You can run windows on PowerPC, I've done it plenty of times. And Microsoft encourages it, because they make money from software sales, not hardware.
A better analogy would be suing Apple because you can't run OS/X on a PC. Apple says that's illegal because Apple makes money off hardware sales, not software.
iTunes is free, the music is cheap. That's because Apple iTunes is simply a value-add for the iPod, which is the actual product they sell for profit.
Say I own a rio and I use iTunes to get my music. I don't have a cd-burner.
Looks like I have to buy a cd-burner and learn to use it, and then learn how to copy those to mp3. (which will involve re-entering all the song data, since cddb won't work for custom CDs).
Or, I could just buy an iPod.
Turns out, if you want to use Apple software, your best option is always Apple hardware.
Monopoly? No. Because I don't have to use Apple software.
But don't blame it on the record labels, Apple is the one who won't let anyone else build a iTMS capable player.
...don't think a part of the Bush agenda...
And what makes you think that what Bush wants has anything at all to do with what the American government does? Tracking is most useful to our corporate overlords, who own Bush. And had part shares in Kerry too, making elections discussions entirely meaningless.
This is why I will not be using a government provided tinfoil hat, but shall continue to provide my own.
After fighting to cut and paste your link because I have too many windows open and you couldn't be bothered to put brackets around the URL to turn it into a link, I find it's broken?
I suppose you think you're funny.
Still and all, the letter is quite compelling. I'm convinced that SCO is the devil.
...that stuff doesn't dry quickly, even in a litterbox. And it's soo potent, I can't even express to you how potent it is.
But, since I'm not nearby and I of course will not advocate or participate in anything unlawful, I recommend zippered bags filled with warm water and fresh cat crap.
Squish it around till it's good and soft.
Then break open the capsule of baking soda you included in the bag, so that it swells up like a balloon.
Throw quickly, before it pops!
When you pay $12 for a CD, the artist recieves $0.15 from that purchase (a generous estimate, more than 3 times what some artists recieve). A Linux distributer that charged $11.85 per CD wouldn't be around for very long.
Whose intellectual property am I stealing by listening to a song on the internet? I already have the right to listen to my tape of the radio broadcast, why should I pay $15 for packaging?
If you cannot make money producing an honest product, don't come crying to me about it.
I didn't realize that these 12 year olds lived on their own and had jobs where they earned enough money to buy GTA for themselves.
I just thought they had dumbass parents who don't give a shit about their children and let them play violent video games and run the streets with weapons and spray-paint.
But now I realize, no one can control these children. At 12, they are so intelligent and powerful that parents are helpless to stop them from doing whatever they want.
FYI, there's a 12-y-o under my roof who watches nothing pg-13 or above (because he's obnoxious enough as it is, that's way). He also doesn't buy spray-paint.
Jail is not the only reasonable way to punish someone. Why should someone be locked up when thye can be paroled in such a way that they aren't a threat to society?
I'm not interested in punishing people for being "bad". I'd like us to focus on running society in the best way possible.
The Maryland law applies to e-mail sent to or from Maryland residents, but it leaves vague the actual location of the resident - potentially affecting companies who send e-mail to people who live in Maryland, but who might receive the transmission elsewhere via laptop.
Menhart set up a corporation in Maryland to fight spam and pays Maryland taxes, but he lives in Washington.
The judge concluded that the law unconstitutionally attempts to regulate commerce that may never enter Maryland.
So if the suadi president issued a death-threat to America's president while he was visiting Saudi Arabia, that wouldn't be a crime? I mean, obviously American law couldn't apply in this case, because he wouldn't be in America!
That law must be unconstitutional because the location of the president was left vague.
There's nothing wrong with patents per se. However, software is not hardware, and software is already protected by copyright law. When you bring patents in as well the redundancy allows stupid fiascos like the "patented one click" meaning I cannot simply click on something to buy it, because that's a patented process.
It's like the way we allow patents on human genes, rather than limiting patents to the machines used to decode those genes, and the machines that recreate them. My genes were there already, I have no intention of paying royalties every time I breathe.
Patents are appropriate for inventions, but not discoveries. Else, Newton PWN's us all.
Microsoft didn't (couldn't) win a court case
over "windows". It came down to money instead.
I think google has enough money to fight this
one all the way, and I hope they do so.
Although I dislike drawing this thread farther from the topic at hand, I feel compelled to continue on with this dicussion. I'd like to begin by pointing out the fact that this corrective post consisted entirely of fragmented quotes interspersed with sentence fragments, and quotation marks were used inversely from their indications; around original text rather than cited materials! Let us illustrate instead some proper corrective techniques.
We can start by breaking down the original essay, to wit:
"Man, you're so wrong."
In my classroom this contraction would be inappropriate, but in an informal letter, it is acceptable.
"The tracker only hosts the.torrent files, if that!"
This is acceptable, since the suggested usage, "tracker hosts only..." implies that nothing else is on the server at all, whereas the original more correctly implies that the tracker does not host any other part of the specific transaction that interests us.
"It's primary roll is to just keep a database of..."
This is actually a mistake; "it's," is always a contraction for, "it is." What was meant here is ownership, so "its" is correct.
The use of primary is admittedly confusing, since it implies secondary roles. Perhaps our author includes maintaining DNS position and such in the server's secondary roles. Certainly, the actual error in this sentence is the incorrect use of, "roll," where, "role," was intended. Perhaps our self appointed grammar expert could expand to definitions of common words as well?
"...The information the bittorrent client's request from it"
Similar to another mistake made previously. The use of, "client's," is incorrect since it implies ownership. Perhaps if we reworded the sentence this way: "the bittorrent client's request is only for the database of who is sharing, so that is the tracker's role."
"...Any copyright.."
As was pointed out, this ought to be in the past tense, since the copyright in question would have already been issued.
"...material, it just tracks those"
A travesty of modern education is the use of commas where semicolons are more desirable. This is a typical example, and is common worldwide. Even the highly educated tend not to use semicolons where such items technically ought to be used.
But again, our young grammar nazi^H^H^H^H expert failed to point out the most critical error here, which is the ending of the sentence.
Overall, the English usage here was excellent although obviously informal.
I am drawn to conclude that the original author's grasp of English is acceptable for a native speaker, whilst quite impressive in any other case. Whilst the individual writing the critique, in contrast, is simply an ignoramus with a giant lump of coal wedged up his sorry little ass.
Thank you for your time and consideration, I hope we have all learned something here today.
It indicates the patent system isn't completely broken. I'd like to see them lose, and then appeal and win based on the fact that software patents are a stupid waste of time and resources.
...I'm impressed. It said something about distorting the shape of the prop, but I didn't understand the purpose.
That's extremely cool, although also incredibly strange.
The buttcam was the least dumb. It might be medically useful. But not particularly creative either, since a dozen actual medical dvices already perform all the jobs it might be used for.
The rest... very dumb.
I mean, a tail-gate cushion? There's already
a cushion with a back attached for using on benches, and a tailgate is just another bench. So it's redundant and the patent should never have been accepted.
The helicopter was invented in 2002? How is this thing different than a dozen other flying machines with propellors? The patent is again too vague to differentiate from previous art.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the use of "just" twice within 5 words, does make the author an idiot. But not just for using the word.
In this case, try substituting "just" with "merely."
You can run windows on PowerPC, I've done it plenty of times. And Microsoft encourages it, because they make money from software sales, not hardware. A better analogy would be suing Apple because you can't run OS/X on a PC. Apple says that's illegal because Apple makes money off hardware sales, not software. iTunes is free, the music is cheap. That's because Apple iTunes is simply a value-add for the iPod, which is the actual product they sell for profit.
Can you show us the court order requiring Apple to prevent anyone from using anything but an iPod?
Looks like I have to buy a cd-burner and learn to use it, and then learn how to copy those to mp3. (which will involve re-entering all the song data, since cddb won't work for custom CDs).
Or, I could just buy an iPod.
Turns out, if you want to use Apple software, your best option is always Apple hardware.
Monopoly? No. Because I don't have to use Apple software. But don't blame it on the record labels, Apple is the one who won't let anyone else build a iTMS capable player.
It's a self-confirming prediction. If you can read it, it's true. If not, it never happened.
And what makes you think that what Bush wants has anything at all to do with what the American government does? Tracking is most useful to our corporate overlords, who own Bush. And had part shares in Kerry too, making elections discussions entirely meaningless.
This is why I will not be using a government provided tinfoil hat, but shall continue to provide my own.
I'll be sure to avoid burning any popcorn in an airport then.
I suppose you think you're funny.
Still and all, the letter is quite compelling. I'm convinced that SCO is the devil.
http://users.rcn.com/srstites/jacuse/sec.complaint .v4.html
But, since I'm not nearby and I of course will not advocate or participate in anything unlawful, I recommend zippered bags filled with warm water and fresh cat crap.
Squish it around till it's good and soft.
Then break open the capsule of baking soda you included in the bag, so that it swells up like a balloon.
Throw quickly, before it pops!
Whose intellectual property am I stealing by listening to a song on the internet? I already have the right to listen to my tape of the radio broadcast, why should I pay $15 for packaging?
If you cannot make money producing an honest product, don't come crying to me about it.
I just thought they had dumbass parents who don't give a shit about their children and let them play violent video games and run the streets with weapons and spray-paint.
But now I realize, no one can control these children. At 12, they are so intelligent and powerful that parents are helpless to stop them from doing whatever they want.
FYI, there's a 12-y-o under my roof who watches nothing pg-13 or above (because he's obnoxious enough as it is, that's way). He also doesn't buy spray-paint.
What's a typical sentence for that?
I'd guess it's not 9 years.
I'm not interested in punishing people for being "bad". I'd like us to focus on running society in the best way possible.
but googlegear.com sounds like a subdivision of google, where betterthangoogle.com does not.
I caught "spouse...dog...organ" and was afraid to click.
Menhart set up a corporation in Maryland to fight spam and pays Maryland taxes, but he lives in Washington.
The judge concluded that the law unconstitutionally attempts to regulate commerce that may never enter Maryland.
So if the suadi president issued a death-threat to America's president while he was visiting Saudi Arabia, that wouldn't be a crime? I mean, obviously American law couldn't apply in this case, because he wouldn't be in America!
That law must be unconstitutional because the location of the president was left vague.
However, software is not hardware, and software is already protected by copyright law. When you bring patents in as well the redundancy allows stupid fiascos like the "patented one click" meaning I cannot simply click on something to buy it, because that's a patented process.
It's like the way we allow patents on human genes, rather than limiting patents to the machines used to decode those genes, and the machines that recreate them. My genes were there already, I have no intention of paying royalties every time I breathe.
Patents are appropriate for inventions, but not discoveries. Else, Newton PWN's us all.
I have a prius, you can still disconnect the battery (batteries) anytime you want. Jump-starting those things is a weird proposition though.
Microsoft didn't (couldn't) win a court case over "windows". It came down to money instead. I think google has enough money to fight this one all the way, and I hope they do so.
We can start by breaking down the original essay, to wit:
"Man, you're so wrong."
In my classroom this contraction would be inappropriate, but in an informal letter, it is acceptable.
"The tracker only hosts the .torrent files, if that!"
This is acceptable, since the suggested usage, "tracker hosts only..." implies that nothing else is on the server at all, whereas the original more correctly implies that the tracker does not host any other part of the specific transaction that interests us.
"It's primary roll is to just keep a database of..."
This is actually a mistake; "it's," is always a contraction for, "it is." What was meant here is ownership, so "its" is correct.
The use of primary is admittedly confusing, since it implies secondary roles. Perhaps our author includes maintaining DNS position and such in the server's secondary roles. Certainly, the actual error in this sentence is the incorrect use of, "roll," where, "role," was intended. Perhaps our self appointed grammar expert could expand to definitions of common words as well?
"...The information the bittorrent client's request from it"
Similar to another mistake made previously. The use of, "client's," is incorrect since it implies ownership. Perhaps if we reworded the sentence this way: "the bittorrent client's request is only for the database of who is sharing, so that is the tracker's role."
" ...Any copyright.."
As was pointed out, this ought to be in the past tense, since the copyright in question would have already been issued.
"...material, it just tracks those"
A travesty of modern education is the use of commas where semicolons are more desirable. This is a typical example, and is common worldwide. Even the highly educated tend not to use semicolons where such items technically ought to be used.
But again, our young grammar nazi^H^H^H^H expert failed to point out the most critical error here, which is the ending of the sentence.
Overall, the English usage here was excellent although obviously informal.
I am drawn to conclude that the original author's grasp of English is acceptable for a native speaker, whilst quite impressive in any other case. Whilst the individual writing the critique, in contrast, is simply an ignoramus with a giant lump of coal wedged up his sorry little ass.
Thank you for your time and consideration, I hope we have all learned something here today.
It indicates the patent system isn't completely broken. I'd like to see them lose, and then appeal and win based on the fact that software patents are a stupid waste of time and resources.
Scientific studies have been done, and we know that pot is less harmful than tabacco.
To say otherwise without scientific backing of any kind, is mere noise.
...I'm impressed. It said something about distorting the shape of the prop, but I didn't understand the purpose.
That's extremely cool, although also incredibly strange.
The rest... very dumb.
I mean, a tail-gate cushion? There's already a cushion with a back attached for using on benches, and a tailgate is just another bench. So it's redundant and the patent should never have been accepted.
The helicopter was invented in 2002? How is this thing different than a dozen other flying machines with propellors? The patent is again too vague to differentiate from previous art.