil' for the practices they employ to the spread and continued dominance of their empire. Microsoft is 'evil' for using dirty tricks to suppress the competition. Microsoft is not 'evil' because they expect to get paid for their work.
I agree, licensing is a restriction on what you can do with software.
This is true of every software package that is not public domain.
Including software that uses GPL as its distribution license.
I understand your point of view, though I do not agree with it. You go protest Apple, I'll enjoy my MacBook running OS X.
You have three choices:
1 - Not agree with their terms, don't buy it, don't use it.
2 - Agree to it, buy it, use it, legally
3 - Use it illegally and risk the consequences of doing so.
The first 2 are acceptable, the last is not.
The problem I have with your post is that you seem to imply that this is different than every other business transaction on the planet, you either agree to the terms and proceed or you don't.
Do you feel that you, as a customer of a farmer, should dictate what price the farmer sells you his crops at? I'm sure you do, but this is a rather retarded and unrealistic view of the world that will result in your starvation as the rest of us aren't so ... dumb, for lack of a better description.
Just for reference, 'fanbois' stopped being cool around the age of 12.
They paid for a license to use the software and a CD with a copy of the program, neither is any good without the other. The CD is not revokable, the license is.
'Licensing' of software is the problem.
It says no such thing. It says it has to run on Apple BRANDED hardware. It never defines what that actually is.
Stick one of the Apple stickers on your PC that comes in the OS X box and you meet the requirement in my eyes, since its not defined and my vision of it isn't utterly insane, I'd be pretty confident I'd do alright in court.
Of course, having ran OS X on a PC for a year or so, in my experience, you're far better off just buying a Mac.
The support costs can be stopped rather quickly. Please read the serial number shown in the About This Mac dialog to continue or if your computer will not boot, please bring it to your local Apple store, thank you.
It would be rather annoying to customers and is not really in Apples MO, but it'd stop it pretty quick.
You are either not a developer, or an inexperienced one.
Ever heard of mmap?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmap
Perhaps you've only dealt with Windows, MapViewOfFile is not exactly the same as mmap but the point is the same.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366761(VS.85).aspx
Its rather common to map files to an applications virtual address space to facilitate working with io devices or files larger than physical memory.
OSes do this regularly, in fact, I bet some part of the process your using to read this comment is functioning because one of the two functions above.
Your OS, assuming you're using a modern OS and not a Wii or PS3 to browse the web, is using that very concept right this instant. In short, computing would be far different if our operating systems didn't regularly map disk space to memory space.
No, it won't be the same. In the atmosphere it will disperse over a much larger area, rather than directly into the plants. In the air the sun shines through it, it interacts with other things in the air. In the ground there is certainly less light, usually none, and since the air isn't going to be flowing with the wind its not going to mix with nearly as many other gases so all those chemical reactions are out of the question, possibly replaced with a new set from chemicals in the ground itself.
I don't know if thats good or bad, but its ignorant to think its going to turn out the same way.
When you do things different, its not the same, regardless of how little thought you put into figuring out whats different about it.
The solar system is not a closed system, its part of the universe and you can't base anything on the solar system alone.
As far as we know at this moment, our universe is a closed system, however I would just like to point out that most of the time when talking about things that we don't understand, we are more often than not, wrong.