This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.
Yes, but...
End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.
No. Like Psystar said, 17 USC 117 grants the owner of a copy of a program the right to make copies or adaptations as needed to run it. You don't need a license from the copyright holder; copyright law itself gives you that right.
And before you respond with "it's licensed, not sold": (1) if you purchase a DVD containing a copy of OS X, you own a copy -- that's what owning a copy means; (2) most courts have found that software is actually sold, not licensed, regardless of what the company "licensing" it wants you to think.
Making music--good music--takes time and resources. Time that you can't really make money on
Hold on now. Why can't you make money on that time? If your labor as an artist is valuable, then you can sell it, just like a house painter or a gardener or a lawyer sells their time. Find some people who want you to write music, and convince them to pay you.
and instruments and (nowadays) computer equipment that is not free. Unless you sell the music you're essentially losing money, in most situations.
You don't need to sell the music any more than a house painter needs to sell painted houses, or a gardener needs to sell gardens, or a lawyer needs to sell trials.
The act of writing and performing the music is what's valuable. Making copies, on the other hand, is something anyone can do with no special training or equipment. It doesn't make sense for the public to rely on artists to distribute copies; they should leave the distribution to whoever can get it done most efficiently, and right now that seems to be P2P networks.
That combined with the iPhone running native code compared with Android running interpreted bytecode means that the iPhone completely beats the crap out of current Android handsets when it comes to 3d performance.
Android doesn't only run interpreted bytecode: the NDK allows you to write performance-critical code in C/C++. That's why there are usable emulators, ports like GLES Quake, and the Neocore demo I linked earlier.
Data, like Proloquo2Go's media files and user-generated content, can go on the SD card. Only the executable needs to be in the phone's internal memory.
A new poll from Gallup shows that 44 percent of Americans now support legalizing marijuana, with 54 percent opposed. This is the highest-ever support for legalization in the Gallup poll. [...] Gallup reports that support for pot legalization was in the 25 percent range during the 1970s through the 1990s, but jumped to 31 percent in 2001 and has been rising throughout this decade.
Greg Sargent points out a bigger problem with Fox News:
More to the point is MSNBC’s news judgment throughout the day, which contrasts sharply with that of Fox. You’d be hard pressed to argue that MSNBC’s choice of stories to report on is as ideologically driven as Fox’s editorial choices. There’s simply no equivalent on the MSNBC news side of Fox’s constant “news” coverage of the tea partiers, the czars, the ACORN story, the crusade against gay education adviser Kevin Jennings, etc. etc. The point is that Fox’s news judgment is far more ideologically motivated than MSNBC’s is.
While the bonds may be real in terms of printed on real paper and may represent money owed to the SSA, the fact that a simple act of congress could "move" all of those bonds to the general treasury and wipe out their value is also just as real.
Well, as long as we're speaking hypothetically, a simple act of Congress could dismantle Social Security entirely, or restructure it into something completely different. But what does that have to do with Social Security as it exists today?
The point is that when the bonds need to be redeemed, that the money to pay won't be there. That is the real concern.
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, if we get to a point where the Treasury is unable to pay bond holders, a Social Security shortfall will be the least of our worries. But that seems a little unlikely. For what it's worth, SSA is already redeeming those bonds on a regular basis, and the money has always been there.
So in a way the process of redeeming a T-bond "owned" by another government agency is a sham.
Please explain. What exactly is the difference between these two scenarios that makes one a sham and the other not?
Scenario A: John Smith lends $X to the Treasury and receives a bond. Later, he redeems the bond and receives $X + $Y, which he uses to write a check to his landlord.
Scenario B: A minion at the Social Security office lends $X to the Treasury and receives a bond. Later, he redeems the bond and receives $X + $Y, which he uses to write a check to a retiree.
In both cases, money is exchanged for a bond, and then the bond is exchanged for money at a future date. Looks the same to me. I don't see why it's relevant where the $X came from (John's paycheck or a pile of Socal Security contributions) or what the relationships are between the entities involved (after all, John could be a federal employee!).
Do you further understand that a T-bill held by the SSA is a loan from the government to itself?
Can you actually conceive of any situation where lending yourself money results in more money to spend? If not, then why do you believe that the government can lend itself money and result in more money to be spent?
I never said that.
You call it "a loan from the government to itself", but that ignores the fact that these are separate agencies with separate income streams.
A better analogy would be lending money to your spouse. You end up with some extra money at the end of the month, so you lend it to your wife, who promises to pay it back with interest, and gives you a note saying as much. Since she has a stellar, internationally recognized record of paying back her debts, that note has real value -- it doesn't matter that you and your wife live under the same roof. The note is just as valuable when you hold it as when your neighbor holds it.
Is there "more money to be spent" in this scenario? Not really, you're just moving the same money around. You're giving your surplus to your wife, with the understanding that she'll pay you back with interest, just like she always has. As long as her reputation for paying her debts is deserved, those notes are nearly as good as cash.
On the other hand, if she loses her job and ceases to be able to pay her debts, those notes in your hand will be the least of your concerns: you'll be worrying about paying the mortgage and heating bill, not to mention fighting off the angry mob of other people who've lent her money.
Oh, and note further that I refer to them as non-interest-bearing because intragovernmental T-bills are always non-interest-bearing, in spite of what the SSA might like to claim.
In other words, you have no evidence and no argument; you're just ignoring the facts (and billions of dollars of interest payments) because you don't like them. Got it.
They may be interest bearing bonds, but they are intergovernmental IOUs. They are NOT "marketable" securities like Treasury bonds which are bought and sold in the open market.
Since the point of holding those bonds is to redeem them, not resell them on the open market, how is this relevant? It seems to me the more relevant difference is that these special issue bonds can be redeemed at any time for face value, which public issue bonds cannot.
People that buy treasuries may very well be the victims of a con.
Like I said, if we ever get to the point that Treasury bonds can't be redeemed, Social Security will be the least of our problems. Luckily, that doesn't appear to be likely.
Besides ONE (R) on the staff doesn't erase the fact the MSNBC still leans way left. Or have you forgotten the whole debacle where they voiced-over a video with "gun-toting white racists" but the guy holding the rifle was actually a black man? That kind of bias runs rampant throughout MSNBC reporting - it's just that this time they got caught.
First, that's not an example of partisan bias.
Second, for every such incident at MSNBC, there are a dozen at Fox News, like how every Republican who's indicted or caught with his pants down is "accidentally" labeled on-screen as a Democrat. The scale is vastly different here; you're ignoring reality.
Actually, the phrase you are looking for is "non-interest-bearing Treasury Bills".
Actually, every source I've found says they're interest-bearing bonds. For example, according to the 2009 trustees' report, the funds earned a combined $116.3 billion of interest in 2008.
You say "non-interest-bearing" many times, but what makes you think that's what they are?
Note that in scenarios (1) and (2), our responses to not having enough revenue are the same whether the IOU's are real or not. And in scenario (3), we never find out if the IOU's are real or not.
You act like there's some question as to whether or not these Treasury bonds are "real". What, do you think they're forged? What reason is there to think these bonds wouldn't be honored like any other Treasury bonds?
You also act like even the process of redeeming a "real" Treasury bond is a sham. Is everyone who buys Treasury bonds the victim of a con? Are they doing us a disservice by lending their money to the government, since the government will have to "borrow extra money" to pay them back?
The SS taxes go into the general fund, and IOU's are written to cover it.
Those "IOU's" are also known as Treasury bonds. They're just as real when held by Social Security as when held by private investors. If Treasury bonds ever become "just scraps of paper" with no real value, we'll have much, much bigger problems to worry about than a Social Security shortfall.
Besides we all know MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party.
Yeah... an "arm of the Democratic Party" that devotes three hours a day to a conservative host who used to be a Republican Congressman. Get real - if you honestly think MSNBC is guilty of anything like the sort of slanting that goes on at Fox News, that can only mean you've never watched it.
Like I said in my previous post: They only lost money because they did it wrong. They couldn't compete with the clone makers' hardware, and they didn't charge enough for the OS license to make up for the lost hardware sales.
The Google Voice app for Android does everything visual voicemail does, AFAIK. You can see all your messages, with transcripts and audio recordings, without dialing in.
Most courts would not consider such a license valid: if it isn't granting you any rights other than the ones you already have, there's no "consideration", and thus no contract.
And what of the false dichotomy of giving up hardware for software?
You're right, the Apple of 2009 can compete in the hardware market. They wouldn't have to stop selling hardware. Apple of the past, on the other hand, would've been better off just selling licenses to clone makers.
Apple on the other hand does sell hardware. Apple previously allowed, heck licensed Mac OS for Mac clones. But they lost money on it.
They only lost money because they did it wrong. They couldn't compete with the clone makers' hardware, and they didn't charge enough for the OS license to make up for the lost hardware sales.
Now let me ask, is it better for Apple to stay in business or go bankrupt?
False dichotomy. If people want OS X but don't want to run it on Apple's hardware, then it's better for Apple to stay in the software business and pull out of the hardware business.
My name is Charles Darwin, and I want you to know that I said that natural selection does not necessarily favor those who are the strongest or the smartest ( or for that matter, those who avoid squalor and suffering ). It favors those who survive and reproduce.
My name is Mr2001, and I want you to know that I said "You're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution." The idea that one should crap out as many kids as possible is an idea, not a gene.
Also, reproducing as much as possible is a great way to not survive a few generations down the road. Look at nature: you'll find plenty of population boom-and-bust cycles. Consuming more resources than you have is a poor way to ensure the survival of your genes.
I'm just being factual. It costs way too much money to live as an old person. It simply does. I mean, the last year of a person's life can run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical and other bills. Nursing homes are expensive. People simply cannot pay for themselves when they get old.
Sure they can. Ever hear of long-term care insurance? It'll cover your potential need for a nursing home, for less than you pay for car insurance or health insurance. Like I said, all it takes is planning ahead.
Since there aren't that many rapes, and the odds of getting pregnant aren't that high, it's unclear that a 25% failure rate would lead to "a lot" of pregnancies.
There were around 94,000 forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in 2005. Let's suppose that two-thirds of those women wouldn't have gotten pregnant anyway. With a 25% failure rate, even if they all take emergency contraception, that still leaves over 7800 pregnancies from rape annually.
Now consider that rape is notoriously under-reported, and that those statistics only include forcible rape -- not drunken mistakes, coercion other than the threat of force, or incest -- and we're probably looking at a lot more.
The failure of women to receive emergency contraception for whatever reason probably will produce more children.
Of course! I'm not saying people shouldn't use ECP; they definitely should. I'm saying it isn't effective enough to make abortion obsolete.
Today's bottom tier Americans are richer, in terms of energy per capita, transportation, heat, shelter, and clothing, than all but the richest people of 200 years ago. How much wealth do you need?
That's a very simplistic way to look at it. Being able to provide for kids isn't just about staving off starvation and hypothermia. It's also about having free time to spend with them; skills and knowledge to pass on; enough comfort and security that you aren't constantly stressing out or fighting in front of them; etc. Buying a car or a flat screen doesn't turn a bad home into a good home.
Invest in what? Overall, economically, national economic growth is tied to hmmm, population growth.
Again, that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. Our GDP is 425% of China's, yet we have only 23% of their population. We grew our economy by becoming more productive per capita.
You either have to cut old people off, or have more kids to share the costs to support them. It's simple math.
This is an odd stance for a conservative to take. Why don't you think people should be supporting themselves by planning ahead? Why is it up to the rest of us to crank out enough kids at our expense to support you in your old age?
Slashdot Mirror
This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy.
Yes, but...
End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.
No. Like Psystar said, 17 USC 117 grants the owner of a copy of a program the right to make copies or adaptations as needed to run it. You don't need a license from the copyright holder; copyright law itself gives you that right.
And before you respond with "it's licensed, not sold": (1) if you purchase a DVD containing a copy of OS X, you own a copy -- that's what owning a copy means; (2) most courts have found that software is actually sold, not licensed, regardless of what the company "licensing" it wants you to think.
Making music--good music--takes time and resources. Time that you can't really make money on
Hold on now. Why can't you make money on that time? If your labor as an artist is valuable, then you can sell it, just like a house painter or a gardener or a lawyer sells their time. Find some people who want you to write music, and convince them to pay you.
and instruments and (nowadays) computer equipment that is not free. Unless you sell the music you're essentially losing money, in most situations.
You don't need to sell the music any more than a house painter needs to sell painted houses, or a gardener needs to sell gardens, or a lawyer needs to sell trials.
The act of writing and performing the music is what's valuable. Making copies, on the other hand, is something anyone can do with no special training or equipment. It doesn't make sense for the public to rely on artists to distribute copies; they should leave the distribution to whoever can get it done most efficiently, and right now that seems to be P2P networks.
That combined with the iPhone running native code compared with Android running interpreted bytecode means that the iPhone completely beats the crap out of current Android handsets when it comes to 3d performance.
Android doesn't only run interpreted bytecode: the NDK allows you to write performance-critical code in C/C++. That's why there are usable emulators, ports like GLES Quake, and the Neocore demo I linked earlier.
That's nothing compared to the fact that there isn't any android phone with 3d acceleration.
False. The G1 has 3D acceleration and supports OpenGL ES. Here's a video of a demo program you can download from the Android Market.
Data, like Proloquo2Go's media files and user-generated content, can go on the SD card. Only the executable needs to be in the phone's internal memory.
Wasn't there widespread public opinion in say, 1965 that maybe the reefer should be legal?
There still is:
Greg Sargent points out a bigger problem with Fox News:
While the bonds may be real in terms of printed on real paper and may represent money owed to the SSA, the fact that a simple act of congress could "move" all of those bonds to the general treasury and wipe out their value is also just as real.
Well, as long as we're speaking hypothetically, a simple act of Congress could dismantle Social Security entirely, or restructure it into something completely different. But what does that have to do with Social Security as it exists today?
The point is that when the bonds need to be redeemed, that the money to pay won't be there. That is the real concern.
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, if we get to a point where the Treasury is unable to pay bond holders, a Social Security shortfall will be the least of our worries. But that seems a little unlikely. For what it's worth, SSA is already redeeming those bonds on a regular basis, and the money has always been there.
So in a way the process of redeeming a T-bond "owned" by another government agency is a sham.
Please explain. What exactly is the difference between these two scenarios that makes one a sham and the other not?
Scenario A: John Smith lends $X to the Treasury and receives a bond. Later, he redeems the bond and receives $X + $Y, which he uses to write a check to his landlord.
Scenario B: A minion at the Social Security office lends $X to the Treasury and receives a bond. Later, he redeems the bond and receives $X + $Y, which he uses to write a check to a retiree.
In both cases, money is exchanged for a bond, and then the bond is exchanged for money at a future date. Looks the same to me. I don't see why it's relevant where the $X came from (John's paycheck or a pile of Socal Security contributions) or what the relationships are between the entities involved (after all, John could be a federal employee!).
Do you further understand that a T-bill held by the SSA is a loan from the government to itself?
Can you actually conceive of any situation where lending yourself money results in more money to spend? If not, then why do you believe that the government can lend itself money and result in more money to be spent?
I never said that.
You call it "a loan from the government to itself", but that ignores the fact that these are separate agencies with separate income streams.
A better analogy would be lending money to your spouse. You end up with some extra money at the end of the month, so you lend it to your wife, who promises to pay it back with interest, and gives you a note saying as much. Since she has a stellar, internationally recognized record of paying back her debts, that note has real value -- it doesn't matter that you and your wife live under the same roof. The note is just as valuable when you hold it as when your neighbor holds it.
Is there "more money to be spent" in this scenario? Not really, you're just moving the same money around. You're giving your surplus to your wife, with the understanding that she'll pay you back with interest, just like she always has. As long as her reputation for paying her debts is deserved, those notes are nearly as good as cash.
On the other hand, if she loses her job and ceases to be able to pay her debts, those notes in your hand will be the least of your concerns: you'll be worrying about paying the mortgage and heating bill, not to mention fighting off the angry mob of other people who've lent her money.
Oh, and note further that I refer to them as non-interest-bearing because intragovernmental T-bills are always non-interest-bearing, in spite of what the SSA might like to claim.
In other words, you have no evidence and no argument; you're just ignoring the facts (and billions of dollars of interest payments) because you don't like them. Got it.
They may be interest bearing bonds, but they are intergovernmental IOUs. They are NOT "marketable" securities like Treasury bonds which are bought and sold in the open market.
Since the point of holding those bonds is to redeem them, not resell them on the open market, how is this relevant? It seems to me the more relevant difference is that these special issue bonds can be redeemed at any time for face value, which public issue bonds cannot.
People that buy treasuries may very well be the victims of a con.
Like I said, if we ever get to the point that Treasury bonds can't be redeemed, Social Security will be the least of our problems. Luckily, that doesn't appear to be likely.
Besides ONE (R) on the staff doesn't erase the fact the MSNBC still leans way left. Or have you forgotten the whole debacle where they voiced-over a video with "gun-toting white racists" but the guy holding the rifle was actually a black man? That kind of bias runs rampant throughout MSNBC reporting - it's just that this time they got caught.
First, that's not an example of partisan bias.
Second, for every such incident at MSNBC, there are a dozen at Fox News, like how every Republican who's indicted or caught with his pants down is "accidentally" labeled on-screen as a Democrat. The scale is vastly different here; you're ignoring reality.
Speaking of history, how about reading parent posts before you comment?
Actually, the phrase you are looking for is "non-interest-bearing Treasury Bills".
Actually, every source I've found says they're interest-bearing bonds. For example, according to the 2009 trustees' report, the funds earned a combined $116.3 billion of interest in 2008.
You say "non-interest-bearing" many times, but what makes you think that's what they are?
Note that in scenarios (1) and (2), our responses to not having enough revenue are the same whether the IOU's are real or not. And in scenario (3), we never find out if the IOU's are real or not.
You act like there's some question as to whether or not these Treasury bonds are "real". What, do you think they're forged? What reason is there to think these bonds wouldn't be honored like any other Treasury bonds?
You also act like even the process of redeeming a "real" Treasury bond is a sham. Is everyone who buys Treasury bonds the victim of a con? Are they doing us a disservice by lending their money to the government, since the government will have to "borrow extra money" to pay them back?
There is NO SS Trust Fund! Never has been one.
False.
The SS taxes go into the general fund, and IOU's are written to cover it.
Those "IOU's" are also known as Treasury bonds. They're just as real when held by Social Security as when held by private investors. If Treasury bonds ever become "just scraps of paper" with no real value, we'll have much, much bigger problems to worry about than a Social Security shortfall.
Besides we all know MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party.
Yeah... an "arm of the Democratic Party" that devotes three hours a day to a conservative host who used to be a Republican Congressman. Get real - if you honestly think MSNBC is guilty of anything like the sort of slanting that goes on at Fox News, that can only mean you've never watched it.
Like I said in my previous post: They only lost money because they did it wrong. They couldn't compete with the clone makers' hardware, and they didn't charge enough for the OS license to make up for the lost hardware sales.
The Google Voice app for Android does everything visual voicemail does, AFAIK. You can see all your messages, with transcripts and audio recordings, without dialing in.
Most courts would not consider such a license valid: if it isn't granting you any rights other than the ones you already have, there's no "consideration", and thus no contract.
And what of the false dichotomy of giving up hardware for software?
You're right, the Apple of 2009 can compete in the hardware market. They wouldn't have to stop selling hardware. Apple of the past, on the other hand, would've been better off just selling licenses to clone makers.
Apple on the other hand does sell hardware. Apple previously allowed, heck licensed Mac OS for Mac clones. But they lost money on it.
They only lost money because they did it wrong. They couldn't compete with the clone makers' hardware, and they didn't charge enough for the OS license to make up for the lost hardware sales.
Now let me ask, is it better for Apple to stay in business or go bankrupt?
False dichotomy. If people want OS X but don't want to run it on Apple's hardware, then it's better for Apple to stay in the software business and pull out of the hardware business.
You don't need a license to install or run software once you've bought a copy. 17 USC 117 is all the entitlement you need.
My name is Charles Darwin, and I want you to know that I said that natural selection does not necessarily favor those who are the strongest or the smartest ( or for that matter, those who avoid squalor and suffering ). It favors those who survive and reproduce.
My name is Mr2001, and I want you to know that I said "You're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution." The idea that one should crap out as many kids as possible is an idea, not a gene.
Also, reproducing as much as possible is a great way to not survive a few generations down the road. Look at nature: you'll find plenty of population boom-and-bust cycles. Consuming more resources than you have is a poor way to ensure the survival of your genes.
I'm just being factual. It costs way too much money to live as an old person. It simply does. I mean, the last year of a person's life can run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical and other bills. Nursing homes are expensive. People simply cannot pay for themselves when they get old.
Sure they can. Ever hear of long-term care insurance? It'll cover your potential need for a nursing home, for less than you pay for car insurance or health insurance. Like I said, all it takes is planning ahead.
Since there aren't that many rapes, and the odds of getting pregnant aren't that high, it's unclear that a 25% failure rate would lead to "a lot" of pregnancies.
There were around 94,000 forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in 2005. Let's suppose that two-thirds of those women wouldn't have gotten pregnant anyway. With a 25% failure rate, even if they all take emergency contraception, that still leaves over 7800 pregnancies from rape annually.
Now consider that rape is notoriously under-reported, and that those statistics only include forcible rape -- not drunken mistakes, coercion other than the threat of force, or incest -- and we're probably looking at a lot more.
The failure of women to receive emergency contraception for whatever reason probably will produce more children.
Of course! I'm not saying people shouldn't use ECP; they definitely should. I'm saying it isn't effective enough to make abortion obsolete.
Today's bottom tier Americans are richer, in terms of energy per capita, transportation, heat, shelter, and clothing, than all but the richest people of 200 years ago. How much wealth do you need?
That's a very simplistic way to look at it. Being able to provide for kids isn't just about staving off starvation and hypothermia. It's also about having free time to spend with them; skills and knowledge to pass on; enough comfort and security that you aren't constantly stressing out or fighting in front of them; etc. Buying a car or a flat screen doesn't turn a bad home into a good home.
Invest in what? Overall, economically, national economic growth is tied to hmmm, population growth.
Again, that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. Our GDP is 425% of China's, yet we have only 23% of their population. We grew our economy by becoming more productive per capita.
You either have to cut old people off, or have more kids to share the costs to support them. It's simple math.
This is an odd stance for a conservative to take. Why don't you think people should be supporting themselves by planning ahead? Why is it up to the rest of us to crank out enough kids at our expense to support you in your old age?