Heroin is available under medial supervision as a pain killer in Britain. In the US, doctors seem to prefer to prescribe things like Vicodin
It's not so much that U.S. doctors prefer to prescribe other drugs, it's that they have no choice. Being a Schedule I substance, it's illegal to prescribe heroin for any purpose here. That's too bad, really, because it's the best choice in certain situations, particularly end-of-life pain mitigation.
The phone market is Apple's wet dream, because none of the customers have any expectation of openness
Nor do they care. Most phone users just want the fucking thing to, you know, work. Slashdot readers should keep in mind that they are a minority population--and a relatively small one at that.
We tried banning cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and a laundry list of other drugs as well. It hasn't worked out any better.
Actually, out of all of those the only one we've banned is pot. The others are restricted, but legally available from your local pharmacy.
I don't believe that heroin is legally available even by prescription, at least not in the U.S. It's a Schedule I controlled substance, here which means, among other things, that:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
You're right about cocaine, though; it's sometimes still used as a local anesthetic.
I don't get what one or a firm would get in setting up a clone company just to get sued by Apple.
A lot of people are wondering the same thing. Purely from a business perspective, it really doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not prone to conspiracy theories myself but, still, I have to suspect that some larger player was behind this thing, probably as a way to mount a legal challenge to Apple's proprietary claim to OS X in hopes of opening up wide scale Mac cloning in order to either make money selling cheap hardware with OS X installed or to hurt (or even kill) Apple by cutting into their hardware sales. Discovering who that larger player might be could turn out to be the most interesting part of the whole Psystar story, although we may never know--any entity sophisticated enough to mount such an attack is probably sophisticated enough to cover their tracks very well.
I guess that means reselling all those college textbooks back to the bookstore at the end of a term is not protected by First Sale Doctrine either, if you make even the smallest mark on any page.
No, but selling copies of those textbooks is. That's the issue here.
Hey, I agree with you, it should have been included right from the get-go. I wasn't defending Apple, only pointing out to the GP that they don't sell a phone without copy/paste--at least, not any longer.
To be honest, though, I'm not sure your average iPhone user really cares. I do more with mine than most people and still I only use c/p maybe twice a month at best.
They probably signed a contract believing they would hold a copyright over the laws. Bullshit. At most, that company has a copyright over the CD version that they're creating.
Not necessarily. Here in California, the company that prints the Unified Building Code books that all contractors must have has successfully sued a person who tried to post the code on the Web. He was forced to shut down the site by court order.
I've come to the point where I simply recommend to family that they buy an Apple, on the security grounds alone. I've pointed a couple of family members to Macbooks, and I get zero calls for help from them after a breaking in period.
Same here. My now 83 year-old father got his first Mac back in the Nineties. I'd get a phone call maybe once a month at first, then e-mails (after he became comfortable with that) every few months. Now that he's had his Mac for a few years, he's started e-mailing me with tips he's discovered on his own. And this is a guy who'd never used anything more complicated than a calculator before buying a Mac.
Apple wouldn't necessarily have to see a benefit for it to be ethically proper.
I'll grant you that, but I think you're getting a bit theoretical here. While I share your outlook and wish that business (not to mention society in general) adhered to a higher ethical standard, it's not entirely realistic to expect them to do so.
it's fair to assume that the situation could be easily fixed with no considerable loss to Apple, likely taking at most one engineer's afternoon to detect the flaw and fix it
Actually, I don't think it's fair to assume that at all. While I'm not a professional developer, I've messed around with coding enough to know that: 1) it's entirely possible that Apple doesn't even know what broke Atom support and 2) Making even a seemingly minor change at one location in a block of code as complex as OS X can have severe unintended consequences elsewhere.
Law is, for the most part, independant of Ethics
You are absolutely correct here. But we still have to abide by those laws whether we like it or not and so does Apple.
Wrong, there is a perfectly legitimate ethical reason for it: the benefit of having OSX working on Atom computers is likely far bigger than the effort required on their part to fix whatever problem is causing this
Okay, interesting Wikipedia articles. But I still don't understand your argument; please take the time to explain to me the benefit to Apple of them continuing to support a processor that they do not use in any of their products. Or, for that matter, the benefit to society as a whole. As far as I can tell, the only people who would benefit are the relatively small number of experimenters who have hacked their netbooks to run OS X. I have no problem with them doing that--I've played around with building a Hackintosh myself--but they're not making Apple or it's shareholders any money and under U.S. law, that's a publicly owned company's main objective.
But you did argue that "Apple deliberately disabled their systems from working" on Atom processors and that "is just not nice." Seems like pretty much the same thing to me.
anyone that has built a hackintosh, or for that matter, modded a netbook to run OSX, would never blame Apple for it not working... the whole point is just to see if you can do it
Bingo. That's why I did it. I have three Macs and own a little AAPL but I'm also a nerd so I put together a Hackintosh just for the hell of it, to see if I could. Besides, I bought a 5 license family pack version of OS X Leopard and had two unused licenses burning a hole in my pocket.
for apple to deliberately disable their systems from working is just not nice.
But they didn't disable anyone's systems from working, all they did was prevent them from updating to the next version of OS X. As long as the netbook Hackintoshers use their current version of OS X, their machines will continue to work. There's no legitimate reason--ethical, legal or otherwise--that Apple should be obligated to continue supporting a processor they don't use in any of their own products.
Kinda like Braille on the ATM in the drive through lane at the bank, WTF?
Judging by the way people drive on the Southern California freeways, it makes some sense. In fact, auto manufactures might consider doing the instrument panels on cars destined for this area in Braille.
Slashdot Mirror
Heroin is available under medial supervision as a pain killer in Britain. In the US, doctors seem to prefer to prescribe things like Vicodin
It's not so much that U.S. doctors prefer to prescribe other drugs, it's that they have no choice. Being a Schedule I substance, it's illegal to prescribe heroin for any purpose here. That's too bad, really, because it's the best choice in certain situations, particularly end-of-life pain mitigation.
The phone market is Apple's wet dream, because none of the customers have any expectation of openness
Nor do they care. Most phone users just want the fucking thing to, you know, work. Slashdot readers should keep in mind that they are a minority population--and a relatively small one at that.
Apple depends on community developers to make all of those thousands of apps in the app store. They have a right to complain.
True enough, but I'd be willing to bet that very few of the people complaining here are, in fact, iPhone developers.
I have literally done every single one of these things.
Not me. I hate painting.
We tried banning cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and a laundry list of other drugs as well. It hasn't worked out any better.
Actually, out of all of those the only one we've banned is pot. The others are restricted, but legally available from your local pharmacy.
I don't believe that heroin is legally available even by prescription, at least not in the U.S. It's a Schedule I controlled substance, here which means, among other things, that:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
You're right about cocaine, though; it's sometimes still used as a local anesthetic.
I don't get what one or a firm would get in setting up a clone company just to get sued by Apple.
A lot of people are wondering the same thing. Purely from a business perspective, it really doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not prone to conspiracy theories myself but, still, I have to suspect that some larger player was behind this thing, probably as a way to mount a legal challenge to Apple's proprietary claim to OS X in hopes of opening up wide scale Mac cloning in order to either make money selling cheap hardware with OS X installed or to hurt (or even kill) Apple by cutting into their hardware sales. Discovering who that larger player might be could turn out to be the most interesting part of the whole Psystar story, although we may never know--any entity sophisticated enough to mount such an attack is probably sophisticated enough to cover their tracks very well.
I guess that means reselling all those college textbooks back to the bookstore at the end of a term is not protected by First Sale Doctrine either, if you make even the smallest mark on any page.
No, but selling copies of those textbooks is. That's the issue here.
You're absolutely right. Even funnier, I didn't make the connection until you mentioned it.
Hey, I agree with you, it should have been included right from the get-go. I wasn't defending Apple, only pointing out to the GP that they don't sell a phone without copy/paste--at least, not any longer.
To be honest, though, I'm not sure your average iPhone user really cares. I do more with mine than most people and still I only use c/p maybe twice a month at best.
If apple can sell a phone without keyboard or copy-paste, why not?
iPhones have keyboards, just not one with discrete physical keys. Also, copy/paste has been available on the iPhone for about six months now.
Nope--a laptop.
Another part to get lost. Cool.
The Freudian implications of a large, phallically-shaped object coated in rubber cannot be ignored.
wonder if aircraft recovery was even a possibility
It was. The aircraft were fitting for water landings and the subs had cranes to lift them back on deck.
Yeah touring subs are pretty neat. I know of ones in Portland, Galveston, and Pearl Harbor? Any others?
You can tour a Soviet sub in San Diego.
They probably signed a contract believing they would hold a copyright over the laws. Bullshit. At most, that company has a copyright over the CD version that they're creating.
Not necessarily. Here in California, the company that prints the Unified Building Code books that all contractors must have has successfully sued a person who tried to post the code on the Web. He was forced to shut down the site by court order.
I've come to the point where I simply recommend to family that they buy an Apple, on the security grounds alone. I've pointed a couple of family members to Macbooks, and I get zero calls for help from them after a breaking in period.
Same here. My now 83 year-old father got his first Mac back in the Nineties. I'd get a phone call maybe once a month at first, then e-mails (after he became comfortable with that) every few months. Now that he's had his Mac for a few years, he's started e-mailing me with tips he's discovered on his own. And this is a guy who'd never used anything more complicated than a calculator before buying a Mac.
Apple wouldn't necessarily have to see a benefit for it to be ethically proper.
I'll grant you that, but I think you're getting a bit theoretical here. While I share your outlook and wish that business (not to mention society in general) adhered to a higher ethical standard, it's not entirely realistic to expect them to do so.
it's fair to assume that the situation could be easily fixed with no considerable loss to Apple, likely taking at most one engineer's afternoon to detect the flaw and fix it
Actually, I don't think it's fair to assume that at all. While I'm not a professional developer, I've messed around with coding enough to know that:
1) it's entirely possible that Apple doesn't even know what broke Atom support and
2) Making even a seemingly minor change at one location in a block of code as complex as OS X can have severe unintended consequences elsewhere.
Law is, for the most part, independant of Ethics
You are absolutely correct here. But we still have to abide by those laws whether we like it or not and so does Apple.
Wrong, there is a perfectly legitimate ethical reason for it: the benefit of having OSX working on Atom computers is likely far bigger than the effort required on their part to fix whatever problem is causing this
Okay, interesting Wikipedia articles. But I still don't understand your argument; please take the time to explain to me the benefit to Apple of them continuing to support a processor that they do not use in any of their products. Or, for that matter, the benefit to society as a whole. As far as I can tell, the only people who would benefit are the relatively small number of experimenters who have hacked their netbooks to run OS X. I have no problem with them doing that--I've played around with building a Hackintosh myself--but they're not making Apple or it's shareholders any money and under U.S. law, that's a publicly owned company's main objective.
But you did argue that "Apple deliberately disabled their systems from working" on Atom processors and that "is just not nice." Seems like pretty much the same thing to me.
anyone that has built a hackintosh, or for that matter, modded a netbook to run OSX, would never blame Apple for it not working... the whole point is just to see if you can do it
Bingo. That's why I did it. I have three Macs and own a little AAPL but I'm also a nerd so I put together a Hackintosh just for the hell of it, to see if I could. Besides, I bought a 5 license family pack version of OS X Leopard and had two unused licenses burning a hole in my pocket.
for apple to deliberately disable their systems from working is just not nice.
But they didn't disable anyone's systems from working, all they did was prevent them from updating to the next version of OS X. As long as the netbook Hackintoshers use their current version of OS X, their machines will continue to work. There's no legitimate reason--ethical, legal or otherwise--that Apple should be obligated to continue supporting a processor they don't use in any of their own products.
Kinda like Braille on the ATM in the drive through lane at the bank, WTF?
Judging by the way people drive on the Southern California freeways, it makes some sense. In fact, auto manufactures might consider doing the instrument panels on cars destined for this area in Braille.
Twenty-two feet, eleven inches.
Oh, good. We may yet have some hope.
If you do, you'll owe me some royalties. I have a patent on "hope."