These statements presuppose the completely false notion that Apple has any reason at all to consider allowing their OS to run on someone else's hardware. [...] Why on earth would they torpedo their current, highly-profitable business in order to sell a standalone OS for commodity hardware? You're missing the point of the complaint. No one is demanding that Apple make their OS run on commodity hardware.
The poster was just pointing out, correctly, that the original claim (which has now been modded into oblivion) was wrong. The fact that OS X runs on an Apple laptop but not a competing one doesn't mean Apple laptops are better, because that's an artificial restriction built into the OS. All it means is that the OS is crippled. You point out, also correctly, that crippling the OS in this way is good for Apple's profits, but that doesn't really change anything.
Netscape was built around a standard. Yeah, in the same way that a house is built around a foundation. Netscape implemented plenty of stuff that wasn't in the standard: frames, tables, backgrounds...
Don't shop around much do you? Don't read much, do you? Your response doesn't seem to be related to anything I said in my post. But I'll address it anyway, because yes I have shopped around, and I'm sick of the myth that Macs are somehow inexpensive.
The MacBook Pro as tested by PC World was a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM, 17" inch display, and a 160GB HDD. That listed at $2949. That's my point. It's no surprise that a $3000 system is the fastest one around. For that price, it'd better be!
For half that much money you won't touch those specs from Dell or HP. Actually, for $1799 you can get an HP dv9500t with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, 17" display, and 160GB HDD (or even 2 x 120GB). You're right, it's not half as much, it's two-thirds as much: you'd only save $1150.
Going to the XPS line speced out as above will run you a cool $3474. Making your Civic drive as fast as a Ferrari might cost more than buying a Ferrari in the first place, but that doesn't mean the stock Civic is a bad deal. For most people, the extra performance just isn't worth the cost, but Mac fanboys always seem to overlook that fact when they talk about prices.
Isn't that just an indication that Apple make great computers? It's an indication that $2000+ buys a lot of horsepower. I bet if you compared Vista's performance on that MacBook Pro to its performance on other similarly-priced notebooks, you wouldn't find much difference.
Yes, kudos to Apple for edging out the competition, but when you're spending 2-3 times as much on your laptop as your friends spent on theirs, you kinda expect it to beat the pants off of theirs.
I think you can "turn off" the stupidest UI effects in Vista simply by not having horrendously expensive hardware Whoa, never thought I'd meet a real time traveler. Enjoying that $1.50 gas, I bet? You lucky bastard!
In any case, welcome to the year 2007. While we may not have the cheap fuel and rockin' grunge music you're used to, we do have cheap, powerful video cards. In this era, you can get a card that'll run Aero for around $50... and that's in 2007 dollars!
Just please don't bring one back to where you live. You might cause a temporal paradox and destroy the universe.
To ensure that I am not connected to any of the much lamer trolls on Slashdot, I will include an md5 hash as further obfuscation in the url, but I hold the original string. If you ever need to know if the google link you were looking at is a genuine troll (I Haven't thought up a cool name for myself yet, any ideas?) then you can always check the md5 which I will supply the uncrypted md5. Yeah, sure, but we all know MD5 has been cracked wide open. You could be anyone!
And how does this logic apply to music that isn't restricted to a typical live band formula? They can collect money for the act of writing that music in the first place. For that matter, so can the bands who are good in a live setting.
Yes, it's quite simple when somebody just slaps their name on Paint.NET. And that's what this thread is about. "Backspaceware" refers to projects that are rebranded with little or no actual modification.
It's not so simple as code is pulled in and modified from various sources, from little snippets, to big pieces of programs, and everything in between. As I said, it can get very laborious to accurately assign credit. If you're just pulling in "little snippets", you probably don't need to worry about credit. If you're pulling in big pieces, then just make a note when you do it. I'm afraid I have no sympathy for someone who wants to grab random chunks of code but is too lazy to keep track of where they came from. In 12 years of programming, I've never encountered this supposed problem.
That's pretty clear in the beginning, but you quickly run into problems. What happens over time as the original bits are replaced with modified bits? [...] Tracking credit can become very laborious. Then here's an easy solution: say where you got the code. Instead of just slapping your name on Paint.NET as if you'd written it yourself, mention that your program is based on Paint.NET, and let your users figure out who wrote Paint.NET if they care about that.
I suspect that people using Bluetooth for digital stuff (i.e: game controllers) probably never notice -- but it's very annoying when trying to use bluetooth for audio. I have a Bluetooth mouse, and believe me, I notice. The way my cursor lags when I've got a fast download going is impossible to ignore.
The modifier should not, of course, pretend, that they are distributing (repeating) the original work (speech) -- it would be fraud. But the fraudsters described in the article don't do that. They modify the name and the copyright of the original and claim it as their own. (The term is plagiarism.) Plagiarism is a form of fraud; that's what makes it bad.
The distinction you're trying to draw between taking credit for the original, unmodified work, and taking credit for a copy with minor changes, is a false one. 99% of the code in that modified version was still written by someone else, and if you say that you wrote the whole thing (by removing the original author's name and substituting your own), then you're lying to everyone who sees it.
In your book there is nothing wrong with [verbatim copying]. Your view, however, is internally self-contradictory, because you would still ban modifications of the originals -- even if there is no attempt to pass them on as the original. No, there's no contradiction. I don't think there's anything wrong with making modifications, as long as you're honest about it: credit the original authors for what they wrote, and only credit yourself for the changes you made yourself.
If anything, your stance is contrary to the principle of free speech -- there is little to no value in verbatim repetitions of somebody else's speech, while modifying it may be valuable. The relative value of verbatim repetition vs. modification is entirely dependent on context. For example, if I'm doing a physics calculation and I need to know the speed of light, I'd much rather have someone repeat that information to me verbatim than change it along the way. If I feel like watching E.T., I'd rather have someone repeat the original to me verbatim than give me a version where the guns are replaced with radios. If I'm drawing public attention to a clip I saw on the news, I'd better use a verbatim copy unless I want to be accused of adding my own bias by editing it.
Perhaps you're thinking of artistic value, but that's not the only thing that matters.
sharing copies of Star Wars potentially denies the creators the chance to earn money from their work. Good choice of words: "chance" is exactly what it is. Instead of choosing to work in exchange for money proportional to the amount of work they put in, like most of us do, authors who rely on copyright are choosing to gamble on the chance that they'll be able to sell enough copies later to make up for the time they spent working - and potentially even get rich overnight if their work is a runaway hit.
But sometimes, when you gamble, you lose. Just like a blackjack player knows (or should know) that the odds are stacked against him, an author knows (or should know) that not everyone who enjoys his work will pay for it, and that because of the nature of information, no amount of legal or technical restrictions can change that fact. The way to win in the long run is not to gamble at all.
Thanks, I'll bookmark your post to illustrate my argument in future debates. Go right ahead. I'm passionate about this issue, reasonably articulate, and I believe in the freedom to copy as a principled free speech issue, not just a means to an end. Citing me is surely better than citing some kid who hasn't thought about copyright any further than its impact on his own wallet.
The injured software author in the article is not being impersonated. If you want to stick with movies, the situation being discussed is more like Michael Moore renaming "Star Wars" into "Stripe Wars" and replacing Emperor with Bush. Well, as the other commenter pointed out, I was going for George-Lucas-the-Star-Wars-creator, not George-Lucas-the-man. But clearly you got the point, and your silence on the middle section of my post (the actual answer to your question) suggests that you now understand the difference between fraud and copying, so I'll consider it a success.
I am a Slashdot participant. Information wants to be free. I can download other people's music and movies, and share them with millions of my friends via the Internet. Why can't somebody else do the same with software? You're trolling, of course, but here's an answer anyway. The objection is not that the software is being shared -- Paint.NET is freeware anyway, it's supposed to be shared -- but that someone else is taking credit for the real author's work.
That's fraud: the "backspacer" is lying to every person who downloads the modified software from him (and probably infecting them with spyware too). Many Slashdot participants, like myself, believe that copying and redistribution should be legal with or without the author's permission, but that doesn't mean we approve of fraud. Sharing copies of Star Wars is not the same as telling everyone you're George Lucas.
And in copyright infringement no one is "deprived" of anything (except the right to manage the music they create, own, or both, in the ways they and their duly authorized agents see fit under our current system of law, but we'll just ignore that for now). Indeed, we should ignore that, because it doesn't matter. The so-called "right" to tell us that we aren't allowed to copy or distribute certain numbers isn't legitimately theirs to begin with, so the possibly that they might not be able to do it anymore isn't anything worth worrying about.
What if you invent a really nifty contraption that makes it easy, practical, and quick to go into Borders [...] So how is that right, given the recognition and control that we grant to creators and owners of content (and their agents, etc.)? It's right because the "we" in your statement are a tiny minority who have used their wealth to obtain laws that benefit them at the expense of everyone else's freedom. The rest of us -- "we" the people -- mostly feel that there's nothing wrong with breaking these unjust laws.
We act as if instantaneous digital reproduction should suddenly mean that all music and media should be free. No... only that reproducing it should be free. The distinction is subtle, at least to someone who's used to thinking of music and media as something that you buy in a jewel case or pay per file to download, but it's important.
Except that distributing copyrighted material without authorization means that the holder has lost something, namely their control over how their work is distributed. [...] the repetitive insistence that copyright holders don't lose anything from infringement is old and tired. OK then, here you go: copyright holders don't lose anything from infringement that was legitimately theirs to begin with.
They don't legitimately have control over which numbers we're allowed to copy or distribute. That's something copyright law tries to deprive us of.
If you took cash without ID, but refused a card, then you'd be in trouble. Well, that's exactly what happens. Every place I've been that has asked me for ID to use my card, they don't demand the same thing from customers who pay cash. It's only for credit cards. I don't know if they're unaware of the rules, if they're doing this intentionally to discourage card use, or if they just think they're doing me a favor by wasting my time, but this is a widespread problem, at least in eastern Washington.
most businesses that have minimum amounts or small fees for going under said amount are small businesses. Visa fines can be fairly painful to the local people who run these stores. No one's forcing them to accept credit cards. If they don't think they'll make enough extra money on large transactions (selling stuff to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to shop there) to outweigh the fees they pay on small transactions, then they're free to cancel their merchant contract and make everyone pay cash. But they can't have it both ways. If I see a Visa logo, I expect to be able to use my Visa card, period.
"Not completing a transaction unless you show ID" - perfectly plausible as part of a merchant (in the 'store' context, not credit card) terms of service, for the same reason they do so with checks. The only issue with ID and credit cards is people writing "Check Photo ID" on their signature strip - the merchant is perfectly within rights (and in fact is meant to) refuse to process a card that is not inscribed with a signature in the panel. Sorry, but that's not accurate. Requiring ID is a violation. From page 29 of the Rules for Visa Merchants (emphasis added):
Although Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures.
I also emailed Visa about this last year, and here's the relevant part of their response:
Merchants may not refuse to honor a Visa card simply because the cardholder refuses a request for supplementary information. The only exception is when a Visa card is unsigned when presented. However, "See ID" is not considered a valid signature. In these situations, a merchant must obtain authorization, review additional identification, and require the cardholder to sign the card before completing a transaction.
Yeah. It actually works pretty well on the Wii: aim by pointing at the screen, look around by pointing near the edge of the screen, and walk with the analog stick. For an example, check out the Wii version of Scarface. It's mostly third-person view, but there are FPS moments, and the controls work as well in FPS mode as they do during the main game (which is to say, much better than the equivalent controls on other platforms).
last time i checked, the Orange box is also available on the Xbox 360. Too bad Team Fortress 2 is nearly unplayable on there. It's bad enough that it doesn't have Halo-esque aiming assistance, since that was a big part of what made Halo playable. But the real dealbreaker is the lack of matchmaking: you have to use the braindead "host a game" vs. "join a game" system, which means you're at the mercy of whoever starts the game for level choices, settings, and (most importantly) network speed.
Note to console developers: Halo 2/3 have their faults, but matchmaking is one thing they absolutely do right. Copy the hell out of it. Dedicated servers are best, but if you're going to make players host games using their own consoles and DSL/cable lines, you need automated matchmaking.
I think the other problem is stupid instant-respawn servers. Yeah... you want to see something insane? Get on a server playing cp_lazytown with instant respawn. Preferably a 32 player server.
TF2 is not your typical FPS, but that fact hasn't quite sunk in to the minds of custom map designers and server admins yet. Playing on a custom map, or to some extent, any server with custom settings, is usually a recipe for game breakage.
Also TF2 is a huge lag-fest, rockets take longer to fire, players don't move smoothly etc, etc etc. And before you say I have a lousy system just shut it, I have SLI. Maybe you have a lousy ISP, or you're playing on the wrong servers. I've had no trouble with lag. (On the PC version, that is... the Xbox 360 is another story.)
Slashdot Mirror
The poster was just pointing out, correctly, that the original claim (which has now been modded into oblivion) was wrong. The fact that OS X runs on an Apple laptop but not a competing one doesn't mean Apple laptops are better, because that's an artificial restriction built into the OS. All it means is that the OS is crippled. You point out, also correctly, that crippling the OS in this way is good for Apple's profits, but that doesn't really change anything.
Oh, come on. Next you'll be telling me they had airplanes in WWII! I'm not that gullible.
Yes, kudos to Apple for edging out the competition, but when you're spending 2-3 times as much on your laptop as your friends spent on theirs, you kinda expect it to beat the pants off of theirs.
In any case, welcome to the year 2007. While we may not have the cheap fuel and rockin' grunge music you're used to, we do have cheap, powerful video cards. In this era, you can get a card that'll run Aero for around $50... and that's in 2007 dollars!
Just please don't bring one back to where you live. You might cause a temporal paradox and destroy the universe.
It really isn't hard to avoid committing fraud.
The distinction you're trying to draw between taking credit for the original, unmodified work, and taking credit for a copy with minor changes, is a false one. 99% of the code in that modified version was still written by someone else, and if you say that you wrote the whole thing (by removing the original author's name and substituting your own), then you're lying to everyone who sees it. In your book there is nothing wrong with [verbatim copying]. Your view, however, is internally self-contradictory, because you would still ban modifications of the originals -- even if there is no attempt to pass them on as the original. No, there's no contradiction. I don't think there's anything wrong with making modifications, as long as you're honest about it: credit the original authors for what they wrote, and only credit yourself for the changes you made yourself. If anything, your stance is contrary to the principle of free speech -- there is little to no value in verbatim repetitions of somebody else's speech, while modifying it may be valuable. The relative value of verbatim repetition vs. modification is entirely dependent on context. For example, if I'm doing a physics calculation and I need to know the speed of light, I'd much rather have someone repeat that information to me verbatim than change it along the way. If I feel like watching E.T., I'd rather have someone repeat the original to me verbatim than give me a version where the guns are replaced with radios. If I'm drawing public attention to a clip I saw on the news, I'd better use a verbatim copy unless I want to be accused of adding my own bias by editing it.
Perhaps you're thinking of artistic value, but that's not the only thing that matters.
But sometimes, when you gamble, you lose. Just like a blackjack player knows (or should know) that the odds are stacked against him, an author knows (or should know) that not everyone who enjoys his work will pay for it, and that because of the nature of information, no amount of legal or technical restrictions can change that fact. The way to win in the long run is not to gamble at all.
That's fraud: the "backspacer" is lying to every person who downloads the modified software from him (and probably infecting them with spyware too). Many Slashdot participants, like myself, believe that copying and redistribution should be legal with or without the author's permission, but that doesn't mean we approve of fraud. Sharing copies of Star Wars is not the same as telling everyone you're George Lucas.
Boy, I'll say! But you know what was really shitty - that time when I went to Sea World with Bruce Springsteen and Mike Wallace... [cutaway gag]
They don't legitimately have control over which numbers we're allowed to copy or distribute. That's something copyright law tries to deprive us of.
I also emailed Visa about this last year, and here's the relevant part of their response:
Yeah. It actually works pretty well on the Wii: aim by pointing at the screen, look around by pointing near the edge of the screen, and walk with the analog stick. For an example, check out the Wii version of Scarface. It's mostly third-person view, but there are FPS moments, and the controls work as well in FPS mode as they do during the main game (which is to say, much better than the equivalent controls on other platforms).
Note to console developers: Halo 2/3 have their faults, but matchmaking is one thing they absolutely do right. Copy the hell out of it. Dedicated servers are best, but if you're going to make players host games using their own consoles and DSL/cable lines, you need automated matchmaking.
TF2 is not your typical FPS, but that fact hasn't quite sunk in to the minds of custom map designers and server admins yet. Playing on a custom map, or to some extent, any server with custom settings, is usually a recipe for game breakage.