In some ways it helped, but in other was the BIOS layer used for transportability was also an achilles heel in design. The design of the original IBM XT was the motherboard that carried the standard (and it was oddly NOT copyrighted and IBM published the BIOS).
The design flaws of that motherboard have dogged us ever since. Only at 64-bit CPU designs does some of that madness end.
Gary's contributions are significant. pip rdr:=pun: and other cyptozoa. Yet I'll agree his method was far ahead of others.
Do you mean that Apple somehow sanctifies ideas? If they did, a lot of their duds would be real right not. Like others, they try, fail, and try again.
The locked down nature of stuff is onerous. That's why I tend to root for platforms that are either open, or easily jailbroken with impunity (rather than something ugly like an RIAA breathing down your neck). I have hope for Android.... and even Palm. The more, the merrier.
When the Mac came out, it had a usable GUI, and after its ill-fated Lisa predecessor. It took a long time before the cult of Apple was rejuvenated. The Avis-#2 effect coupled to reliability is what ultimately allowed Apple to rejuvenate its market. They're not innovators, just like Microsoft is not an innovator. Instead, Microsoft's Windows was made of Swiss Cheese from a security and architectural standpoint. The Mac's GUI and software set became legendary for doing things like page composition and useful media tricks, where Microsoft was in a circle-jerk with its hardware buddies.
Timing is everything, and so is quality. MS-DOS sucked, as did its predecessors-- all based on a rewrite of DEC's RT11 called CP/M. UCSD p-System sucked worse although a nice learning platform. Even PICK on the original PC SUCKED. That Apple used 6502s, then 68Ks, etc, was a war that they ultimately lost when they switched to Intel processor families.
Will Microsoft win share with their touch screens? Consider: Apple has a touch screen on iPods and a heavy bank of apps that are all touchable.
Fujitsu, who by the way has a higher share than HP for Windows=based touchpads, contrary to above posts, has a great screen and design. But its apps that drive these things, and touch isn't practical for many tasks, much as the vendors would like to see you with a stylus in your hands. The growth of touch isn't likely to be huge for this and many other practical reasons. Cool ideas, but ultimately not going to make much difference.
You'd need a helluva telephoto; the perimeter is huge.
You can't enter, because it's not a public venue, it's a paid for event requiring a ticket or an invitation whose admittance requires consenting to the terms of a ticket.
Expectations of privacy at the event are high, because of these terms. That doesn't mean to say that there aren't thousands of exhibitionists of one form or another there; rather, pics taken can be requested to be withdrawn because of the rights granted by the admittance.
Were it a public place, I would agree, but it isn't a public place. we differ in our thinking here.
Cameras take more than nude photos. People are in costume, they participate in silly stuff. They have the right to control within the scope of the contract, photos taken at the event IMHO. As it's not a public place, it's leased space with a huge perimeter fence and area, I argue that it's not public at all.
As regards it being a clique, there may be something to that. You'd have to go to be a real judge. There's genuine warmth there; more per block than most family reunions.
The mutual consideration point is that you got to attend the event, and were subject to the same consideration as others attending the event.
My BM pics have been posted; never touched, easily found, nice pics. Pics of people that were clearly not desiring their naked butts to be posted were taken down at my personal request, not that of BM. Would the poster have not done so, I would have contacted BM to have them consider exercising their right. The area was clearly marked as a no-pic no camera site.
But the lawyers win in this one. Clearly, if you don't like the rules, don't hijack it for your own intents.
As they've already mentioned, and they've already been addressed. You, as a function of your use of the ticket, are bound by its terms as a contract. You don't own the images. You gave up that right.
It's not automagic, it's a contract that's binding. Read the contract. Understand that it's not a public place, and that entry was contingent on accepting the terms and submitting to them. The rest is litigation.
First you make the mistake of implying that BM is a leftist event. It's not.
By the ticket contract, you agree to the terms, whatever you think of them if you go to the event you're bound by them, or BM has nexus to be injured and therefore litigate.
I'm happy to cede my rights in this regard, tho others will vary. I like that BM has its character and niche after several decades of egos that would like to see it do otherwise. If it's the Mormon Church or the Scientologists, if they cede their rights by exercising the ticket, then let them be private. You already cede your rights when you do a google search-- read the EULAs and the privacy notices and so on.
That they want to retain their rights is their choice. I've happily ceded mine. I have no juicy pics. Or do I?
Uh, no. Saying the argument holds no water doesn't make it so.
It's private property for purposes of the event. You must buy or be granted a ticket and comply with the terms. Go on, pay some money and ask a real lawyer. I lease my office. It's the same as if I own it. You get to come in if I say it's ok-- otherwise you're trespassing.
As I'm not a lawyer, and neither are you, arguing point #1 is silly.
Point #2, however, is a bit silly, too. Consider that if you buy a ticket to Bonaroo or the Indy 500, you're bound to the terms of the ticket. Don't want to honor it? Fine: don't go.
It is a private venue, and is protected in reality as well as ideologically in many ways.
The copyrights aren't absconded with. That's not what the tickets read. Your sense that US law must be followed is a good one, if violated from the presidency on down. Period. In terms of civility, I believe it's a good idea as a participant. You go, then decide.
Lots of people go there for commeraderie, community, participation in joint events, celebration, fun, ludicrousness, laughter, sex, drinking (etc), and living in a very hostile place- comfortably.
I've been several times; each time was like living on another planet. There are 50 hugs per block at BM. There's little strife, and gifting is the cultural norm. Radical self reliance, expression, and community can be enriching.
Yes, people decorate bikes, their vehicles, their camps, and so on. Such art and decoration is laughed at in the 'default world', but is an endearing component of the event, as is the all-are-friends culture. It's very real, and comparatively idyllic compared to the uncivil world that we live in.
Not really. Your sense of conferring rights is in error. Consider the contract on the back of the ticket. Consider the venue, which is purposefully isolated, and is a private, not-public event.
Consider that vehicles are searched for video cameras, and must have labels that they've been cleared. Consider that still images are encouraged, and the exercised rights of the BM organization pertain clearly to the contract.
Your assertion that a court should allow abrogation of a contract merely because it fits the whimsy of an individual or organization seeking to make commercial gain or in any other way cause the event harm through exposition is also incorrect.
No, pictures should be taken and posted as they already are. Those that are commercially benefit someone violate the rights of the hosting organization. Those pictures that are censored are often done for very good reason. I have personally asked for certain BM pictures to be removed (I'm only a participant) and have had the posted pics removed because they were taken in an area clearly and unmistakably marked a no-picture zone.
Your sense that the BM org can't limit it isn't true; they can assert their rights and if participants agree to them, then those rights will likely be held valid by jurisprudence. Notice the 'prudence' in that word. And IANAL, but have been a participant, and have knowledge of how contract law works.
Not a public venue. It's very much a private venue. What part of leased property don't you comprehend?
In fact, we're looking at you now.... should have the/. user database hacked shortly. We'll be in your machine shortly. Better delete that child pR0n now.....
It's not walking around the desert naked-- it's private leased property.
The land underneath is BLM. The area is leased and is private.
Ridiculous is fine when you're with people that have consented to whatever. But you're incorrect in comparing BM to RenFests. They can do whatever they want, just like it were a nudist camp--- because the lease provides nexus of control to the BM organization. Even the Pershing County sheriffs will walk by, gawk, then walk on-- unless someone's obviously in trouble or violating the law by doing illegal drugs, etc.
The area is leased to the organization. As a leaseholder, they can encumber you by the terms of the ticket. Your argument doesn't hold water in this controlled-access event. There's a perimeter fence that would thwart even really cool telephoto lenses. There are even NOTAMs for flyers that would like to buzz by.
Uh, no. There are no sponsors, there are no logos (except humorous art logos). It's still a gifting culture. The only thing that's really changed is the limitation on firearms and pets. I kind of like not hearing the sound of AK-47 clips at 2am above the sound of various drum cultures.
Uh, no. It's a leased space for the time of the event. Their legal basis is court-tested in Nevada and California courts. The ticket is key; it's a contract just like the one you get when you park your car in a garage.
If you'll read about the arsonist that did it, you'll get more insight into what actually goes on at the event, and what the symbol of "The Man' means to people at the event.
Yeah, it was fun to see The Man burn twice, but more ironic and paradoxical than hypocrisy. That guy was uniformly vilified by the participants, as well as the organizers.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that life is pointless, your advice to laugh is also pointless. Certainly humor is good medicine, but there is a point to life.
Read Vonnegut's last book if you need an update.
Using depression as a motivator is nihilistic. You can do the same thing without being depressed and be happier about it.
Uh, no.
RT11 came from DEC.
CP/M came from DR.
In some ways it helped, but in other was the BIOS layer used for transportability was also an achilles heel in design. The design of the original IBM XT was the motherboard that carried the standard (and it was oddly NOT copyrighted and IBM published the BIOS).
The design flaws of that motherboard have dogged us ever since. Only at 64-bit CPU designs does some of that madness end.
Gary's contributions are significant. pip rdr:=pun: and other cyptozoa. Yet I'll agree his method was far ahead of others.
Do you mean that Apple somehow sanctifies ideas? If they did, a lot of their duds would be real right not. Like others, they try, fail, and try again.
The locked down nature of stuff is onerous. That's why I tend to root for platforms that are either open, or easily jailbroken with impunity (rather than something ugly like an RIAA breathing down your neck). I have hope for Android.... and even Palm. The more, the merrier.
Your sense of history is incorrect.
When the Mac came out, it had a usable GUI, and after its ill-fated Lisa predecessor. It took a long time before the cult of Apple was rejuvenated. The Avis-#2 effect coupled to reliability is what ultimately allowed Apple to rejuvenate its market. They're not innovators, just like Microsoft is not an innovator. Instead, Microsoft's Windows was made of Swiss Cheese from a security and architectural standpoint. The Mac's GUI and software set became legendary for doing things like page composition and useful media tricks, where Microsoft was in a circle-jerk with its hardware buddies.
Timing is everything, and so is quality. MS-DOS sucked, as did its predecessors-- all based on a rewrite of DEC's RT11 called CP/M. UCSD p-System sucked worse although a nice learning platform. Even PICK on the original PC SUCKED. That Apple used 6502s, then 68Ks, etc, was a war that they ultimately lost when they switched to Intel processor families.
Will Microsoft win share with their touch screens? Consider: Apple has a touch screen on iPods and a heavy bank of apps that are all touchable.
Fujitsu, who by the way has a higher share than HP for Windows=based touchpads, contrary to above posts, has a great screen and design. But its apps that drive these things, and touch isn't practical for many tasks, much as the vendors would like to see you with a stylus in your hands. The growth of touch isn't likely to be huge for this and many other practical reasons. Cool ideas, but ultimately not going to make much difference.
You'd need a helluva telephoto; the perimeter is huge.
You can't enter, because it's not a public venue, it's a paid for event requiring a ticket or an invitation whose admittance requires consenting to the terms of a ticket.
Expectations of privacy at the event are high, because of these terms. That doesn't mean to say that there aren't thousands of exhibitionists of one form or another there; rather, pics taken can be requested to be withdrawn because of the rights granted by the admittance.
My suggestion: go to the event. Have fun. Take pics. Have them censored. Litigate. And for what?
Indeed there is a street by street Google Earth map. Check it out.
Were it a public place, I would agree, but it isn't a public place. we differ in our thinking here.
Cameras take more than nude photos. People are in costume, they participate in silly stuff. They have the right to control within the scope of the contract, photos taken at the event IMHO. As it's not a public place, it's leased space with a huge perimeter fence and area, I argue that it's not public at all.
As regards it being a clique, there may be something to that. You'd have to go to be a real judge. There's genuine warmth there; more per block than most family reunions.
The mutual consideration point is that you got to attend the event, and were subject to the same consideration as others attending the event.
My BM pics have been posted; never touched, easily found, nice pics. Pics of people that were clearly not desiring their naked butts to be posted were taken down at my personal request, not that of BM. Would the poster have not done so, I would have contacted BM to have them consider exercising their right. The area was clearly marked as a no-pic no camera site.
But the lawyers win in this one. Clearly, if you don't like the rules, don't hijack it for your own intents.
As they've already mentioned, and they've already been addressed. You, as a function of your use of the ticket, are bound by its terms as a contract. You don't own the images. You gave up that right.
It's not automagic, it's a contract that's binding. Read the contract. Understand that it's not a public place, and that entry was contingent on accepting the terms and submitting to them. The rest is litigation.
You haven't said if BM's ticket contract violates yours, however.
First you make the mistake of implying that BM is a leftist event. It's not.
By the ticket contract, you agree to the terms, whatever you think of them if you go to the event you're bound by them, or BM has nexus to be injured and therefore litigate.
I'm happy to cede my rights in this regard, tho others will vary. I like that BM has its character and niche after several decades of egos that would like to see it do otherwise. If it's the Mormon Church or the Scientologists, if they cede their rights by exercising the ticket, then let them be private. You already cede your rights when you do a google search-- read the EULAs and the privacy notices and so on.
That they want to retain their rights is their choice. I've happily ceded mine. I have no juicy pics. Or do I?
Uh, no. DId you read their contract? I guess not.
Uh, no. Saying the argument holds no water doesn't make it so.
It's private property for purposes of the event. You must buy or be granted a ticket and comply with the terms. Go on, pay some money and ask a real lawyer. I lease my office. It's the same as if I own it. You get to come in if I say it's ok-- otherwise you're trespassing.
As I'm not a lawyer, and neither are you, arguing point #1 is silly.
Point #2, however, is a bit silly, too. Consider that if you buy a ticket to Bonaroo or the Indy 500, you're bound to the terms of the ticket. Don't want to honor it? Fine: don't go.
It is a private venue, and is protected in reality as well as ideologically in many ways.
The copyrights aren't absconded with. That's not what the tickets read. Your sense that US law must be followed is a good one, if violated from the presidency on down. Period. In terms of civility, I believe it's a good idea as a participant. You go, then decide.
Sad to hear that.
Lots of people go there for commeraderie, community, participation in joint events, celebration, fun, ludicrousness, laughter, sex, drinking (etc), and living in a very hostile place- comfortably.
I've been several times; each time was like living on another planet. There are 50 hugs per block at BM. There's little strife, and gifting is the cultural norm. Radical self reliance, expression, and community can be enriching.
Yes, people decorate bikes, their vehicles, their camps, and so on. Such art and decoration is laughed at in the 'default world', but is an endearing component of the event, as is the all-are-friends culture. It's very real, and comparatively idyllic compared to the uncivil world that we live in.
Not really. Your sense of conferring rights is in error. Consider the contract on the back of the ticket. Consider the venue, which is purposefully isolated, and is a private, not-public event.
Consider that vehicles are searched for video cameras, and must have labels that they've been cleared. Consider that still images are encouraged, and the exercised rights of the BM organization pertain clearly to the contract.
Your assertion that a court should allow abrogation of a contract merely because it fits the whimsy of an individual or organization seeking to make commercial gain or in any other way cause the event harm through exposition is also incorrect.
No, pictures should be taken and posted as they already are. Those that are commercially benefit someone violate the rights of the hosting organization. Those pictures that are censored are often done for very good reason. I have personally asked for certain BM pictures to be removed (I'm only a participant) and have had the posted pics removed because they were taken in an area clearly and unmistakably marked a no-picture zone.
Your sense that the BM org can't limit it isn't true; they can assert their rights and if participants agree to them, then those rights will likely be held valid by jurisprudence. Notice the 'prudence' in that word. And IANAL, but have been a participant, and have knowledge of how contract law works.
Not a public venue. It's very much a private venue. What part of leased property don't you comprehend?
In fact, we're looking at you now.... should have the /. user database hacked shortly. We'll be in your machine shortly. Better delete that child pR0n now.....
Yeah, the eclipse was amazing. But burning the man before people got there was robbery. Or course, they had to pull him down at the second burn....
It's not FEDERAL LAND. It's leased from the BLM.
It's not walking around the desert naked-- it's private leased property.
The land underneath is BLM. The area is leased and is private.
Ridiculous is fine when you're with people that have consented to whatever. But you're incorrect in comparing BM to RenFests. They can do whatever they want, just like it were a nudist camp--- because the lease provides nexus of control to the BM organization. Even the Pershing County sheriffs will walk by, gawk, then walk on-- unless someone's obviously in trouble or violating the law by doing illegal drugs, etc.
Nope.
The area is leased to the organization. As a leaseholder, they can encumber you by the terms of the ticket. Your argument doesn't hold water in this controlled-access event. There's a perimeter fence that would thwart even really cool telephoto lenses. There are even NOTAMs for flyers that would like to buzz by.
Uh, no. There are no sponsors, there are no logos (except humorous art logos). It's still a gifting culture. The only thing that's really changed is the limitation on firearms and pets. I kind of like not hearing the sound of AK-47 clips at 2am above the sound of various drum cultures.
Uh, no. It's a leased space for the time of the event. Their legal basis is court-tested in Nevada and California courts. The ticket is key; it's a contract just like the one you get when you park your car in a garage.
If you'll read about the arsonist that did it, you'll get more insight into what actually goes on at the event, and what the symbol of "The Man' means to people at the event.
Yeah, it was fun to see The Man burn twice, but more ironic and paradoxical than hypocrisy. That guy was uniformly vilified by the participants, as well as the organizers.