I would defend iRobot on the grounds that the central premises - that a sufficiently advanced robot or AI would eventually think its way around the three laws to justify harming individual humans for the greater good of humanity (the short "That thou art mindful of him" and the "zeroth law" from the later "Robots" books) and/or a supercomputer taking control of the world ("The life and times of Multivac") do indeed come from Asimov's books.
I can almost rationalize away making Susan Calvin a love interest - given that, although Asimov's early books were sex free, later installments have (e.g.) Elijah Bailey getting his end away with the chick from "The Naked Sun".
I would... however, nothing can excuse the shameless product placement for overpriced trainers, so a pox on the whole movie!
The phil collins crap should have been enough by itself to get it banned as highly offensive.
Since Phil Collins is a drummer, you could choose to interpret the ad as suggesting that he is an ape, if that would ease your anti-Collins sensitivity. Unless you like apes.
Anyway, the version currently airing in the UK has Bonnie Tyler instead:-)
Its a shame that the ASA doesn't come down with the same force on the incessant bombardment of beauty treatments we have with obviously fake material in them.
I think you'll find that the cosmetic industry are more adept at not making easily falsifiable claims and having lots of "scientific evidence" ready to show that 70% of women who used their gunk thought it made their skin smoother. What they carefully won't do is claim that their £30-a-pot pro-nanoliptoid snakeoil is actually any better than cheap and cheerful economy brand moisturiser.
I'd say that UK advertising tends to be a bit more subtle and understated than USA (try and work out what a gorilla playing the drums to "Total Eclipse of the Heart" has to do with chocolate, for instance). Apple doesn't seem to have worked out the subtle art of disinginuity needed. But, hey, they've had 25 years and they still haven't worked out that a British keyboard is more than just an American keyboard with a £ sign instead of a #.
I think the success Asus has had with the EeePC doesn't come so much from the PC's form factor or scale, as from the fact that it's... just a PC
Except the original EEEPC came with a customised Linux OS which to most of the target market was not what they were used to.
Also, although it wasn't "locked down" in the iPhone sense, and all us slashdot types had enabled the "advanced" desktop and added the full Debian repositories before you could say "apt-get", your typical non-geek user would have had difficulty installing anything not on the very limited Asus repository.
Yet the original EEE seemed to fly off the shelves - and its hard to know whether the subsequent move towards XP was really "by popular demand" or because Asus drank deeply Microsoft's Kool Aid.
If Mozilla could get aggressive about this too, we could see Internet Explorer facing more serious competition than ever.
This isn't about the browser wars of old - its about a possible future "cloud wars" between Google Apps and Microsoft.
Microsoft currently has a potential advantage in that it controls both the browser and its web apps - so its no big surprise when things like Sharepoint and Exchange webmail work more slickly on IE than they do on other browsers. Even if Microsoft would never stoop to an "IE9 ain't done until Google Apps won't run" policy, they have no incentive to make things easy for Google Apps. (While not strictly webapp related, I'm still cursing the silly restrictions on running "active content" from local discs they introduced as an alternative to fixing the bloody security model).
Playing with Chrome its clear that slick handling of webapps (such as making webapps launch and display more like local applications) was a priority - and Google is free to develop this aspect further. Even if I wasn't tempted to "switch" from Firefox or IE to Chrome as my main browser, I might consider using Chrome as a webapp platform.
creative use of the law, in the same state, missouri. using the rico statues to go after the riaa
True. I really don't see what sending people threatening letters falsely accusing them of copyright violations and demanding they pay large settlements has to do with laws on mail fraud and extortion. Oh, wait...
al capone couldn't be gotten at through murder raps and conspiracy, so they got at him through income tax
You wanted a slippery slope? Use tax law "creatively" to end the reign of terror of a murderous top-level gangster who's web of corruption threatened the rule of law and, hey, the end justifies the means. Now you're using that example to justify "creative prosecution" against someone who, however cruel her actions were, is hardly the godmother of a massive cyber-bullying ring who will go on killing until stopped. Or were the original charges dropped because the DA's Second Life avatar woke up next to a horse's head? (OMG! Ponies!)
people who commit crimes that are not garden variety
...should be called "innocent" until their "crime" can be shown to be against the law and it has been proven that they committed it. It doesn't mean you have to approve of what they did.
in other words, an adult willfully manipulated an emotionally unstable minor over a prolonged period of time with the intent of causing her psychological harm
But thats not what she is being prosecuted for. Go read the NYT article: "Missouri law enforcement officials said they had not found enough evidence to bring charges in the case". I think its still traditional in some states that you need evidence to convict someone.
Consequently, she's being prosecuted for computer fraud - although its perfectly clear why she's really in court, and the prosecution has already made damn sure the jury knows that this is about a dead kid.
if the law is limited to the context of an adult purposefully causing psychological harm over a prolonged period of time...
The only "laws" involved in this case are limited to the context of interstate fraud and MySpace's terms and conditions, none of which exists for the purpose of punishing cyber-bullies. Even if stricter legislation on online bullying is required, synthesizing it from unrelated laws is not the way to go about it.
If you sent someone a paper letter and they later killed themselves, you'd expect the legal case to concentrate on what you said in the letter, and what you knew about the victim - not whether you'd stolen the paper from work. Conversely, if you're on trial for stealing paper you'd want the judge and jury to be thinking about stolen paper, not unproven allegations that you'd driven someone to suicide. Seems pretty obvious with paper, but some people do tend to turn off their common sense as soon as a computer becomes involved - plus, there's now all these lovely new vaguely-drafted laws on IT, IPR and security with humongous maximum sentences...
Wait so if Microsoft implements copy protection measures in their OS it is bad and evil, but when Apple decides to have DRM in iTunes/iPod, lock down iPhones to a single provider, and now implement HDCP preventing you from playing DRM'ed content you purchased legally on your own hardware, it is business as usual?
Deep breath - all together now:
Absolutely, because, as has just been confirmed in the Psystar case Apple isn't a monopoly. Microsoft is. When a company has ~95% of the market they are in a position to abuse that market by stifling competition, strong-arming themselves into related markets and restricting customer choice. It is quite reasonable to hold such companies up to greater scrutiny, which is why the US, EU and other economies have "antitrust" laws.
Case in point: because Microsoft agreed to implement HDCP, the movie industry can roll it out in the confidence that 95% of computer users can, potentially, play it. This leaves the other 5% of market with a choice between implementing HDCP or conceding the high-def playback market to Microsoft.
What is the definition of the "computer with which it was sold"? Is it the case which the original electronics were mounted in and the sticker is attached to? Is it the mainboard? The HDD? Some other combination?
Practical answer is "when Windows product activation tells you to phone Microsoft and they refuse". If you're interested in your actual legal rights rather than the rights begrudged to you by DRM, go ask a lawyer - but I suspect that the "this is my great grandfather's broom, even though its had six new heads and three new handles" isn't going to wash. Realistically, I doubt that this would ever be actively enforced against DIY users, any more than Apple is going after DIY hackintosh builders. If you're running a business (e.g.) re-cycling old PCs, then its lawyer time.
It might make a psychological difference, but not a legal one.
I agree there's no real difference, but there is safety in numbers: Apple is slightly unusual in saying "you can only use this software on Apple branded computers", but most big software houses sell "upgrade" versions and would quite like that to be legally enforceable. Not that I'm suggesting that big business interests can influence the legal system at all.
Labelling the packages "Upgrade" but not enforcing any kind of technical measure against clean installs is called lying.
Nonsense. If so, selling a music CD with a copyright notice but no DRM to stop you ripping and uploading it is also "lying". I don't think so. Before product activation became commonplace most commercial software did nothing to enforce its license. Lots of publishers sell software "for educational use only" at a discount - the license says you can't use it for commercial purposes, but there's nothing to enforce it.
(See also "Internet Explorer is an integral part of Windows" [cnet.com].)
MS were accused of monopoly abuse by bundling IE with windows, and trying to claim that it was technically impossible to remove it. How do you get from there to "you can't impose a license condition without backing it up with a technological measure"?
Anyway, Microsoft has a near-monopoly in personal computer operating system market - so anti-trust law allows the courts to poke their nose into what they sell to who and for how much.
TFA was all about Psystar being laughed out of court for trying to argue that Apple were a monopoly - because only Apple made Apple products - and could therefore be told what they had to sell to whom and for how much. Apple don't have a monopoly. The reason that it sometimes seems that there is one law for MS and another law for Apple is because there is.
This is EXACTLY the same if Microsoft turned around and said that windows can only be used on specific intel motherboard and cpu, and that only microsoft can decree what hardware is allowed to be used with it.
So, rather like the terms under which the vast majority of Windows licenses are sold, then?
Most new PCs come with an OEM version of Windows with a license that specifically restricts its use to the computer with which it was sold. Most "boxed" versions of Windows sold to consumers are "upgrades" which require that you have an existing copy. My employer has a Windows "site license" which entitles it to install any version of windows on its PCs but (last time I looked) only if they originally came with OEM Windows.
The only "get out" is that Microsoft will sell you a "Full Retail" version for 2-3 times the price of the OEM/Upgrade versions which most customers buy. If Apple do lose the court case (flap, oink), one work-around might be to hike the price of OSX to, say, $500-$1000 (not without precedent for certified Unix with a full dev kit) and offer an "upgrade" to existing OS X license holders (i.e. anyone with a Mac) for $130.
If someone challenges that it would set some interesting precedents for Microsoft...
We should be allowed a choice!
Remember that when you go to buy a netbook (like the EEE) or OLPC and find that the Borg have been round and now, somehow, the Linux versions are now (a) more expensive and (b) not in stock. Funny that. Now if Apple tried that, everybody would flame them...
Unless you count the $129/sale from the boxed copy of OS X that Pystar include as a financial recompense...
If you pay Microsoft $129 then all you get is an upgrade to Vista Home Premium which requires that you already have a license for XP. If you fancy "Ultimate" for that sort of money you'll have to settle for an OEM copy, the license for which specifically excludes technical support (now that's one EULA which would be fun to see tested in court).
So Apple could easily point to their main competitor and argue that $129 is not a fair recompense for a "full retail" license of a full-featured OS (and since when did Windows come with a web server and complete development tools kit?)
I can't understand why Apple don't describe the OSX retail boxes as "Upgrades" though - since you require a Mac and all Macs ship with Mac OS it amounts to the same thing, and I really can't see a court overturning the practice of selling "upgrade" products.
hey everyone! don't look at the potential shortcomings of my pet techno-political cause! think of how bad it could be elsewhere!
Hey everyone! Look at the shortcomings of this techno-political cause! Don't worry your little head about the fact that all the alternatives share the same shortcomings!
that's why companies stick with proven solutions by companies like microsoft and ibm.
None of whom will typically include any sort of guaranteed long-term support in the price of a simple end-user software license - you'll have to buy the support separately, just as you can go to Red Hat, Novell/SUSE or (as you mention) IBM to get support for open source. If the death of a key open source project leaves enough support customers high and dry, then these companies have an incentive to take it over - and if they do this by forking or adopting GPL code then everyone will benefit.
companies are absolutely justified in their avoiding small oss projects.
...and are even more justified avoiding proprietary software from small companies (which could end up as copyright-locked abandonware if the supplier folds). Heck, at least with OSS you have the possibility of paying a third party to fix the code for you!
Of course, a big reputable company would never (say) foist an unwanted revision of its flagship office software on customers, forcing them to re-train staff to use a gratuitously different user interface and deal with major file compatibility headaches...
Is an open source project obliged to provide support for its users? If so, for how long should the support last?
Since many closed source suppliers who charge you money for their products typically include an EULA that purports to excuse them from any sort of responsibility whatsoever, criticizing "free beer" projects (open source or not is irrelevant) for failure to provide lifetime support seems a bit rich.
I hope ndiswrapper isn't dead, though - or has the state of the art of native Linux wireless drivers now advanced to the point where it is no longer needed?
You should never use the same equipment for your chemistry as for your other household things.
Too true. With some of the additives they use these days, the risk of your food contaminating your delicate experiments is just too great. If, say, you got some of that melamine-adulterated Chinese milk mixed up with your reactants, it could really screw up the results!
The question is, does a comparable Mac even exist for a cheap PC.
No.
Better question: How can Apple, with less than 10% of the PC market, afford to develop their own OS and custom hardware in competition with Microsoft, who get a rakeoff from nearly every PC sale?
Answer: by only selling high-end laptops, small-form-factor desktops and workstation-class towers which can be sold for a premium price and a decent profit margin.
The vendor selling those cheap entry-level laptops probably relies on you buying some upgrades or a warranty plan in order to actually turn a profit.
I have a HP Pavilion DV6000 [google.co.uk], comes with pretty much everything. I bought it a few months ago for £400 (GBP). A Mac Mini costs £399 (GBP).
Did you post the right link? The one you gave brings up a few eBay/refurb listings for the DV6000 for which the going rate seems to be over £400 so you did really well to get a brand new one for that.
I'm assuming that you got a new one, because comparing the eBay/refurb/surplus price of a discontinued PC model* with the current RRP of a new Apple would be completely bloody stupid.
You can get refurb/second-hand Apples, too, you know... (and p-p-p-powerbooks, but we won't talk about that).
*This was all I could find quickly - which cost £700+ new - although it does sound like yours is a newer model.
1. Because Google set themselves up for criticism by having a much-publicised motto of Don't be evil.
2. Because the idea that even Mac-fans regard Apple as saints is a total straw man. Mac fans love the products (provided they have Firewire and matte screens) - but only the most deluded would deny Apple's well-established record of playing hardball and looking after number one (go ask Apple corp, Microsoft, the firms which licensed Mac OS 9, would-be producers of Apple II clones etc.) Heck, nobody can progress beyond Junior Acolyte in the Church of Jobs unless their blog has been anointed by a DMCA takedown from the Holy One. Go look on a Mac fan site like macrumors.com sometime (they even have a convenient front-page tally of how many negative comments have been made about each posting, so you won't have to read endless speculation about what colour the jack plug on the next iPod is going to be).
3. Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly - if Steve Jobs screws your pooch, you are free to walk out of the Apple store and buy a Windows or Linux machine. If he screws too many pooches, Apple will go bust. OTOH, lots of people find themselves forced to use or upgrade Microsoft products because of their market dominance, and Microsoft can sell products like Vista and Office 07 that nobody actually wants.
4. Finally, just some of the recent articles from/. that seem to have escaped your notice:
Users Rage Over Missing FireWire On New MacBooks
iPhone Antitrust and Computer Fraud Claims Upheld
iPhone Tethering App Released, Killed In 2 Hours
Inside Apple's iPhone SDK Gag Order
iPhone SDK and Free Software Don't Match
Woz Dumps on MacBook Air, iPhone, AppleTV
Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app
Apple Laptop Upgrades Costing 200% More Than Dells
Now, is it just me, but could some of those be regarded as just a teeny bit crictical of Apple?
You do realize that xkcd has never been about the art, and its author has never claimed it was?
Er... apart from some of the earlier ones on xkcd.com which (unless I'm missing some really subtle joke) are just art.
Anyway, methinks there's a lot more skill in those "crude" stick figures than some people realise. Look at the poses of the figures in the "1999" one, for example: as far as getting the picture to tell the story he's nailed it. Those stick people have personality.
Slashdot Mirror
I would defend iRobot on the grounds that the central premises - that a sufficiently advanced robot or AI would eventually think its way around the three laws to justify harming individual humans for the greater good of humanity (the short "That thou art mindful of him" and the "zeroth law" from the later "Robots" books) and/or a supercomputer taking control of the world ("The life and times of Multivac") do indeed come from Asimov's books.
I can almost rationalize away making Susan Calvin a love interest - given that, although Asimov's early books were sex free, later installments have (e.g.) Elijah Bailey getting his end away with the chick from "The Naked Sun".
I would... however, nothing can excuse the shameless product placement for overpriced trainers, so a pox on the whole movie!
The phil collins crap should have been enough by itself to get it banned as highly offensive.
Since Phil Collins is a drummer, you could choose to interpret the ad as suggesting that he is an ape, if that would ease your anti-Collins sensitivity. Unless you like apes.
Anyway, the version currently airing in the UK has Bonnie Tyler instead :-)
Its a shame that the ASA doesn't come down with the same force on the incessant bombardment of beauty treatments we have with obviously fake material in them.
I think you'll find that the cosmetic industry are more adept at not making easily falsifiable claims and having lots of "scientific evidence" ready to show that 70% of women who used their gunk thought it made their skin smoother. What they carefully won't do is claim that their £30-a-pot pro-nanoliptoid snakeoil is actually any better than cheap and cheerful economy brand moisturiser.
I'd say that UK advertising tends to be a bit more subtle and understated than USA (try and work out what a gorilla playing the drums to "Total Eclipse of the Heart" has to do with chocolate, for instance). Apple doesn't seem to have worked out the subtle art of disinginuity needed. But, hey, they've had 25 years and they still haven't worked out that a British keyboard is more than just an American keyboard with a £ sign instead of a #.
I'm going to get a cell phone implanted in my penis
Then you can use your Dictaphone... :-)
(Sorry - but I had to get rid of that joke - it was getting so far past its tell-by date)
I think the success Asus has had with the EeePC doesn't come so much from the PC's form factor or scale, as from the fact that it's ... just a PC
Except the original EEEPC came with a customised Linux OS which to most of the target market was not what they were used to.
Also, although it wasn't "locked down" in the iPhone sense, and all us slashdot types had enabled the "advanced" desktop and added the full Debian repositories before you could say "apt-get", your typical non-geek user would have had difficulty installing anything not on the very limited Asus repository.
Yet the original EEE seemed to fly off the shelves - and its hard to know whether the subsequent move towards XP was really "by popular demand" or because Asus drank deeply Microsoft's Kool Aid.
If Mozilla could get aggressive about this too, we could see Internet Explorer facing more serious competition than ever.
This isn't about the browser wars of old - its about a possible future "cloud wars" between Google Apps and Microsoft.
Microsoft currently has a potential advantage in that it controls both the browser and its web apps - so its no big surprise when things like Sharepoint and Exchange webmail work more slickly on IE than they do on other browsers. Even if Microsoft would never stoop to an "IE9 ain't done until Google Apps won't run" policy, they have no incentive to make things easy for Google Apps. (While not strictly webapp related, I'm still cursing the silly restrictions on running "active content" from local discs they introduced as an alternative to fixing the bloody security model).
Playing with Chrome its clear that slick handling of webapps (such as making webapps launch and display more like local applications) was a priority - and Google is free to develop this aspect further. Even if I wasn't tempted to "switch" from Firefox or IE to Chrome as my main browser, I might consider using Chrome as a webapp platform.
creative use of the law, in the same state, missouri. using the rico statues to go after the riaa
True. I really don't see what sending people threatening letters falsely accusing them of copyright violations and demanding they pay large settlements has to do with laws on mail fraud and extortion. Oh, wait...
al capone couldn't be gotten at through murder raps and conspiracy, so they got at him through income tax
You wanted a slippery slope? Use tax law "creatively" to end the reign of terror of a murderous top-level gangster who's web of corruption threatened the rule of law and, hey, the end justifies the means. Now you're using that example to justify "creative prosecution" against someone who, however cruel her actions were, is hardly the godmother of a massive cyber-bullying ring who will go on killing until stopped. Or were the original charges dropped because the DA's Second Life avatar woke up next to a horse's head? (OMG! Ponies!)
people who commit crimes that are not garden variety
...should be called "innocent" until their "crime" can be shown to be against the law and it has been proven that they committed it. It doesn't mean you have to approve of what they did.
in other words, an adult willfully manipulated an emotionally unstable minor over a prolonged period of time with the intent of causing her psychological harm
But thats not what she is being prosecuted for. Go read the NYT article: "Missouri law enforcement officials said they had not found enough evidence to bring charges in the case". I think its still traditional in some states that you need evidence to convict someone.
Consequently, she's being prosecuted for computer fraud - although its perfectly clear why she's really in court, and the prosecution has already made damn sure the jury knows that this is about a dead kid.
if the law is limited to the context of an adult purposefully causing psychological harm over a prolonged period of time...
The only "laws" involved in this case are limited to the context of interstate fraud and MySpace's terms and conditions, none of which exists for the purpose of punishing cyber-bullies. Even if stricter legislation on online bullying is required, synthesizing it from unrelated laws is not the way to go about it.
If you sent someone a paper letter and they later killed themselves, you'd expect the legal case to concentrate on what you said in the letter, and what you knew about the victim - not whether you'd stolen the paper from work. Conversely, if you're on trial for stealing paper you'd want the judge and jury to be thinking about stolen paper, not unproven allegations that you'd driven someone to suicide. Seems pretty obvious with paper, but some people do tend to turn off their common sense as soon as a computer becomes involved - plus, there's now all these lovely new vaguely-drafted laws on IT, IPR and security with humongous maximum sentences...
Wait so if Microsoft implements copy protection measures in their OS it is bad and evil, but when Apple decides to have DRM in iTunes/iPod, lock down iPhones to a single provider, and now implement HDCP preventing you from playing DRM'ed content you purchased legally on your own hardware, it is business as usual?
Deep breath - all together now:
Absolutely, because, as has just been confirmed in the Psystar case Apple isn't a monopoly. Microsoft is. When a company has ~95% of the market they are in a position to abuse that market by stifling competition, strong-arming themselves into related markets and restricting customer choice. It is quite reasonable to hold such companies up to greater scrutiny, which is why the US, EU and other economies have "antitrust" laws.
Case in point: because Microsoft agreed to implement HDCP, the movie industry can roll it out in the confidence that 95% of computer users can, potentially, play it. This leaves the other 5% of market with a choice between implementing HDCP or conceding the high-def playback market to Microsoft.
What is the definition of the "computer with which it was sold"? Is it the case which the original electronics were mounted in and the sticker is attached to? Is it the mainboard? The HDD? Some other combination?
Practical answer is "when Windows product activation tells you to phone Microsoft and they refuse". If you're interested in your actual legal rights rather than the rights begrudged to you by DRM, go ask a lawyer - but I suspect that the "this is my great grandfather's broom, even though its had six new heads and three new handles" isn't going to wash. Realistically, I doubt that this would ever be actively enforced against DIY users, any more than Apple is going after DIY hackintosh builders. If you're running a business (e.g.) re-cycling old PCs, then its lawyer time.
It might make a psychological difference, but not a legal one.
I agree there's no real difference, but there is safety in numbers: Apple is slightly unusual in saying "you can only use this software on Apple branded computers", but most big software houses sell "upgrade" versions and would quite like that to be legally enforceable. Not that I'm suggesting that big business interests can influence the legal system at all.
Labelling the packages "Upgrade" but not enforcing any kind of technical measure against clean installs is called lying.
Nonsense. If so, selling a music CD with a copyright notice but no DRM to stop you ripping and uploading it is also "lying". I don't think so. Before product activation became commonplace most commercial software did nothing to enforce its license. Lots of publishers sell software "for educational use only" at a discount - the license says you can't use it for commercial purposes, but there's nothing to enforce it.
(See also "Internet Explorer is an integral part of Windows" [cnet.com].)
MS were accused of monopoly abuse by bundling IE with windows, and trying to claim that it was technically impossible to remove it. How do you get from there to "you can't impose a license condition without backing it up with a technological measure"?
Anyway, Microsoft has a near-monopoly in personal computer operating system market - so anti-trust law allows the courts to poke their nose into what they sell to who and for how much.
TFA was all about Psystar being laughed out of court for trying to argue that Apple were a monopoly - because only Apple made Apple products - and could therefore be told what they had to sell to whom and for how much. Apple don't have a monopoly. The reason that it sometimes seems that there is one law for MS and another law for Apple is because there is.
This is EXACTLY the same if Microsoft turned around and said that windows can only be used on specific intel motherboard and cpu, and that only microsoft can decree what hardware is allowed to be used with it.
So, rather like the terms under which the vast majority of Windows licenses are sold, then?
Most new PCs come with an OEM version of Windows with a license that specifically restricts its use to the computer with which it was sold. Most "boxed" versions of Windows sold to consumers are "upgrades" which require that you have an existing copy. My employer has a Windows "site license" which entitles it to install any version of windows on its PCs but (last time I looked) only if they originally came with OEM Windows.
The only "get out" is that Microsoft will sell you a "Full Retail" version for 2-3 times the price of the OEM/Upgrade versions which most customers buy. If Apple do lose the court case (flap, oink), one work-around might be to hike the price of OSX to, say, $500-$1000 (not without precedent for certified Unix with a full dev kit) and offer an "upgrade" to existing OS X license holders (i.e. anyone with a Mac) for $130. If someone challenges that it would set some interesting precedents for Microsoft...
We should be allowed a choice!
Remember that when you go to buy a netbook (like the EEE) or OLPC and find that the Borg have been round and now, somehow, the Linux versions are now (a) more expensive and (b) not in stock. Funny that. Now if Apple tried that, everybody would flame them...
Unless you count the $129/sale from the boxed copy of OS X that Pystar include as a financial recompense...
If you pay Microsoft $129 then all you get is an upgrade to Vista Home Premium which requires that you already have a license for XP. If you fancy "Ultimate" for that sort of money you'll have to settle for an OEM copy, the license for which specifically excludes technical support (now that's one EULA which would be fun to see tested in court).
So Apple could easily point to their main competitor and argue that $129 is not a fair recompense for a "full retail" license of a full-featured OS (and since when did Windows come with a web server and complete development tools kit?)
I can't understand why Apple don't describe the OSX retail boxes as "Upgrades" though - since you require a Mac and all Macs ship with Mac OS it amounts to the same thing, and I really can't see a court overturning the practice of selling "upgrade" products.
hey everyone! don't look at the potential shortcomings of my pet techno-political cause! think of how bad it could be elsewhere!
Hey everyone! Look at the shortcomings of this techno-political cause! Don't worry your little head about the fact that all the alternatives share the same shortcomings!
that's why companies stick with proven solutions by companies like microsoft and ibm.
None of whom will typically include any sort of guaranteed long-term support in the price of a simple end-user software license - you'll have to buy the support separately, just as you can go to Red Hat, Novell/SUSE or (as you mention) IBM to get support for open source. If the death of a key open source project leaves enough support customers high and dry, then these companies have an incentive to take it over - and if they do this by forking or adopting GPL code then everyone will benefit.
companies are absolutely justified in their avoiding small oss projects.
...and are even more justified avoiding proprietary software from small companies (which could end up as copyright-locked abandonware if the supplier folds). Heck, at least with OSS you have the possibility of paying a third party to fix the code for you!
Of course, a big reputable company would never (say) foist an unwanted revision of its flagship office software on customers, forcing them to re-train staff to use a gratuitously different user interface and deal with major file compatibility headaches...
Is an open source project obliged to provide support for its users? If so, for how long should the support last?
Since many closed source suppliers who charge you money for their products typically include an EULA that purports to excuse them from any sort of responsibility whatsoever, criticizing "free beer" projects (open source or not is irrelevant) for failure to provide lifetime support seems a bit rich.
I hope ndiswrapper isn't dead, though - or has the state of the art of native Linux wireless drivers now advanced to the point where it is no longer needed?
You should never use the same equipment for your chemistry as for your other household things.
Too true. With some of the additives they use these days, the risk of your food contaminating your delicate experiments is just too great. If, say, you got some of that melamine-adulterated Chinese milk mixed up with your reactants, it could really screw up the results!
If only the GPL worked the way the anti-GPL schills think it does and "infected" all your output...
Then we'd all have the right to copy and distribute 5 Euro coins. Woohoo!
The question is, does a comparable Mac even exist for a cheap PC.
No.
Better question: How can Apple, with less than 10% of the PC market, afford to develop their own OS and custom hardware in competition with Microsoft, who get a rakeoff from nearly every PC sale?
Answer: by only selling high-end laptops, small-form-factor desktops and workstation-class towers which can be sold for a premium price and a decent profit margin.
The vendor selling those cheap entry-level laptops probably relies on you buying some upgrades or a warranty plan in order to actually turn a profit.
I have a HP Pavilion DV6000 [google.co.uk], comes with pretty much everything. I bought it a few months ago for £400 (GBP). A Mac Mini costs £399 (GBP).
Did you post the right link? The one you gave brings up a few eBay/refurb listings for the DV6000 for which the going rate seems to be over £400 so you did really well to get a brand new one for that.
I'm assuming that you got a new one, because comparing the eBay/refurb/surplus price of a discontinued PC model* with the current RRP of a new Apple would be completely bloody stupid.
You can get refurb/second-hand Apples, too, you know... (and p-p-p-powerbooks, but we won't talk about that).
*This was all I could find quickly - which cost £700+ new - although it does sound like yours is a newer model.
1. Because Google set themselves up for criticism by having a much-publicised motto of Don't be evil.
2. Because the idea that even Mac-fans regard Apple as saints is a total straw man. Mac fans love the products (provided they have Firewire and matte screens) - but only the most deluded would deny Apple's well-established record of playing hardball and looking after number one (go ask Apple corp, Microsoft, the firms which licensed Mac OS 9, would-be producers of Apple II clones etc.) Heck, nobody can progress beyond Junior Acolyte in the Church of Jobs unless their blog has been anointed by a DMCA takedown from the Holy One. Go look on a Mac fan site like macrumors.com sometime (they even have a convenient front-page tally of how many negative comments have been made about each posting, so you won't have to read endless speculation about what colour the jack plug on the next iPod is going to be).
3. Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly - if Steve Jobs screws your pooch, you are free to walk out of the Apple store and buy a Windows or Linux machine. If he screws too many pooches, Apple will go bust. OTOH, lots of people find themselves forced to use or upgrade Microsoft products because of their market dominance, and Microsoft can sell products like Vista and Office 07 that nobody actually wants.
4. Finally, just some of the recent articles from /. that seem to have escaped your notice:
Users Rage Over Missing FireWire On New MacBooks
iPhone Antitrust and Computer Fraud Claims Upheld
iPhone Tethering App Released, Killed In 2 Hours
Inside Apple's iPhone SDK Gag Order
iPhone SDK and Free Software Don't Match
Woz Dumps on MacBook Air, iPhone, AppleTV
Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app
Apple Laptop Upgrades Costing 200% More Than Dells
Now, is it just me, but could some of those be regarded as just a teeny bit crictical of Apple?
You do realize that xkcd has never been about the art, and its author has never claimed it was?
Er... apart from some of the earlier ones on xkcd.com which (unless I'm missing some really subtle joke) are just art.
Anyway, methinks there's a lot more skill in those "crude" stick figures than some people realise. Look at the poses of the figures in the "1999" one, for example: as far as getting the picture to tell the story he's nailed it. Those stick people have personality.
I'll go a month ago. Oh wait...
You want "Closed timelike curve" - its about 3 blocks south of "infinite loop."
Pretty simple......show both comics to 10 random people on the street......which do you think will get the most laughs?
FAIL! You didn't specify which street. I call Infinite Loop, Cupertino.
Apparently that one was over most other's heads.
I did experience a brief brainfart when I thought it was a reference to Monty Python...