>> representatives of the state do indeed walk into people's houses to check on things >> like this.
This may have been true in the Communistic East German republic some 20 years ago, but in modern day Germany such things dont happen unless its a regular, court ordered house searching. (and such court orders do not get issued for not paying state TV fees.)
>> They told me he was looking for unlicensed TV's and did this once a year or so.
There actually are people looking for unlicenced TVs, but those are employees of a company collecting the fees for the state funded TV. They are neither functionarys, nor wearing uniforms nor are they representatives of the state. They are private individuals just collecting the fees, and, although at times a bit pushy (mercyless euphemism) if you have a TV but are not paying the fees, they neither can enter your apartment if you dont let them in valuntarily, nor do you even have to talk to them if you dont want. The GP if full of BS.
> money was the real object of L. Ron's religion. > what does that tell you about adults who believe it?
That they are in it for the money, and are successfull at making Hubbards ideas of disguising as a religion to get tax exemption a reality?
> It quickly became apparent to me
Obviously not.
There is no way anybody "believed" Hubbards Xenu stories at the time they got first published as cheap SF. Why should that instantly have changed when he started to call them a "religion"?
"This code may freely and carelessly be used only for proprietary, closed source applications, and not touched by open source developers. Sharing strictly prohibited."
This is actually what you meant, right?
Or just write:
"WORKING FOR FREE. Employ me, fuck me, do whatever you want with my body, I demand no payment and I hate communists."
So the authors could have put the code under the GPL right off, since the GPL does exactly what they want. But they obviously valued their FSF hatred more than the possiblity of their code to be shared and freely reused withing the vast GPL space.
>It's a bit like a good street artist contributing something to society to listen to and >enjoy, with a friendly request to donate something if they like it.
No, its actually like a mad street artist demanding only his "friends" to pay (and getting mad if they dont), and letting all other pedestrians listen for free and bootleg and distribute his music.
> a reasonable 5 year copyright term for all new recordings.
Even a 5 yr term is a massive assault on my privacy, the privacy of my home and the circle of my friends. A copyright I would respect wouldnt apply on private information sharing at all and just focus on commercial selling of counterfeited goods, like it was meant when it was first created.
> while Germany is the country standing up for individual rights.
Not for long.
In German politics such laws are too considered a "loophole", which will get fixed sooner or later.
This and similar rulings will pave the way for "Auskunftsanspruch" laws, which will make the detour über the public attorneys not necessary since wealthy authors will get a _right_ to get the names of the infringers. Germany them will use its weight to force similar laws on an paneuropean level, like they did with the "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" (forced data retention).
> It is a dilemma-I want maximum freedom for individuals, but I don't want our gross > domestic product to evaporate.
When abolishing slavery? I'm sure 100 years ago this was an similar "dilema" to some of the south planters. It was such an dilemma that they fought a whole war for their "primary source of income", which, similary to copyright, was based exclusively of denying other people a natural right and then profiting of that situation.
> "Tivoization" (what a horrible word) still allows you to run your (modified) software > for any purpose you wish. It just prevents you from using the original hardware to do > so.
Which means that if no hardware replacement exists which could run the software, you in practice would not be able to run the software "for any purpose".
You forget how RMS began the concept of Free Software: He had a printer not doing what he wanted it to do, and wanted to change that, but was refused the source code of the drivers upon request. Then he came up with the "four freedoms". If he got the source code, but the printer refused to run it when modified, it would be _efectively_ useless (or do you really think Stallman would considered it free, because when not on his printer, he could at least run it on his toaster?), as it is the case with TiVo. The only ones who can make use of it as of yet are developers able to port it to another architecture, or competing hardware manufactuers adapting it to their own hardware.
The simple user, which is the one the GPL is focused on, has no chance of actually using this so called "free code".
So yes, the GPL already always _meant_ that you should have the rights to run software on the same device the manufacturer runs it on if he uses GPL-Code for it, it is only that it took time until the GPLv3 that this idea got worded properly because it appeared only recently for the first time.
> The GPLv3 aims to control the distribution of hardware.
No it doesnt, so stop lying.
It stops greedy fucks from using all their imagination to indirectly deny people rights they got from the GPL explicitely, either through patents (You get code with all the GPL freedoms - but arent _allowed_ to run it) or technical DRM measures (You get code with all the GPL freedoms - but arent _able_ to run it.)
> and if they lost that then OS X would have to cost a lot more than Windows until...
It already _does_ cost a lot more than Windows since you have to pay for overpriced, unneeded hardware you otherwise wouldnt even consider. Even most of the Maccies buy Macs only and only for the OS. You can imagine how undesireable the bundling of OSX with the Mac hardware is, when even die hard fans ackowledge Apples business would eventually fail if they didnt force their customers to buy the hardware just to get what you really want, the OS.
The most dominant free software licence could not guarantee free software to stay free, so it got updated, like it got updated 1991. Why should this pose a problem for anybody except the people who plan to bundle free software with hardware in such a way nobody can modify it?
It is. The poorer a society, the more it values products they otherwise could not buy. If you are not a professional, who can judge the value of a product by its quality, the price is the only distinction. So Windows is perceived like something that costs "hundreds of US Dollars!!" and Linux as nearly worthless, so if price is the only criterion, getting Windows for free (or for $% on a pirated CD) is a way better deal like Linux for free (or god forbid, $5 for a CD). Ten years ago, when the net was still in its infancy, I knew people who danced around when they after hours an hours of downloading with a 56k modem, managed to get photoshop & Co, because "it cost $2000". They surely wouldnt have danced around after downloading a free software like Gimp, even if they needed it only for cutting their photographs and changing brightness and contrasts. They also wouldn't have valued Photoshop or Windows so much if the $2000 was a spare change for them, but would have equally evaluated every product which comes into question for a given task.
>> "I mentioned that I use Linux and he was absolutely amazed and asked me why I would do that."
He was absolutely amazed because the GP deliberately used something that was "free" (aka worthless) instead of somethig that has a higher market value by several hundred of dollars, even when you can get the second one for free of the net. He most certainly did not know either windows or linux good enough to base his decision on product quality. He probably never tried Linux at all, because it was "so cheap" compared to windows.
> What everyone is forgetting is that society agrees to enforce copyright but it has costs.
Actually society doesn't do this. Copyright, especially the copyright that entitles people to control what songs I share with my friends, what software I run on more that one computer in my household, you know, private stuff, was _never_ subject to a referendum. The people, the society _never_ was asked if they are willing to give up their freedom to copy everything under the sun for the benefit of more new works getting created. This decision was made and forced upon the "society", because someone somewhen decided that it is the best for the society. The fact that it is only force, legal threats and punishments that prevents copying of information on really really _large_ scales, really does not show that the "society" accepts such restrictions of its current freedoms for its own future benefit. That copyright survived the last few hundred years, and kept getting more and more extended does not mean the "society" even remotely accepted it, but that the enforcement never got severe enough to provoke an large enough reaction.
The only people who actually are in favor of copyright are the ones who profit from the current copyright enforcement system. The society at large, as you suggest, actually isn't. Don't fool yourself. Copyright is a form of large scale censorship, censoring even private communication and information exchange. Try to enforce it to the fullest and people will not reduce it but get rid of it alltogether.
> The Minister of Interior has traditionally been the "Schirmherr" of Linuxtag.
How does one become a Schirmherr of Linuxtag? I doubt he offered his patronage out of his fondness for Linux and Open Source. So if he got actually invited by the organisers of LinuxTag, they seem not not care at all about his innner politics and fucked up Gestapo surveillance methods.
> This is why a lot of people think that he shouldn't be in a figurehead position of Linuxtag
He shouldn't. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise.
> since his values are opposed to what Linuxtag stands for (or should stand for).
Obviously LinuxTag doesn't care at all, since else they wouldnt have invited a wannabe Nazi/Stasi to represent their trade show. It is the moral duty of every freedom loving German OSS lover to not show up there, and thus show, in contrast to the LinuxTag, that they _care_ about Germany not slipping into the dark Nazi/Stasi ages _ever fucking again_. They wouldnt go to a LinuxTag patronaged by the German Nazi party NPD, so they shouldnt go to Schäuble's LinuxTag either.
Up until now, they have actually sued people who came up with actual mathematical proofs of Wolframs divine und uberhuman conjectures. The scientologists sue (and threaten) when somebody tries to prove that they're a silly, latently violent cult, the "new kind of scientologists" (pun of the century) sue if anybody comes up with greater results (in a single paper) than their deity, Wolfram (in a hyped 1000 page book), in a field he is compassionate about and would die to be the best scientologist... ähm, scientist in.
Knowing how self-congratulatory and megalomaniac Wolfram is, he will also throw out any proofs which:
1. Arent done or simulated using Mathematica, so he cant use them to further advertise Mathematica. 2. Don't cite his book "A New Kind Of Science" as primary and most important reference, which is itself more of an Mathematica scam, then "A Kind of Science" at all.
>..actually quite impressive, were it not coming from a religion.
Because... It isn't coming from a religion. Scientology isn't a religion. Its a profit oriented company disguised as religion. I'm actually quite suprised there are not more of them, considering how easy it seems for the scientologists (and in fact most other religions) to leverage religion laws and make money out of it.
I sincerely don't think any of the scientologists believe in any of the stories about Xenu and his hidden star ships, the same way FSM people dont believe in their flying spaghetti monster. What they both have in common is that they emulate the patterns of real religions to the point when they are reckognized as one under the law. They differ in that the FSM community is in this game for fun, and Scientology for money, and..... for some kind of... I don't know, PURE EVIL!
> Only for mediocre content. The works of Behetoven and Mozart are free now and that's a > great thing, even if more than 70 byears have passed from their deaths.
The works of Beethoven and Mozart were free since the moment they were created, since they were never poisoned with copyright law in the first place, and thus are among the worst examples you can make to emphasize "the benefits the copyright fascism brought us."
Creative works emerge without copyright fascism too. It may be the case that in the whole less of them would get created, but in a non copyright fascist environment the society as a whole woule have access to more creative works than without a restriction, since the only limiting factor would be the time to consume, and not the wealth to pay the licences.
> If you're restricting things to help MY freedom, I ask you to stop. > Real freedom is far better than the Restriction Through Freedom nonsense.
Goverment and laws restrict my "real freedom" to anal rape you when I want to (The freedom I would have if we two would met somwhere in the woods), in order to preserve your freedom to not be someones ass bitch when they (or in our case, I) see fit. They are restricting things (Those bastards!!) to preserve YOUR freedom. Do you ask them to stop?
The GPL restricts my so called "freedom" to sue the hell out of people who dare to copy and share code YOU or someone else wrote and I only extended and embraced.
> Also 2.4 is small change to maintain the balance of force with 2 trillion dollars > the Arab world has from oil revenue.
Force seems to be the top keyword you think of when reading about Israel. The country was taken by force, enlarged by force, the Arabs were displaced by force (to make room for jew settlers), and since 50 years it is only force and weapons that keep that country existing, in the middle of a hostile environment, like an foreign hostile organ the body keeps on trying to repell.
The question that pops up every freaking time is why they didnt choose an a bit more friendly, compatible and less difficult piece of earth to seize?? Even the freaking Moon would be a place less dangerous to settle on, then Palestine.
> This is a problem for the few companies that try to use original software, because it's > hard to compete on the market when you have higher costs than your neighborhoods.
Then they should pirate too.
That some of them have software originally priced hundred of thousands of dollars, does not mean that they owe someone that much money, or that the software is actually really with that much money. In practice, its worth shit, as you see. That money as as easily multiplied as pure binary data, and that you in a few clicks can automagically "owe" someone hundreds of thousands of dollars, is just some brainfucked naive fallacy which you can only hear when dealing with proponents of IP. Its an wet dream come true: Write onse, sell a whole lifetime.
Actually... only Linux can do it with half the hardware.
For OS X to run somewhat comfortably you need at least 1 Gig of RAM, which is comparable to Vista's requirements, with the single difference that OS X needed so much years ago, when Vista didn't even see a beta release and when RAM was costlier. The usual Mac fan responses on this memory hunger were things like "Get another 1GB bar, dont be a cheapo!" negating the fact that the requirements Vista ist blamed for today, OS X has basically had since 10.0.
Those people could easily be paid by allocating great parts of the superstars wages or the producer's profits to them. There is really no need to give somebody dozens of millions of dollars just to grin in front of a camera for a few weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, absolutely crazy and.... completely made up.
>> representatives of the state do indeed walk into people's houses to check on things
>> like this.
This may have been true in the Communistic East German republic some 20 years ago, but in modern day Germany such things dont happen unless its a regular, court ordered house searching. (and such court orders do not get issued for not paying state TV fees.)
>> They told me he was looking for unlicensed TV's and did this once a year or so.
There actually are people looking for unlicenced TVs, but those are employees of a company collecting the fees for the state funded TV. They are neither functionarys, nor wearing uniforms nor are they representatives of the state. They are private individuals just collecting the fees, and, although at times a bit pushy (mercyless euphemism) if you have a TV but are not paying the fees, they neither can enter your apartment if you dont let them in valuntarily, nor do you even have to talk to them if you dont want. The GP if full of BS.
> Daryl, go find another job.
Considering.... how asinine you proved yourself at your last one, please don't.
> money was the real object of L. Ron's religion.
> what does that tell you about adults who believe it?
That they are in it for the money, and are successfull at making Hubbards ideas of disguising as a religion to get tax exemption a reality?
> It quickly became apparent to me
Obviously not.
There is no way anybody "believed" Hubbards Xenu stories at the time they got first published as cheap SF. Why should that instantly have changed when he started to call them a "religion"?
Write your own one:
"This code may freely and carelessly be used only for proprietary, closed source applications, and not touched by open source developers. Sharing strictly prohibited."
This is actually what you meant, right?
Or just write:
"WORKING FOR FREE. Employ me, fuck me, do whatever you want with my body, I demand no payment and I hate communists."
So the authors could have put the code under the GPL right off, since the GPL does exactly what they want. But they obviously valued their FSF hatred more than the possiblity of their code to be shared and freely reused withing the vast GPL space.
>It's a bit like a good street artist contributing something to society to listen to and
>enjoy, with a friendly request to donate something if they like it.
No, its actually like a mad street artist demanding only his "friends" to pay (and getting mad if they dont), and letting all other pedestrians listen for free and bootleg and distribute his music.
> a reasonable 5 year copyright term for all new recordings.
Even a 5 yr term is a massive assault on my privacy, the privacy of my home and the circle of my friends. A copyright I would respect wouldnt apply on private information sharing at all and just focus on commercial selling of counterfeited goods, like it was meant when it was first created.
> while Germany is the country standing up for individual rights.
Not for long.
In German politics such laws are too considered a "loophole", which will get fixed sooner or later.
This and similar rulings will pave the way for "Auskunftsanspruch" laws, which will make the detour über the public attorneys not necessary since wealthy authors will get a _right_ to get the names of the infringers. Germany them will use its weight to force similar laws on an paneuropean level, like they did with the "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" (forced data retention).
> It is a dilemma-I want maximum freedom for individuals, but I don't want our gross
> domestic product to evaporate.
When abolishing slavery? I'm sure 100 years ago this was an similar "dilema" to some of the south planters. It was such an dilemma that they fought a whole war for their "primary source of income", which, similary to copyright, was based exclusively of denying other people a natural right and then profiting of that situation.
> "Tivoization" (what a horrible word) still allows you to run your (modified) software
> for any purpose you wish. It just prevents you from using the original hardware to do
> so.
Which means that if no hardware replacement exists which could run the software, you in practice would not be able to run the software "for any purpose".
You forget how RMS began the concept of Free Software: He had a printer not doing what he wanted it to do, and wanted to change that, but was refused the source code of the drivers upon request. Then he came up with the "four freedoms". If he got the source code, but the printer refused to run it when modified, it would be _efectively_ useless (or do you really think Stallman would considered it free, because when not on his printer, he could at least run it on his toaster?), as it is the case with TiVo. The only ones who can make use of it as of yet are developers able to port it to another architecture, or competing hardware manufactuers adapting it to their own hardware.
The simple user, which is the one the GPL is focused on, has no chance of actually using this so called "free code".
So yes, the GPL already always _meant_ that you should have the rights to run software on the same device the manufacturer runs it on if he uses GPL-Code for it, it is only that it took time until the GPLv3 that this idea got worded properly because it appeared only recently for the first time.
> The GPLv3 aims to control the distribution of hardware.
No it doesnt, so stop lying.
It stops greedy fucks from using all their imagination to indirectly deny people rights they got from the GPL explicitely, either through patents (You get code with all the GPL freedoms - but arent _allowed_ to run it) or technical DRM measures (You get code with all the GPL freedoms - but arent _able_ to run it.)
> and if they lost that then OS X would have to cost a lot more than Windows until...
It already _does_ cost a lot more than Windows since you have to pay for overpriced, unneeded hardware you otherwise wouldnt even consider. Even most of the Maccies buy Macs only and only for the OS. You can imagine how undesireable the bundling of OSX with the Mac hardware is, when even die hard fans ackowledge Apples business would eventually fail if they didnt force their customers to buy the hardware just to get what you really want, the OS.
The most dominant free software licence could not guarantee free software to stay free, so it got updated, like it got updated 1991. Why should this pose a problem for anybody except the people who plan to bundle free software with hardware in such a way nobody can modify it?
> What's wrong with waiting a whole four days and then buying the book yourself?
The buying.
> Or, waiting a few days longer and borrowing a used copy from a friend?
The waiting.
> Or, waiting a few days longer and buying a used copy via eBay?
The buying.
> Or, borrowing a copy from your local library when they have it?
The waiting.
> Linux is not considered a poor man's OS.
It is. The poorer a society, the more it values products they otherwise could not buy. If you are not a professional, who can judge the value of a product by its quality, the price is the only distinction. So Windows is perceived like something that costs "hundreds of US Dollars!!" and Linux as nearly worthless, so if price is the only criterion, getting Windows for free (or for $% on a pirated CD) is a way better deal like Linux for free (or god forbid, $5 for a CD). Ten years ago, when the net was still in its infancy, I knew people who danced around when they after hours an hours of downloading with a 56k modem, managed to get photoshop & Co, because "it cost $2000". They surely wouldnt have danced around after downloading a free software like Gimp, even if they needed it only for cutting their photographs and changing brightness and contrasts. They also wouldn't have valued Photoshop or Windows so much if the $2000 was a spare change for them, but would have equally evaluated every product which comes into question for a given task.
>> "I mentioned that I use Linux and he was absolutely amazed and asked me why I would do that."
He was absolutely amazed because the GP deliberately used something that was "free" (aka worthless) instead of somethig that has a higher market value by several hundred of dollars, even when you can get the second one for free of the net. He most certainly did not know either windows or linux good enough to base his decision on product quality. He probably never tried Linux at all, because it was "so cheap" compared to windows.
> What everyone is forgetting is that society agrees to enforce copyright but it has costs.
Actually society doesn't do this. Copyright, especially the copyright that entitles people to control what songs I share with my friends, what software I run on more that one computer in my household, you know, private stuff, was _never_ subject to a referendum. The people, the society _never_ was asked if they are willing to give up their freedom to copy everything under the sun for the benefit of more new works getting created. This decision was made and forced upon the "society", because someone somewhen decided that it is the best for the society. The fact that it is only force, legal threats and punishments that prevents copying of information on really really _large_ scales, really does not show that the "society" accepts such restrictions of its current freedoms for its own future benefit. That copyright survived the last few hundred years, and kept getting more and more extended does not mean the "society" even remotely accepted it, but that the enforcement never got severe enough to provoke an large enough reaction.
The only people who actually are in favor of copyright are the ones who profit from the current copyright enforcement system. The society at large, as you suggest, actually isn't. Don't fool yourself. Copyright is a form of large scale censorship, censoring even private communication and information exchange. Try to enforce it to the fullest and people will not reduce it but get rid of it alltogether.
> The Minister of Interior has traditionally been the "Schirmherr" of Linuxtag.
How does one become a Schirmherr of Linuxtag? I doubt he offered his patronage out of his fondness for Linux and Open Source. So if he got actually invited by the organisers of LinuxTag, they seem not not care at all about his innner politics and fucked up Gestapo surveillance methods.
> This is why a lot of people think that he shouldn't be in a figurehead position of Linuxtag
He shouldn't. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise.
> since his values are opposed to what Linuxtag stands for (or should stand for).
Obviously LinuxTag doesn't care at all, since else they wouldnt have invited a wannabe Nazi/Stasi to represent their trade show. It is the moral duty of every freedom loving German OSS lover to not show up there, and thus show, in contrast to the LinuxTag, that they _care_ about Germany not slipping into the dark Nazi/Stasi ages _ever fucking again_. They wouldnt go to a LinuxTag patronaged by the German Nazi party NPD, so they shouldnt go to Schäuble's LinuxTag either.
Up until now, they have actually sued people who came up with actual mathematical proofs of Wolframs divine und uberhuman conjectures. The scientologists sue (and threaten) when somebody tries to prove that they're a silly, latently violent cult, the "new kind of scientologists" (pun of the century) sue if anybody comes up with greater results (in a single paper) than their deity, Wolfram (in a hyped 1000 page book), in a field he is compassionate about and would die to be the best scientologist... ähm, scientist in.
Knowing how self-congratulatory and megalomaniac Wolfram is, he will also throw out any proofs which:
1. Arent done or simulated using Mathematica, so he cant use them to further advertise Mathematica.
2. Don't cite his book "A New Kind Of Science" as primary and most important reference, which is itself more of an Mathematica scam, then "A Kind of Science" at all.
> ..actually quite impressive, were it not coming from a religion.
Because... It isn't coming from a religion. Scientology isn't a religion. Its a profit oriented company disguised as religion. I'm actually quite suprised there are not more of them, considering how easy it seems for the scientologists (and in fact most other religions) to leverage religion laws and make money out of it.
I sincerely don't think any of the scientologists believe in any of the stories about Xenu and his hidden star ships, the same way FSM people dont believe in their flying spaghetti monster. What they both have in common is that they emulate the patterns of real religions to the point when they are reckognized as one under the law. They differ in that the FSM community is in this game for fun, and Scientology for money, and..... for some kind of... I don't know, PURE EVIL!
> Only for mediocre content. The works of Behetoven and Mozart are free now and that's a
> great thing, even if more than 70 byears have passed from their deaths.
The works of Beethoven and Mozart were free since the moment they were created, since they were never poisoned with copyright law in the first place, and thus are among the worst examples you can make to emphasize "the benefits the copyright fascism brought us."
Creative works emerge without copyright fascism too. It may be the case that in the whole less of them would get created, but in a non copyright fascist environment the society as a whole woule have access to more creative works than without a restriction, since the only limiting factor would be the time to consume, and not the wealth to pay the licences.
> GPL is 1984, War Is Peace,
And you're an idiot.
> If you're restricting things to help MY freedom, I ask you to stop.
> Real freedom is far better than the Restriction Through Freedom nonsense.
Goverment and laws restrict my "real freedom" to anal rape you when I want to (The freedom I would have if we two would met somwhere in the woods), in order to preserve your freedom to not be someones ass bitch when they (or in our case, I) see fit. They are restricting things (Those bastards!!) to preserve YOUR freedom. Do you ask them to stop?
The GPL restricts my so called "freedom" to sue the hell out of people who dare to copy and share code YOU or someone else wrote and I only extended and embraced.
> Also 2.4 is small change to maintain the balance of force with 2 trillion dollars
> the Arab world has from oil revenue.
Force seems to be the top keyword you think of when reading about Israel.
The country was taken by force, enlarged by force, the Arabs were displaced by force (to make room for jew settlers), and since 50 years it is only force and weapons that keep that country existing, in the middle of a hostile environment, like an foreign hostile organ the body keeps on trying to repell.
The question that pops up every freaking time is why they didnt choose an a bit more friendly, compatible and less difficult piece of earth to seize?? Even the freaking Moon would be a place less dangerous to settle on, then Palestine.
> This is a problem for the few companies that try to use original software, because it's
> hard to compete on the market when you have higher costs than your neighborhoods.
Then they should pirate too.
That some of them have software originally priced hundred of thousands of dollars, does not mean that they owe someone that much money, or that the software is actually really with that much money. In practice, its worth shit, as you see. That money as as easily multiplied as pure binary data, and that you in a few clicks can automagically "owe" someone hundreds of thousands of dollars, is just some brainfucked naive fallacy which you can only hear when dealing with proponents of IP. Its an wet dream come true: Write onse, sell a whole lifetime.
Actually... only Linux can do it with half the hardware.
For OS X to run somewhat comfortably you need at least 1 Gig of RAM, which is comparable to Vista's requirements, with the single difference that OS X needed so much years ago, when Vista didn't even see a beta release and when RAM was costlier. The usual Mac fan responses on this memory hunger were things like "Get another 1GB bar, dont be a cheapo!" negating the fact that the requirements Vista ist blamed for today, OS X has basically had since 10.0.
Those people could easily be paid by allocating great parts of the superstars wages or the producer's profits to them. There is really no need to give somebody dozens of millions of dollars just to grin in front of a camera for a few weeks.