Apple is also, from what I can tell, suing them for trademark infringement, but all of that is just mundane stuff. It's conceivable that Apple doesn't want to risk losing a first-sale based case on Leopard and is therefore suing Psystar for everything else they're doing that's actionable.
But as I said, none of that is particularly interesting to debate. The crux of the biscuit is still whether or not Apple is allowed to put restrictions on a buyer's post-sale use of Leopard (beyond the restrictions on duplication and distribution already embodied in copyright law).
Ok. Let's say the ISS is in lunar orbit. What happens when the fit hits the shan? Right now, the crew moseys into the soyuz and comes back home.
That certainly won't work from lunar orbit. The equivalent of the soyuz for that scenario would be an Apollo command and service module. One for every 3 ISS residents, in fact. Complete with fuel, food, O2, etc. Permanently in place with the hope that they're never used.
That's before you even consider the stuff that would need to make the trip on a routine basis. Food, O2, fuel for the station keeping rockets, people going up and coming down... All of it equivalent in scale to a single Apollo mission.
Is the apple architecture protected in some legal manner?
No, but Leopard is - by its EULA.
I mean, go after the users of psystar for buying os x without the mac, but what has psystar done exactly?
Well, if you believe Apple's EULA is enforceable, then by telling users that they can run Leopard on their hardware, they're engaging in tributary infringement. That's just for a start. The whole laundry list of trademark issues is dessert.
Much of Apple's success is due to the fact that they have what is IMNHO by far the best consumer OS on the planet. They have the exclusive right to distribute that OS.
Copyright law certainly grants them the exclusive right to the first sale.
The sole issue for debate is whether or not someone is allowed to buy a boxed copy of Leopard from Amazon and then do with it what they like, including run it on "unauthorized" hardware.
Apple's EULA says "no," but it is far from legally certain that that EULA is worth the pixels it's printed on.
When the North won the U.S. Civil War, they pointedly said that the federal government would not redeem confederate currency, nor pay any confederate debts. Apple's pretty much taking the same line, and the reason is pretty obvious: If Apple were to make nice, it would encourage purchases from the next huckster that tries to sell Apple clones.
By my reckoning, the AT&T store at Keily & El Camino Real had fewer than 70 of the 160 GB model in each color.
The last launch went reasonably well - everyone who got in line before the actual launch (which started 20 minutes late) got the phone of their choice.
This time, I got there an hour and a half early and they ran out 6 people ahead of me.
I wouldn't have actually minded that if they'd have told us all that at the start instead of having us waste 3 hours of our lives waiting. They had to have known how many they had available last night. They couldn't have gone down the line at 8 and counted them off?
The net result is that while an electric car might even now be a practical second vehicle, I can't drive it from the Bay Area to San Diego without it taking 50% more time to make the trip (4 hour charge for an 8 hour drive). And that presumes there's a charging station somewhere between Fresno and Bakersfield, which I doubt. Without one, the trip takes 100% longer (two charging stops).
That means that the tens of thousands of households that have only one car won't be buying electric ones anytime soon.
I always thought that Tesla was going to sell folks a little trailer that had a gas tank, engine and generator for long trips. 99% of the time, you leave the trailer in the garage. When you need to go on a long trip, hook it up and you have a hybrid. Current hybrids are dumb in that 99% of the time you have to expend extra energy to transport the mass of the hydrocarbon system that you could do without (since your trip is within the battery-only range of the vehicle).
No, it boils down (ha ha) to burning the crap left over from food production. BioD comes from waste oil, and its production creates glycogen as a byproduct (which is a useful thing in and of itself). Ethanol is maybe what you're thinking of, because it's made in the US from corn and in other countries from sugar cane.
And if you buy an electric car right now, chances are very, very good (at least in North America) that it will probably be running on coal. But the point of electric cars is that they decouple the energy source from its consumption, making them the ultimate in 'flex fuel' vehicles.
Now if only the batteries didn't take hours and hours to charge up and weren't made of nasty hazardous materials...
You posted a link to Tesla Motors, but neglected this portion of the GP's post:
Nobody really gives a damn what fuels their cars, they care about cost and acceptable performance
(emphasis mine)
The Tesla Roadster, if you can even get ahold of one, is north of a hundred grand. Thank you for playing. There are some lovely parting gifts out back.
No, actually, it doesn't. You live under an illusion. One day, you will see that for yourself.
And so that's where we leave it. When two people each feel the other is deluded, any further conversation can serve no useful purpose. As the Dire Straits once said, "Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong."
Those "Fancy touch screens" prevent over-votes and unintentional under-votes, and they make the record of the voter's intent unambiguous (no "hanging chads"). Eliminating voter error makes for a better election, since it more faithfully reflects the will of the individual voter, and hence, the electorate.
You can keep it transparent and verifiable while using technology to make it easier for the voter.
Yes, it is conceivable that the person ticking the vote box for them may tick the wrong one on purpose, but even if that happens every single time it affects maybe 10-15 votes per precinct?
I would take a step back. Let the machine that prints out the ballot also keep the count, but have the paper be the legally binding declaration of the voter's intent. The only time you need to go to the paper ballots is when a recount is required / demanded.
As for the accuracy of the OCR, it's absolutely necessary that the printed piece of paper be verifiable by the voter before he deposits it in the ballot box, so barcodes are unacceptable. And it's not the same thing as OCRing Moby Dick. The OCR simply needs to distinguish between a handful of fixed words, not attempt to divine the meaning of a random page of text.
The sole benefit of electronic voting is that the voting machine can prevent voter error by disallowing over-votes and warning against (but obviously still allowing) under-votes, and can provide a record free of any ambiguities (no "hanging chads"). If the machine simply printed out the votes that the voter cast in plain language on a slip of paper that the voter then folded and dropped into a ballot box on the way out the door, that would be fine. The voter could verify for himself that the paper record was correct, the paper record could be OCRed during any recount process (you do NOT want to use barcodes or any such machine-readable printout stuff for ballots as the voter could not, by himself, verify what it says), and the paper record is, in fact, what is the legally binding record of the voter's intent. That the machine could also keep counts on its own would merely be a convenience for when no recount is requested or required, but the primary role of the machine in such a system would be to make sure that the voter doesn't do anything that would accidently invalidate his vote on a particular question, and that the voter's intent is unambiguously recorded.
I mean, that's what the whole mess in Florida in 2000 was all about, no?
If you want self-determination, you need courage. It doesn't come free. Personally, I'd rather die standing in front of a mob screaming bloody murder with a weapon in my hands than be ruled in this way.
Your courage is commendable, however misplaced. I am willing to die for a lot of things, but consider such an action as a last resort. Fortunately, anonymous and non-verifiable voting allows me to reserve that sacrifice for something more important than the freedom to vote how I choose without pressure, while at the same time insuring that I have that freedom.
Not as bad as when I heard "British Rocketman" and immediately thought of Wallace and Gromit. Though that was certainly assisted by the mention of "A Grand Day Out" in the article title.
Not entirely correct. The government paid gave a great deal of money to get this infrastructure built in the first place.
BUZZ Oh, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. There are some lovely parting gifts in the back for you. In fact, the government didn't pay a thing, but rather granted monopolies in return for price controls and universal service. And that is why you don't see other companies building up their own telephone or power lines and trying to compete.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind the dell system still has more ports and expansion slots allowing you to upgrade.
Yes, those parallel and serial ports on the back and the FDD connectors on the motherboard really do make all the difference.
Apple is also, from what I can tell, suing them for trademark infringement, but all of that is just mundane stuff. It's conceivable that Apple doesn't want to risk losing a first-sale based case on Leopard and is therefore suing Psystar for everything else they're doing that's actionable.
But as I said, none of that is particularly interesting to debate. The crux of the biscuit is still whether or not Apple is allowed to put restrictions on a buyer's post-sale use of Leopard (beyond the restrictions on duplication and distribution already embodied in copyright law).
Ok. Let's say the ISS is in lunar orbit. What happens when the fit hits the shan? Right now, the crew moseys into the soyuz and comes back home.
That certainly won't work from lunar orbit. The equivalent of the soyuz for that scenario would be an Apollo command and service module. One for every 3 ISS residents, in fact. Complete with fuel, food, O2, etc. Permanently in place with the hope that they're never used.
That's before you even consider the stuff that would need to make the trip on a routine basis. Food, O2, fuel for the station keeping rockets, people going up and coming down... All of it equivalent in scale to a single Apollo mission.
If we had a fleet of Eagles, then I'd say it would be practical.
You can't, unless you go through a certification process that is significantly more expensive than buying a small fleet of brand new Chevys.
Is the apple architecture protected in some legal manner?
No, but Leopard is - by its EULA.
I mean, go after the users of psystar for buying os x without the mac, but what has psystar done exactly?
Well, if you believe Apple's EULA is enforceable, then by telling users that they can run Leopard on their hardware, they're engaging in tributary infringement. That's just for a start. The whole laundry list of trademark issues is dessert.
That would be California.
Much of Apple's success is due to the fact that they have what is IMNHO by far the best consumer OS on the planet. They have the exclusive right to distribute that OS.
Copyright law certainly grants them the exclusive right to the first sale.
The sole issue for debate is whether or not someone is allowed to buy a boxed copy of Leopard from Amazon and then do with it what they like, including run it on "unauthorized" hardware.
Apple's EULA says "no," but it is far from legally certain that that EULA is worth the pixels it's printed on.
When the North won the U.S. Civil War, they pointedly said that the federal government would not redeem confederate currency, nor pay any confederate debts. Apple's pretty much taking the same line, and the reason is pretty obvious: If Apple were to make nice, it would encourage purchases from the next huckster that tries to sell Apple clones.
Yes, if Apple wins. What however if Apple does not win? Don't be so sure.
I'm pretty sure.
If they do that, it stops being an event and becomes a line.
Yes, a potential riot of very, very angry people certainly is an event, alright.
I propose they call it the Secure Socket Layer.
By my reckoning, the AT&T store at Keily & El Camino Real had fewer than 70 of the 160 GB model in each color.
The last launch went reasonably well - everyone who got in line before the actual launch (which started 20 minutes late) got the phone of their choice.
This time, I got there an hour and a half early and they ran out 6 people ahead of me.
I wouldn't have actually minded that if they'd have told us all that at the start instead of having us waste 3 hours of our lives waiting. They had to have known how many they had available last night. They couldn't have gone down the line at 8 and counted them off?
But that's the thing - if there's a market for something...
Huh. I didn't know of it on the Amiga. I played it back in the day on a mac.
Um... I may be wrong, but I think a paraplegic could beat a robot at that, given that humans don't respond to EMP.
under 4 hours
Still counts as "hours and hours."
The net result is that while an electric car might even now be a practical second vehicle, I can't drive it from the Bay Area to San Diego without it taking 50% more time to make the trip (4 hour charge for an 8 hour drive). And that presumes there's a charging station somewhere between Fresno and Bakersfield, which I doubt. Without one, the trip takes 100% longer (two charging stops).
That means that the tens of thousands of households that have only one car won't be buying electric ones anytime soon.
I always thought that Tesla was going to sell folks a little trailer that had a gas tank, engine and generator for long trips. 99% of the time, you leave the trailer in the garage. When you need to go on a long trip, hook it up and you have a hybrid. Current hybrids are dumb in that 99% of the time you have to expend extra energy to transport the mass of the hydrocarbon system that you could do without (since your trip is within the battery-only range of the vehicle).
Basically this boils down to burning food
No, it boils down (ha ha) to burning the crap left over from food production. BioD comes from waste oil, and its production creates glycogen as a byproduct (which is a useful thing in and of itself). Ethanol is maybe what you're thinking of, because it's made in the US from corn and in other countries from sugar cane.
And if you buy an electric car right now, chances are very, very good (at least in North America) that it will probably be running on coal. But the point of electric cars is that they decouple the energy source from its consumption, making them the ultimate in 'flex fuel' vehicles.
Now if only the batteries didn't take hours and hours to charge up and weren't made of nasty hazardous materials...
You posted a link to Tesla Motors, but neglected this portion of the GP's post:
Nobody really gives a damn what fuels their cars, they care about cost and acceptable performance
(emphasis mine)
The Tesla Roadster, if you can even get ahold of one, is north of a hundred grand. Thank you for playing. There are some lovely parting gifts out back.
No, actually, it doesn't. You live under an illusion. One day, you will see that for yourself.
And so that's where we leave it. When two people each feel the other is deluded, any further conversation can serve no useful purpose. As the Dire Straits once said, "Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong."
Fancy touch screens? Who cares?
Those "Fancy touch screens" prevent over-votes and unintentional under-votes, and they make the record of the voter's intent unambiguous (no "hanging chads"). Eliminating voter error makes for a better election, since it more faithfully reflects the will of the individual voter, and hence, the electorate.
You can keep it transparent and verifiable while using technology to make it easier for the voter.
Yes, it is conceivable that the person ticking the vote box for them may tick the wrong one on purpose, but even if that happens every single time it affects maybe 10-15 votes per precinct?
Florida. 2000. QED.
I would take a step back. Let the machine that prints out the ballot also keep the count, but have the paper be the legally binding declaration of the voter's intent. The only time you need to go to the paper ballots is when a recount is required / demanded.
As for the accuracy of the OCR, it's absolutely necessary that the printed piece of paper be verifiable by the voter before he deposits it in the ballot box, so barcodes are unacceptable. And it's not the same thing as OCRing Moby Dick. The OCR simply needs to distinguish between a handful of fixed words, not attempt to divine the meaning of a random page of text.
The sole benefit of electronic voting is that the voting machine can prevent voter error by disallowing over-votes and warning against (but obviously still allowing) under-votes, and can provide a record free of any ambiguities (no "hanging chads"). If the machine simply printed out the votes that the voter cast in plain language on a slip of paper that the voter then folded and dropped into a ballot box on the way out the door, that would be fine. The voter could verify for himself that the paper record was correct, the paper record could be OCRed during any recount process (you do NOT want to use barcodes or any such machine-readable printout stuff for ballots as the voter could not, by himself, verify what it says), and the paper record is, in fact, what is the legally binding record of the voter's intent. That the machine could also keep counts on its own would merely be a convenience for when no recount is requested or required, but the primary role of the machine in such a system would be to make sure that the voter doesn't do anything that would accidently invalidate his vote on a particular question, and that the voter's intent is unambiguously recorded.
I mean, that's what the whole mess in Florida in 2000 was all about, no?
If you want self-determination, you need courage. It doesn't come free. Personally, I'd rather die standing in front of a mob screaming bloody murder with a weapon in my hands than be ruled in this way.
Your courage is commendable, however misplaced. I am willing to die for a lot of things, but consider such an action as a last resort. Fortunately, anonymous and non-verifiable voting allows me to reserve that sacrifice for something more important than the freedom to vote how I choose without pressure, while at the same time insuring that I have that freedom.
Not as bad as when I heard "British Rocketman" and immediately thought of Wallace and Gromit. Though that was certainly assisted by the mention of "A Grand Day Out" in the article title.
Not entirely correct. The government paid gave a great deal of money to get this infrastructure built in the first place.
BUZZ Oh, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. There are some lovely parting gifts in the back for you. In fact, the government didn't pay a thing, but rather granted monopolies in return for price controls and universal service. And that is why you don't see other companies building up their own telephone or power lines and trying to compete.