It is on page 13 on Breyer's supporting arguments.
Why don't you link me to a dictionary that supports your arguments? Show me where a dictionary says that copyright isn't theft. You keep making the reference, so it's time to put up the proof.
A bum that sleeps on my driveway prevents me from controlling use of it to some extent. It is not important to me how that's interpreted because it has no bearing on the argument at hand.
If you think that disproving and unrelated example, something you haven't done, somehow disproves all examples then you are mistaken.
Odd that you admitted that you hadn't looked it up until well after I'd already posted my detailed comment. It's absolutely clear that I found the quote and analized it before you even looked.
BTW, Breyer's quote is found in the court's written decision.
"Oh. I remember. Were you the guy who made up faked quotes from me in order to further your argument? "
Yes, I did, as an obvious sendup of your pitiful attempt to do the same to me. I openly mocked you as you rightfully deserved.
"And to accuse me of such when I only did it jokingly (as in the faked quote where I had you saying you loved to wear a leisure suit)."
You can't even remember a simple sequence of events.
"I now remember the guy who did not like dictionaries,..."
Curious, since I was the only one to quote a dictionary definition and provide a link to the entry.
"...and claimed that exercising free speech rights (even if someone did not like the speech) was vigilantism."...and you're still insisting on arguing with a point that you, yourself have made up. I never made any such claim and have corrected you on that fact at least a half dozen times.
"I'm only right because I'm sticking with the definitions of the words..."
Funny, then, that neither then nor now have you quoted any definition for the words that you claim form the foundation of your argument.
"BR If there is one thing clear, there is a distinct lack of BOTH vigilantism (with p justice guys exercising their free speech rights) and theft (with p2p services)."
Clear to you. What's clear to me is that you'll never back up your claims with facts.
Thankfully we have the wisdom of krell to correct this misguided judgement of one of our country's most significant justices.
Did you work hard to find that obscure quote, krell? Good thing I found it for you, eh?
So tell us, krell, is copyright infringment theft? I'm not sure we've heard you say it enough. Too bad being repititious doesn't make you an authority.
"Nothing is taken away. He can still distribute the material the same way as before."
But he has had his right to deny you the ability to distribute taken away from him. I think you know that already.
"I see also your intentional abuse of the term "taking" to be broadened to mean "inconvenience someone"."
"taken" was your word. I'd didn't misuse it. Where once he had control over distribution, he no longer has control. It's been taken from him.
"Using your ignorant logic, a bum sleeping on someone's driveway is really a thief since he has taken away the driveway owner's right to drive on it."
I'm not going to argue one way or another on that. It's a fact, though, that once the bum leaves the use of the driveway is restored. That's not the case with illegal distribution.
"So what is your problem? Ignorance or ill will? Copyright infringement and theft are two separate situations. The claim that copyright infringement = theft is entirely false. This is not a matter of opinion. Just look up the terms."
Stating it over and over doesn't make it any more right.
"I guess, but stealing of IP is never really discussed here."
It was by you. Glad to see you finally admitting otherwise.
"If he is lying intentionally, then he should be given no credibility. "
Sure, but somehow I doubt a supreme court justice would intentionally lie when writing a supporting opinion.
"He did lie with his use of theft. This is not my opinion:..."
It most certainly is. It's also wrong.
"Anyone who knows a thing about Grokster would know it is impossible to steal with it."
I'd wager that Breyer knows more about Grokster than you. Furthermore, I'd wager all the justices do and, considering that it was a unanimous opinion, I'd say your contrary opinion is nothing more than a joke.
"My argument fits with the facts, because I looked them up before arguing."
Haha I bet. Actually your argument is "I'm right I'm right and you haven't proved me wrong". There appears to be nothing else offered nor anyone even home.
"Actually, my weakness here is in ASSUMING that it is true that he said that theft happened at Grokster. If he actually said this, he either has no idea what he is talking about or he is lying. I'll grant the possibility that he was misquoted further up."
You are pathetic. I've provided detailed information on the matter here:
"You might have a point, except you forgot to make one."
I made my point. My claim was no more or less absurd and unsubstantiated than yours were. The difference is that the law supports my claim.
"Copyright infringement fails to meet the definition of theft"
Your definition of theft. We all know you're the holder on all knowledge of the meanings of words. Not that you can form a coherent argument over it. That's apparently the job of everyone who disagrees with you.
"This statement of yours has the same problem."
not just my statement. Fortunately, I have more than just/.ers on my side.
""Taking" is missing."
No it's not. Unauthorized distribution is "taking" the owner's right to control distribution from him.
"I do not apologize for judges who fail to look at the dictionary."
Of course. You don't recognize the authority of any source that disagrees with you, even if the only one that's left is the imaginary dictionary that lives only in your head.
"If I ask you to come up with one example of theft resulting from copyright infringement, you won't be able to produce one."
All copyright infringment are examples of theft of owner's rights. There is no example that does not result in theft. Sorry you refuse to admit that. Thankfully ALL of our supreme court justices understand otherwise.
"Words retain meaning whether or not the courts/law agree."
You aren't the definitive source on words however, krell. When it comes words that describe law, a supreme court justice's interpretation or words are far more interesting than yours. It doesn't surprise me that you discard a justice's opinion out of hand though. Facts are inconvenient when they disagree with your argument.
"There's simply no evidence that copyright infringement is theft: you have not provided any."
I have, though not in this thread. I don't need to since no argument anyone can provide speaks louder that a unanimous supreme court opinion. I'll add that you've provided no evidence that IP theft can't occur nor have you offered any evidence that Justice Breyer isn't tech-savvy. Both are unsubstantiated claims you made.
"I have yet to see an actual argument."
And you never will because you don't want to. You want to preserve your pathetic view that copyright violations are OK because they aren't theft. Here's a rebuttal to your incorrect assertions and an "actual argument" with substance: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20637 6&cid=16830480 It's not mine BTW.
"1) "It is theft because I say it is. Meanings don't matter: only my opinion does""
Hmmm that sounds exactly like your argument, krell.
" 2) "Copyright infringement is a crime. Theft is a crime. Therefore, copyright infringement is theft.""
A familiar tactic of yours to put absurd words and claims into your opponent's mouths so as to attack them. I've never heard any such absurd argument advanced.
Since Justice Breyer clearly doesn't understand words as well as you do, why don't you point out the flaws in his argument? He's the one that states quite plainly that unauthorized copying is, in fact, theft. If you hope to present a convincing argument you should be able to refute his claim.
Theft does not require the lose of a material item. By copying illegally, you are taking the right to control distribution away from the content owner.
What more do you need? Being correct and having one of the country's foremost justices on my side is ample enough. I suppose you think the bullshit arguments of the other posters are somehow more persuasive?
"Appeal to authority": a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.
If you claim that the SCOTUS isn't THE definitive source of interpretation of law (in the US) then you are a liar. To dismiss a judgement from SCOTUS and a written opinion from one of its justices as not evidence that theft hasn't proven is absurd.
Of course there are arguments as to why copyright violation is theft and they've been posted in this thread already. Do you need help finding them?
As you can see, a trade secret is an example of IP and trade secrets can definitely be stolen. Of course, there will be some idiots who argue that taking a trade secret doesn't amount to theft but that's ridiculous. Any company is free to patent any trade secret and be granted exclusivity to that technology. It should be clear to anyone that the patenting of a trade secret taken from someone else would clearly be theft as the original owner of the trade secret has been denied the patent.
"But no, copying copyrighted works without permission is not theft in the legal sense."
Yes it is. It was declared to be in the Supreme Court ruling being discussed.
"IP infringement is not theft because copying someone's "intellectual property" does not deprive the original owner of it."
IP theft deprives the owner of control over that IP which is rightfully his. In the case of illegal distribution you are denying the owner his distribution rights. The Supreme court decision stated clearly that illegal copying is theft.
Look on page 50 of the of the pdf or simply search for "theft".
"...And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
and the definition of theft is "The crime of taking someone else's property without consent".
In other words, krell, unlawful copying IS the same as the unlawful taking of property and therefore IS the same as theft. This was not only proven but it was the unamimous decision of SCOTUS and those were the exact words of Justice Breyer. It gets no more definitive than that.
Of course, you will discard Breyer as being ignorant on the law as you already have. Anything that doesn't agree with your world view doesn't exist and any evidence to the contrary must be incorrect. Continue to parrot the meaningless and incorrect warcry that copyright infringment isn't theft as though that somehow justifies illegal behavior.
As long as you get what you want, there's no reason to think beyond justifying it, right krell?
"Considering that it is impossible to steal IP..."
Of course it's possible.
"...he has no idea what he is talking about."
He may be the enemy but he certainly knows what he's talking about.
"Either that, or he is intentionally lying."
Yeah, because anyone that doesn't agree with you is either ignorant or lying, right krell? Par for the course.
"How can he be? If he knew a thing about Grokster, he'd know that no theft ever took place on it."
Interesting that you would call into question a Supreme Court justice's credentials because he doesn't agree with you on the definition of "theft". A wise person would call into question his own understanding of the concept.
I have not. All I've done is consistently counter the claims by you and others that the researchers were frauds who failed to support the claims of flaws on the mac platform. I've never defended them other than to support that that could have been right and I've offered reasons to explain non-response to public criticism. It is you that is making indefensible claims here, not me. I have no position one way or another on their claims other than I take them at face value. No one has given me reason to believe that they were motivated to lie and I don't assume that they did.
"Straw man, I've stated nothing of the kind."
No, but you've demonstrated it through meritless attacks.
"Gee, with all the attention on the drivers, funny that Apple would go through and look at them! However, the update *DOESN'T ADDRESS THE SAME ISSUE IN QUESTION*. Funny that doesn't seem to matter to you."
That's certainly what Apple said though the description of some of the fixes looked suspiciously familiar. Since we don't know for certain exactly what the vulnerability was (or as you might put it, what the lie perpetrated by the frauds claimed to be) Apple will have plausible deniability at least to the public. At least you recognize that public attention likely caused Apple to review the code in question and issue an update. You would think that an open-minded person might see that as legitimizing the researchers' claims. Instead, you would take Apple's statement at face value while calling the reseachers liars. If anyone doesn't know you to be a fanboy, I can't imagine how they don't get it now.
"There's absolutely no reason someone should believe them. They have *NO* credibility."
And that's where you are wrong. They demonstrated a vulnerability and said that the problem was not solely limited to one hardware or software platform. Events that followed (software updates from vendors) lended further credibility to their claim. Only people in denial, such as you, see it otherwise.
It's interesting to note that Windows was also identified as being vulnerable yet no one has ever claimed that the researchers were liars for having claimed that and not offered proof. Since you claim to not be a mac fanboy, why aren't you outraged over that crime?
BSD already had a C compiler! If there were no Linux and no GNU, there would be a lot of developers available to do similar things with different names (assuming there's a comparable free software movement at all).
The opportunity for Linux to come into existance at all was due to GNU not making progress on a kernel and BSD being tied up in their legal battles. Had history unfolded differently it's not clear we'd be any worse off. Frankly starting with the experienced codebase of BSD would seem better IMO.
"(and remember, in 1992 if there had been no GNU, there would have been no Linux; period)"
While I don't disagree with you otherwise, you can't say that this is true. It certainly would have taken a different path, but Linus wanted to do a kernel and may well have done so anyway (period;-) ).
John Gruber is a grandstander who attempted to turn the spotlight onto him. His offer couldn't possibly match what the researchers hoped to gain (and most certainly did gain) through consulting on the issue. There were reasons why the researchers presented the flaw and chief among then certainly wasn't to increase attention for an Apple cheerleader's blog. Odds are that they wanted to get paid (and I don't mean with a single MacBook).
Who says they didn't? Full *public* disclosure isn't necessary for that. Considering that Apple did, in fact, update their products shortly afterward suggests that there was sufficient disclosure for that to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
It is on page 13 on Breyer's supporting arguments.
Why don't you link me to a dictionary that supports your arguments? Show me where a dictionary says that copyright isn't theft. You keep making the reference, so it's time to put up the proof.
A bum that sleeps on my driveway prevents me from controlling use of it to some extent. It is not important to me how that's interpreted because it has no bearing on the argument at hand.
If you think that disproving and unrelated example, something you haven't done, somehow disproves all examples then you are mistaken.
Odd that you admitted that you hadn't looked it up until well after I'd already posted my detailed comment. It's absolutely clear that I found the quote and analized it before you even looked.
BTW, Breyer's quote is found in the court's written decision.
"Oh. I remember. Were you the guy who made up faked quotes from me in order to further your argument? "
...and you're still insisting on arguing with a point that you, yourself have made up. I never made any such claim and have corrected you on that fact at least a half dozen times.
Yes, I did, as an obvious sendup of your pitiful attempt to do the same to me. I openly mocked you as you rightfully deserved.
"And to accuse me of such when I only did it jokingly (as in the faked quote where I had you saying you loved to wear a leisure suit)."
You can't even remember a simple sequence of events.
"I now remember the guy who did not like dictionaries,..."
Curious, since I was the only one to quote a dictionary definition and provide a link to the entry.
"...and claimed that exercising free speech rights (even if someone did not like the speech) was vigilantism."
"I'm only right because I'm sticking with the definitions of the words..."
Funny, then, that neither then nor now have you quoted any definition for the words that you claim form the foundation of your argument.
"BR If there is one thing clear, there is a distinct lack of BOTH vigilantism (with p justice guys exercising their free speech rights) and theft (with p2p services)."
Clear to you. What's clear to me is that you'll never back up your claims with facts.
Thankfully we have the wisdom of krell to correct this misguided judgement of one of our country's most significant justices.
Did you work hard to find that obscure quote, krell? Good thing I found it for you, eh?
So tell us, krell, is copyright infringment theft? I'm not sure we've heard you say it enough. Too bad being repititious doesn't make you an authority.
"Nothing is taken away. He can still distribute the material the same way as before."
But he has had his right to deny you the ability to distribute taken away from him. I think you know that already.
"I see also your intentional abuse of the term "taking" to be broadened to mean "inconvenience someone"."
"taken" was your word. I'd didn't misuse it. Where once he had control over distribution, he no longer has control. It's been taken from him.
"Using your ignorant logic, a bum sleeping on someone's driveway is really a thief since he has taken away the driveway owner's right to drive on it."
I'm not going to argue one way or another on that. It's a fact, though, that once the bum leaves the use of the driveway is restored. That's not the case with illegal distribution.
"So what is your problem? Ignorance or ill will? Copyright infringement and theft are two separate situations. The claim that copyright infringement = theft is entirely false. This is not a matter of opinion. Just look up the terms."
Stating it over and over doesn't make it any more right.
"I guess, but stealing of IP is never really discussed here."
It was by you. Glad to see you finally admitting otherwise.
"If he is lying intentionally, then he should be given no credibility. "
Sure, but somehow I doubt a supreme court justice would intentionally lie when writing a supporting opinion.
"He did lie with his use of theft. This is not my opinion:..."
It most certainly is. It's also wrong.
"Anyone who knows a thing about Grokster would know it is impossible to steal with it."
I'd wager that Breyer knows more about Grokster than you. Furthermore, I'd wager all the justices do and, considering that it was a unanimous opinion, I'd say your contrary opinion is nothing more than a joke.
"My argument fits with the facts, because I looked them up before arguing."
7 6&cid=16831200
Haha I bet. Actually your argument is "I'm right I'm right and you haven't proved me wrong". There appears to be nothing else offered nor anyone even home.
"Actually, my weakness here is in ASSUMING that it is true that he said that theft happened at Grokster. If he actually said this, he either has no idea what he is talking about or he is lying. I'll grant the possibility that he was misquoted further up."
You are pathetic. I've provided detailed information on the matter here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2063
Note that it's a response to another of your stupid claims. I note you haven't responded there.
"
If it is so familiar, please come up with ONE example of me putting words into someone's mouth (mis-quoting)."
I have. "vigilante". Remember? We've had this conversation before and i've pointed out you're tactics already.
"Besides, it is hard to get more absurd than claiming "copyright infringement is theft"
Whatever you say, krell. Stomp your feet why don't you. Copyright is theft according to a man more learned on the subject than you'll ever be.
"That's as silly as saying that "copyright infringement = rape.""
There you go again, krell. There's no end to the stupidity of your arguments.
"You might have a point, except you forgot to make one."
/.ers on my side.
I made my point. My claim was no more or less absurd and unsubstantiated than yours were. The difference is that the law supports my claim.
"Copyright infringement fails to meet the definition of theft"
Your definition of theft. We all know you're the holder on all knowledge of the meanings of words. Not that you can form a coherent argument over it. That's apparently the job of everyone who disagrees with you.
"This statement of yours has the same problem."
not just my statement. Fortunately, I have more than just
""Taking" is missing."
No it's not. Unauthorized distribution is "taking" the owner's right to control distribution from him.
"I do not apologize for judges who fail to look at the dictionary."
Of course. You don't recognize the authority of any source that disagrees with you, even if the only one that's left is the imaginary dictionary that lives only in your head.
"If I ask you to come up with one example of theft resulting from copyright infringement, you won't be able to produce one."
All copyright infringment are examples of theft of owner's rights. There is no example that does not result in theft. Sorry you refuse to admit that. Thankfully ALL of our supreme court justices understand otherwise.
"Words retain meaning whether or not the courts/law agree."
7 6&cid=16830480 It's not mine BTW.
You aren't the definitive source on words however, krell. When it comes words that describe law, a supreme court justice's interpretation or words are far more interesting than yours. It doesn't surprise me that you discard a justice's opinion out of hand though. Facts are inconvenient when they disagree with your argument.
"There's simply no evidence that copyright infringement is theft: you have not provided any."
I have, though not in this thread. I don't need to since no argument anyone can provide speaks louder that a unanimous supreme court opinion. I'll add that you've provided no evidence that IP theft can't occur nor have you offered any evidence that Justice Breyer isn't tech-savvy. Both are unsubstantiated claims you made.
"I have yet to see an actual argument."
And you never will because you don't want to. You want to preserve your pathetic view that copyright violations are OK because they aren't theft. Here's a rebuttal to your incorrect assertions and an "actual argument" with substance: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2063
"1) "It is theft because I say it is. Meanings don't matter: only my opinion does""
Hmmm that sounds exactly like your argument, krell.
"
2) "Copyright infringement is a crime. Theft is a crime. Therefore, copyright infringement is theft.""
A familiar tactic of yours to put absurd words and claims into your opponent's mouths so as to attack them. I've never heard any such absurd argument advanced.
Since Justice Breyer clearly doesn't understand words as well as you do, why don't you point out the flaws in his argument? He's the one that states quite plainly that unauthorized copying is, in fact, theft. If you hope to present a convincing argument you should be able to refute his claim.
Theft does not require the lose of a material item. By copying illegally, you are taking the right to control distribution away from the content owner.
7 6&cid=16830480
There's no reason for me to say it again. Read this post for another explanation: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2063
"No matter how many times you lie about it, it simply is not theft."
Sorry the truth angers you so much, but your misunderstanding of the concepts does not make me a liar.
What more do you need? Being correct and having one of the country's foremost justices on my side is ample enough. I suppose you think the bullshit arguments of the other posters are somehow more persuasive?
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
"Appeal to authority": a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.
If you claim that the SCOTUS isn't THE definitive source of interpretation of law (in the US) then you are a liar. To dismiss a judgement from SCOTUS and a written opinion from one of its justices as not evidence that theft hasn't proven is absurd.
Of course there are arguments as to why copyright violation is theft and they've been posted in this thread already. Do you need help finding them?
The news isn't that it's a USB device. The news is that software already exists that allows XP to support playing HD DVDs.
"Once you have HD-DVD player program for Mac, Mac should play HD-DVD content just fine."
You're really going out on a limb there. Once HD-DVD is supported, you think it will be supported?
"Mac recognized it and was able to play DVD content."
Think I'll test that when mine arrives.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"You can steal IP, I think."
e um/1intell.htm
Yes, you can although yours may not be the best example.
Here is what the US PTO says IP is: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/mus
As you can see, a trade secret is an example of IP and trade secrets can definitely be stolen. Of course, there will be some idiots who argue that taking a trade secret doesn't amount to theft but that's ridiculous. Any company is free to patent any trade secret and be granted exclusivity to that technology. It should be clear to anyone that the patenting of a trade secret taken from someone else would clearly be theft as the original owner of the trade secret has been denied the patent.
"But no, copying copyrighted works without permission is not theft in the legal sense."
Yes it is. It was declared to be in the Supreme Court ruling being discussed.
"Theft is theft. Period. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Period."
Copyright infringment is theft. Period.
"The person who has "just made a copy" is guilty of copying, not stealing."
And unauthorized copying is a form of stealing. So says Justice Breyer who is far more qualified to say than you are, krell.
"IP infringement is not theft because copying someone's "intellectual property" does not deprive the original owner of it."
IP theft deprives the owner of control over that IP which is rightfully his. In the case of illegal distribution you are denying the owner his distribution rights. The Supreme court decision stated clearly that illegal copying is theft.
"It is not spin to point out abuse of words and encourage accurate usage in accordance with actual definitions."
d f
Not that you're ever a slave to "actual definitions". You've been known to partake in a little spin yourself.
"Copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes. No one has ever shown even one example of anything being stolen via p2p."
And there you couldn't be more wrong. Here's the judgement that proves it: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.p
Look on page 50 of the of the pdf or simply search for "theft".
"...And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
and the definition of theft is "The crime of taking someone else's property without consent".
In other words, krell, unlawful copying IS the same as the unlawful taking of property and therefore IS the same as theft. This was not only proven but it was the unamimous decision of SCOTUS and those were the exact words of Justice Breyer. It gets no more definitive than that.
Of course, you will discard Breyer as being ignorant on the law as you already have. Anything that doesn't agree with your world view doesn't exist and any evidence to the contrary must be incorrect. Continue to parrot the meaningless and incorrect warcry that copyright infringment isn't theft as though that somehow justifies illegal behavior.
As long as you get what you want, there's no reason to think beyond justifying it, right krell?
"Considering that it is impossible to steal IP..."
Of course it's possible.
"...he has no idea what he is talking about."
He may be the enemy but he certainly knows what he's talking about.
"Either that, or he is intentionally lying."
Yeah, because anyone that doesn't agree with you is either ignorant or lying, right krell? Par for the course.
"How can he be? If he knew a thing about Grokster, he'd know that no theft ever took place on it."
Interesting that you would call into question a Supreme Court justice's credentials because he doesn't agree with you on the definition of "theft". A wise person would call into question his own understanding of the concept.
"Yes, you do. You're doing it right now."
I have not. All I've done is consistently counter the claims by you and others that the researchers were frauds who failed to support the claims of flaws on the mac platform. I've never defended them other than to support that that could have been right and I've offered reasons to explain non-response to public criticism. It is you that is making indefensible claims here, not me. I have no position one way or another on their claims other than I take them at face value. No one has given me reason to believe that they were motivated to lie and I don't assume that they did.
"Straw man, I've stated nothing of the kind."
No, but you've demonstrated it through meritless attacks.
"Gee, with all the attention on the drivers, funny that Apple would go through and look at them! However, the update *DOESN'T ADDRESS THE SAME ISSUE IN QUESTION*. Funny that doesn't seem to matter to you."
That's certainly what Apple said though the description of some of the fixes looked suspiciously familiar. Since we don't know for certain exactly what the vulnerability was (or as you might put it, what the lie perpetrated by the frauds claimed to be) Apple will have plausible deniability at least to the public. At least you recognize that public attention likely caused Apple to review the code in question and issue an update. You would think that an open-minded person might see that as legitimizing the researchers' claims. Instead, you would take Apple's statement at face value while calling the reseachers liars. If anyone doesn't know you to be a fanboy, I can't imagine how they don't get it now.
"There's absolutely no reason someone should believe them. They have *NO* credibility."
And that's where you are wrong. They demonstrated a vulnerability and said that the problem was not solely limited to one hardware or software platform. Events that followed (software updates from vendors) lended further credibility to their claim. Only people in denial, such as you, see it otherwise.
It's interesting to note that Windows was also identified as being vulnerable yet no one has ever claimed that the researchers were liars for having claimed that and not offered proof. Since you claim to not be a mac fanboy, why aren't you outraged over that crime?
They probably wanted to pick someone who showers. As I understand it, Linus doesn't claim to be allergic to water.
BSD already had a C compiler! If there were no Linux and no GNU, there would be a lot of developers available to do similar things with different names (assuming there's a comparable free software movement at all).
The opportunity for Linux to come into existance at all was due to GNU not making progress on a kernel and BSD being tied up in their legal battles. Had history unfolded differently it's not clear we'd be any worse off. Frankly starting with the experienced codebase of BSD would seem better IMO.
"(and remember, in 1992 if there had been no GNU, there would have been no Linux; period)"
;-) ).
While I don't disagree with you otherwise, you can't say that this is true. It certainly would have taken a different path, but Linus wanted to do a kernel and may well have done so anyway (period
John Gruber is a grandstander who attempted to turn the spotlight onto him. His offer couldn't possibly match what the researchers hoped to gain (and most certainly did gain) through consulting on the issue. There were reasons why the researchers presented the flaw and chief among then certainly wasn't to increase attention for an Apple cheerleader's blog. Odds are that they wanted to get paid (and I don't mean with a single MacBook).
Who says they didn't? Full *public* disclosure isn't necessary for that. Considering that Apple did, in fact, update their products shortly afterward suggests that there was sufficient disclosure for that to happen.