If I buy a book, I can legally do whatever I want with it. Read it, shred it, use it for toilet paper. If I then choose to sell the remains of the book, That I can also do this legally...just so long as I do not copy it (copyright infringement).
What Psystar is doing here is the equivalent of copying the book, slapping on a different cover, and selling it for profit. It's not like reselling a book, or installing Mac OS X on your personal hackintosh. It's a commercial venture based on the deliberate infringement of someone else's IP.
Apple has ONLY ever sold upgrade discs (apart from the system restore discs that come with hardware), as you need an existing Mac to run them according to the license terms, and that Mac came with a previous version of the OS. Just because you can do a clean install doesn't mean it isn't an upgrade. There are plenty of software packages out there where you can buy an upgrade if you own a previous version, but the disc is the same as the one that would be sold to a new purchaser.
Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms, then Psystar is not a party to any such contract.
And, as such, they don't get to run the software. Your argument is nonsensical. I guess I can start distributing unauthorized copies of Windows, because I never signed a distribution agreement with Microsoft?
Further, if they exchanged cash (or cash-equivalent, eg check, electronic payment, etc) for a physical item such as a disc, then they did in fact *buy* a copy of a program, and they are in fact owners of it.
No, they would be owners of a shiny plastic disc. Apple retains ownership of the software. Users of software do not become owners of the copyright held in the software.
If the decade was lost for the entire sector, then why has Apple done better than it has ever done in history? Why has Google had its best years ever? Are Apple and Google somehow not a part of the "tech sector"?
USB 1 didn't exist when we were running 8 bit processors at those speeds, so I'm not sure what your point is. 8GB of storage on a $15 keychain was also incomprehensible. That doesn't make USB 1 fast for file transfers. In fact, USB was was never designed for file transfers - it was designed for low-bandwidth peripherals like keyboards and mouses.
Again, reading comprehension problem? When USB 1 was introduced, there had existed much faster interfaces for file transfer for many years.
Applications can store all of their data files and resources on your SD card. Many do already. It's just the executable code that has to be installed locally.
It means a psychopathic serial killer who has a fetish for sucking the ions directly from the heart of a still-functioning iPhone battery, and then has a TV cop drama made about him.
Well, I can agree with that, especially considering the "high end" argument. But in reality, high-end GPS receivers are a small minority of the market - most of the standalone GPS units sold are just as shit as a phone's GPS, and are not some sort of mythical rugged device with superior performance. Just as the majority of standalone cameras sold are not amazingly rugged DSLRs, but cheap point-and-shoot models.
but in the crags, hollers and gulches they will likely find themselves utterly lost ("Why does the arrow say I'm 500 ft off the road?" - because it's guessing, based upon rate of speed and direction, which doesn't work is mazes of twisty little passages - all alike.)
Except that modern phones use an actual GPS chip, just like your standalone GPS - so they aren't "guessing based on speed and direction" and often also have an actual compass. If you can load maps onto the phone's storage and not have to load it from the network, you don't even need wireless service, it will work just like a standalone unit.
If half of Apple's lockdown is forced by their partner (AT&T) then pray tell why can I tether my Blackberry, why do I have MMS on my Blackberry, and why can I run Google Voice on my Blackberry? AT&T has never said "boo" about ANY of those things.
Say what? The iPhone supports tethering and MMS on various carriers around the world... just not on AT&T yet. So these restrictions obviously have a lot to do with AT&T. The Google Voice thing, however, is an Apple restriction.
Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow
Is this really what first comes to mind when people think of Cory Doctorow? I thought "Disney obsessed douchebag and general internet wanker" would be the more appropriate description.
Reading comprehension problems? I never said anything about throwing away a computer without USB 2.0. I was questioning why anybody would buy a computer without a high-speed bus. If you bought a computer that only had USB 1, you would make sure it also had either SCSI or Firewire for data transfers, as USB 1 was only designed for things like mouses and keyboards, not storage devices.
1. My USB hard drives run consistently at ~25 Mb/sec
A whole 25 Mb/sec, eh? Don't go setting the world on fire with your scarily fast transfers. You might nearly reach 1986 era speeds. Where by nearly, I mean not even close.
Why would you buy a PC that only had USB 1, or use it for file transfers? SCSI has been around longer than USB 1, and Firewire has been around longer than USB 2.
That's a fairly pointless thing to say. One could argue that there's been no new technology since the wheel... everything since is just a derivative. Why does it even matter if it's a new technology or not? Something doesn't have to be new or completely original to be useful. In fact, the best technologies tend not to be the first iteration of a new concept, but a much later one.
Slashdot Mirror
If I buy a book, I can legally do whatever I want with it. Read it, shred it, use it for toilet paper. If I then choose to sell the remains of the book, That I can also do this legally...just so long as I do not copy it (copyright infringement).
What Psystar is doing here is the equivalent of copying the book, slapping on a different cover, and selling it for profit. It's not like reselling a book, or installing Mac OS X on your personal hackintosh. It's a commercial venture based on the deliberate infringement of someone else's IP.
Apple has ONLY ever sold upgrade discs (apart from the system restore discs that come with hardware), as you need an existing Mac to run them according to the license terms, and that Mac came with a previous version of the OS. Just because you can do a clean install doesn't mean it isn't an upgrade. There are plenty of software packages out there where you can buy an upgrade if you own a previous version, but the disc is the same as the one that would be sold to a new purchaser.
Unless Apple has a contract signed by Psystar where they agreed to such terms, then Psystar is not a party to any such contract.
And, as such, they don't get to run the software. Your argument is nonsensical. I guess I can start distributing unauthorized copies of Windows, because I never signed a distribution agreement with Microsoft?
Further, if they exchanged cash (or cash-equivalent, eg check, electronic payment, etc) for a physical item such as a disc, then they did in fact *buy* a copy of a program, and they are in fact owners of it.
No, they would be owners of a shiny plastic disc. Apple retains ownership of the software. Users of software do not become owners of the copyright held in the software.
Pystar isn't wrong, just illegal
No, Psystar is both wrong and illegal.
The decade was lost for the entire tech sector,
If the decade was lost for the entire sector, then why has Apple done better than it has ever done in history? Why has Google had its best years ever? Are Apple and Google somehow not a part of the "tech sector"?
USB 1 didn't exist when we were running 8 bit processors at those speeds, so I'm not sure what your point is. 8GB of storage on a $15 keychain was also incomprehensible. That doesn't make USB 1 fast for file transfers. In fact, USB was was never designed for file transfers - it was designed for low-bandwidth peripherals like keyboards and mouses.
Again, reading comprehension problem? When USB 1 was introduced, there had existed much faster interfaces for file transfer for many years.
Probably not.
But YOU CAN HELP:
Just Click the the CornFlicker Eye Chart to test your machine:
Do you think I'm some kind of patsy? I'm not getting suckered into your virus propagation scam!
Was your post written in English 2.0?
Applications can store all of their data files and resources on your SD card. Many do already. It's just the executable code that has to be installed locally.
So convenient!
It means a psychopathic serial killer who has a fetish for sucking the ions directly from the heart of a still-functioning iPhone battery, and then has a TV cop drama made about him.
Well, I can agree with that, especially considering the "high end" argument. But in reality, high-end GPS receivers are a small minority of the market - most of the standalone GPS units sold are just as shit as a phone's GPS, and are not some sort of mythical rugged device with superior performance. Just as the majority of standalone cameras sold are not amazingly rugged DSLRs, but cheap point-and-shoot models.
Ironically, the places you need GPS the most are the places there is no cell phone coverage.
Why would you need phone coverage to use the GPS unit in your phone?
but in the crags, hollers and gulches they will likely find themselves utterly lost ("Why does the arrow say I'm 500 ft off the road?" - because it's guessing, based upon rate of speed and direction, which doesn't work is mazes of twisty little passages - all alike.)
Except that modern phones use an actual GPS chip, just like your standalone GPS - so they aren't "guessing based on speed and direction" and often also have an actual compass. If you can load maps onto the phone's storage and not have to load it from the network, you don't even need wireless service, it will work just like a standalone unit.
If half of Apple's lockdown is forced by their partner (AT&T) then pray tell why can I tether my Blackberry, why do I have MMS on my Blackberry, and why can I run Google Voice on my Blackberry? AT&T has never said "boo" about ANY of those things.
Say what? The iPhone supports tethering and MMS on various carriers around the world... just not on AT&T yet. So these restrictions obviously have a lot to do with AT&T. The Google Voice thing, however, is an Apple restriction.
Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow
Is this really what first comes to mind when people think of Cory Doctorow? I thought "Disney obsessed douchebag and general internet wanker" would be the more appropriate description.
Reading comprehension problems? I never said anything about throwing away a computer without USB 2.0. I was questioning why anybody would buy a computer without a high-speed bus. If you bought a computer that only had USB 1, you would make sure it also had either SCSI or Firewire for data transfers, as USB 1 was only designed for things like mouses and keyboards, not storage devices.
So, that brings him into about the mid 1990s?
1. My USB hard drives run consistently at ~25 Mb/sec
A whole 25 Mb/sec, eh? Don't go setting the world on fire with your scarily fast transfers. You might nearly reach 1986 era speeds. Where by nearly, I mean not even close.
Why would you buy a PC that only had USB 1, or use it for file transfers? SCSI has been around longer than USB 1, and Firewire has been around longer than USB 2.
"But this one goes up to 3!"
"Couldn't they just make 2 louder?"
Well, seeing as USB 2.0 is so skull-fuckingly slow, 5-6x faster isn't really that impressive.
That's a fairly pointless thing to say. One could argue that there's been no new technology since the wheel... everything since is just a derivative. Why does it even matter if it's a new technology or not? Something doesn't have to be new or completely original to be useful. In fact, the best technologies tend not to be the first iteration of a new concept, but a much later one.
Yes, I know. That doesn't mean it doesn't try to associate itself with OSS for marketing purposes while witholding source code.
Well, you could be clearer. There have been plenty of Microsoft competitors, but Ubuntu and Open Office have never been one of those competitors.
Well, I think it did. Microsoft has plenty of competitors, but Google is the main one that tries to associate itself with OSS for marketing purposes.