But you would be saying it FAR FAR fewer times than the "gentleman" (yeah, it's a stretch, even if I agree with the troll) would after performing your little experiment on a non-trivial (or just non-cherrypicked) number of systems.
Not that the GP had any real point, or was anywhere near the topic at hand. He was indeed an off-topic troll, but he was factually accurate.
Aren't those the same type of "Patriots" that were refered to as "Loyalists" about 2 and 1/3 centuries ago?
Yeah... "Nationalism" and "Patriotism" and equivalent only in government forms in which the State is unassailable. In a government "of, by and for the people" questioning the actions of the controllers is not only WITHIN the bounds of "Patriotic", it is in fact REQUIRED. Failing to do so is failing in your responsibilities required by the social contract of government.
Binding me to copyright requires NO CONSIDERATION, NO RENUMERATION, NO INTERACTION with me at all. It's a law, not a contract. I don't have to receive or agree to ANYTHING in order to be bound by that legal framework (referring to copyright). What's worse is that YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS and a beating a long-dead skeleton of a horse.
It might be fun and convenient to apply one law when arguing the 'pro' side of an argument and apply a completely different (and utterly unrelated) law when taking the 'con' side of an argument, but it's pointless and makes you look like a fanboi troll. Pick ONE legal framework (copyright or contract law) and stick to that, stop equating the two.
Much like when all the warez sites say that by entering you agree you are not a law enforcement officer.
I agree with the entirety of your post, I just wanted to point out that the disclaimer I quote MIGHT actually have some legal force (I'm not sure), but it would be entirely due to entrapment laws, not any kind of convoluted considerationless contract like the GP is trying to claim.
Except that after PURCHASE it's no longer "Apple's" OS. Sure, they own the rights to DISTRIBUTE the OS, and (while exercising said rights) have distributed a copy to me, for my own personal use. That's as far as Apple gets to dictate our relationship. They're received my consideration (money) for product, you know, the standard contract of sale. What you're suggesting is that AFTER the terms have been agreed upon (I give you this money, you give me that information (in a handy compact disc format)) Apple gets to make some "additional" demands before I can actually utilize the product I just gave consideration for.
If you try and say something completely asinine about "what stops you from distributing the software, if it's yours", you're tilting at windmills. Of course NOTHING stops me from distributing the software, but once I do, nothing stops Apple from suing me into oblivion based on ACTUAL LAW (copyright). Period, end of story. Copyright law steps in, and dictates my interactions on THAT level.
What stops me from covering the disc in peanut butter and rubbing it all over my freshly shaved body while watching "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials? Nothing, unless local "decency standards" are broken. Again, even IF this is the case, it's ANOTHER LAW that steps in.
Please familiarize yourself with concepts like "copyright" and "contract' before proceeding with this thread, it might make the fanboi voices in your head quiet down a bit out of shame and irrelevance.
When you find any clause in the GPL that dictates how you can or cannot USE (not distribute, use, they are two different concepts, legally and realistically) your software, I'll perk up and pay attention.
Being that you're absolutely sure to fail in your quest to find those mythical restrictions, I think I can safely ignore your pointless comparison of apples to rollerblades.
You type "google.com" into a browser adress bar, type in what you want to know in the handily provided text-entry field, and clicky on the links that are returned until you find out the info you want.
BTW, that tip is more universal than the specific question you asked, try it out on all of your "how-to" needs.
This is only a troll if you think that the company that sells you a product still owns the product after your purchase. I know, I know, the "EVERYTHING as a Service" business model makes some of you MBAs get a chubber, but it's just a pipe-dream, and an unenforceable one at that.
I bought the hardware, what you think I should or should not do with my purchase is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Period. If you assume otherwise, you should seek assistance in extracting your cranium from the 'output' end of your digestive tract. Any other options you THINK you have are both irrelevant and egotistical in the extreme.
They should get Sylvester Stallone to write it. Add some ninjas, a cool car chase through the internet (I don't know how either, but this IS Hollywood we're talking about, the same folks that brought us mainframe cracking via flying through fractalish spiral data structures) and a few scenes with gratuitous full frontal nudity and we've got ourselves a blockbuster!
For the title: The Pirates of Silicon Valley 2: The SQL -or- Open Source Rising (imagine that in the sound of movie-trailer-guy's voice, with long dramatic pauses, and an explosion right after he says "Rising", that's good Hollywoodishness right there)
That's right, when building a house, first you paint it and put in the carpet THEN you install the walls, insulation and floors... Then you paint it again and put down carpet again, because all the changes you just made covered up every bit of "polish" you put on it.
You're trying to be too cool and missing the whole point.
The original reply called the poster on nothing, using nothing but the word 'Physics' to make no point whatsoever. Physics (at least our understanding of it) doesn't disprove anything the parent said. Probability might make it very unlikely to manifest, but that's not what the replier said. Replace the word "Physics" with the word "Bible" and see how foolish the fiat declaration really is.
I'll leave it that, so it doesn't trip over any 'coolness' filters on it's way through your thought process.
Hell, the page YOU LINKED TO shows what was really going on, but you were too cocky to read it weren't you? I wasn't making an "argumentum ad ignorantiam", as I wasn't claiming anything was true, I was shooting down an "argument from personal incredulity" by pointing out the OPs COMPLETE lack of supporting data. Personally, I sit on the fence in this argument, and will happily point out that fiat declarations on either side (barring "I met them!", and then it's time for a sanity assessment) are full of both hubris and bullshit.
Invisible unicorns? Garage-dragons?
While you're quoting wiki pages on logical fallacies, take a gander at 'strawman', would you?
After that, take a moment out and realize that the laws of physics don't give the slightest bit of a shit what you think of invisible unicorns, dragons, or anything else for that matter. They deal with processes and interactions, and they deal with these things in a UNIVERSAL, UNBIASED way. An idea that offends you intellectually is completely unaffected by your emotions, and will exist (or not exist) regardless of any fiat declarations of impossibility that you make.
Married for nearly 9 years, 3 kids, and often 'sexed-up' before that, actually. The secret is using the FUNNY part a lot, and the nerdy part only where appropriate.
Actually, any nerd worth his calculator ought to be able to get women, if only by data-analysis of their failed attempts. "Oh, she got that 'no-booty-for-you' look on her face in the midst that 15 minute rant about big-endian architectural superiority, don't do THAT anymore." Or you can hit on the nerdy women, they exist, and they want (to be tactful) "a lil' Cap'n in 'em" too. Just take care that she's not adamant about the superiority of little-endian machines...
It sure is. I already think about things like that (but not EXACTLY that, so it's being added to the thought-mill), but only as an intellectual exercise. I fully expect (intend?) to be dead by the time we came up with even the most basic 'metatheory of everything' that had the ability to compensate for changes in the laws of physics themselves.
Great crazy-maker though, Cthulhu would be proud!:-D
Yes, but see, on slashdot CUBICLE > SPACEVEHICLE (I'd have said mom's basement, but I like being right) so these scoffers are really an AUTHORITY on spacetravel, not like some pansy 'astronaut' who doesn't have a glorious 'Project Manager' or 'Senior Developer' to tell them how life works.
I know, right! EVERYBODY knows Newton 'WON' physics back a few hundred years ago, why all the hoopla? I mean, WTF do these 'scientists' think they're doing with all their math and the rest of their lies? Someone should put a stop to this, as it's a pointless effort, being that "Physics as we know it today" is correct, so say metlin, so shall it be for all time.
Because we know every detail about every iota of matter and every detail about every energy transfer, right?
I think you overestimate your fellow humans there, being that we've oh-so-barely scratched the surface of understanding the world around us. How long have we known about radio waves? Microwaves, particularly? How about Bose-Einstein condensates? Mmmhmmm. Seems to me that there is a WHOLE LOT goin on right under (and inside!) our noses that we BARELY are able to detect, let alone understand in any significant way. Don't get me started on complex systems, the nature of many-variabled interactions or even something so esoteric as 'consciousness'. We know next to nothing (and in some cases, I'd bet we know EXACTLY nothing) about a great many of the universe's more detailed workings. Even those bits we THINK we know oftentimes cannot be verified by lack of proper experimental apparatus.
No offense, but your post kind of comes of as a QBASIC programmer scoffing at the guy writing in C because YOU see no reason anyone would need to use malloc(), as the 'physics' already has a solution for that, and anything beyond your comprehension is, of course, irrelevant.
I'm not making any fiat declarations about aliens, programming languages or physics, just that you DON'T KNOW what you DON'T KNOW. Neither do I, but I (for one) am accepting of that. I am however very unaccepting of the resemblance to Donald Rumsfeld in my first sentence of this paragraph, that's just wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
But you would be saying it FAR FAR fewer times than the "gentleman" (yeah, it's a stretch, even if I agree with the troll) would after performing your little experiment on a non-trivial (or just non-cherrypicked) number of systems.
Not that the GP had any real point, or was anywhere near the topic at hand. He was indeed an off-topic troll, but he was factually accurate.
Aren't those the same type of "Patriots" that were refered to as "Loyalists" about 2 and 1/3 centuries ago?
Yeah... "Nationalism" and "Patriotism" and equivalent only in government forms in which the State is unassailable. In a government "of, by and for the people" questioning the actions of the controllers is not only WITHIN the bounds of "Patriotic", it is in fact REQUIRED. Failing to do so is failing in your responsibilities required by the social contract of government.
Binding me to copyright requires NO CONSIDERATION, NO RENUMERATION, NO INTERACTION with me at all. It's a law, not a contract. I don't have to receive or agree to ANYTHING in order to be bound by that legal framework (referring to copyright). What's worse is that YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS and a beating a long-dead skeleton of a horse.
It might be fun and convenient to apply one law when arguing the 'pro' side of an argument and apply a completely different (and utterly unrelated) law when taking the 'con' side of an argument, but it's pointless and makes you look like a fanboi troll. Pick ONE legal framework (copyright or contract law) and stick to that, stop equating the two.
Much like when all the warez sites say that by entering you agree you are not a law enforcement officer.
I agree with the entirety of your post, I just wanted to point out that the disclaimer I quote MIGHT actually have some legal force (I'm not sure), but it would be entirely due to entrapment laws, not any kind of convoluted considerationless contract like the GP is trying to claim.
Anonymous Coward fiat declarations FTW!
But see, the computer that I'm "off-roading" my software on IS my property... I'm not getting the point of your analogy.
Except that after PURCHASE it's no longer "Apple's" OS. Sure, they own the rights to DISTRIBUTE the OS, and (while exercising said rights) have distributed a copy to me, for my own personal use. That's as far as Apple gets to dictate our relationship. They're received my consideration (money) for product, you know, the standard contract of sale. What you're suggesting is that AFTER the terms have been agreed upon (I give you this money, you give me that information (in a handy compact disc format)) Apple gets to make some "additional" demands before I can actually utilize the product I just gave consideration for.
If you try and say something completely asinine about "what stops you from distributing the software, if it's yours", you're tilting at windmills. Of course NOTHING stops me from distributing the software, but once I do, nothing stops Apple from suing me into oblivion based on ACTUAL LAW (copyright). Period, end of story. Copyright law steps in, and dictates my interactions on THAT level.
What stops me from covering the disc in peanut butter and rubbing it all over my freshly shaved body while watching "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials? Nothing, unless local "decency standards" are broken. Again, even IF this is the case, it's ANOTHER LAW that steps in.
Please familiarize yourself with concepts like "copyright" and "contract' before proceeding with this thread, it might make the fanboi voices in your head quiet down a bit out of shame and irrelevance.
When you find any clause in the GPL that dictates how you can or cannot USE (not distribute, use, they are two different concepts, legally and realistically) your software, I'll perk up and pay attention.
Being that you're absolutely sure to fail in your quest to find those mythical restrictions, I think I can safely ignore your pointless comparison of apples to rollerblades.
You type "google.com" into a browser adress bar, type in what you want to know in the handily provided text-entry field, and clicky on the links that are returned until you find out the info you want.
BTW, that tip is more universal than the specific question you asked, try it out on all of your "how-to" needs.
This is only a troll if you think that the company that sells you a product still owns the product after your purchase. I know, I know, the "EVERYTHING as a Service" business model makes some of you MBAs get a chubber, but it's just a pipe-dream, and an unenforceable one at that.
I bought the hardware, what you think I should or should not do with my purchase is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Period. If you assume otherwise, you should seek assistance in extracting your cranium from the 'output' end of your digestive tract. Any other options you THINK you have are both irrelevant and egotistical in the extreme.
Perhaps when the original poster correctly quotes ``A Prince's Bride" then perhaps they'll be taken seriously.
Swing and a miss.
Bahhh, I'll just wait for the movie version...
They should get Sylvester Stallone to write it. Add some ninjas, a cool car chase through the internet (I don't know how either, but this IS Hollywood we're talking about, the same folks that brought us mainframe cracking via flying through fractalish spiral data structures) and a few scenes with gratuitous full frontal nudity and we've got ourselves a blockbuster!
For the title: The Pirates of Silicon Valley 2: The SQL -or- Open Source Rising (imagine that in the sound of movie-trailer-guy's voice, with long dramatic pauses, and an explosion right after he says "Rising", that's good Hollywoodishness right there)
That's right, when building a house, first you paint it and put in the carpet THEN you install the walls, insulation and floors... Then you paint it again and put down carpet again, because all the changes you just made covered up every bit of "polish" you put on it.
You're trying to be too cool and missing the whole point.
The original reply called the poster on nothing, using nothing but the word 'Physics' to make no point whatsoever. Physics (at least our understanding of it) doesn't disprove anything the parent said. Probability might make it very unlikely to manifest, but that's not what the replier said. Replace the word "Physics" with the word "Bible" and see how foolish the fiat declaration really is.
I'll leave it that, so it doesn't trip over any 'coolness' filters on it's way through your thought process.
Hell, the page YOU LINKED TO shows what was really going on, but you were too cocky to read it weren't you? I wasn't making an "argumentum ad ignorantiam", as I wasn't claiming anything was true, I was shooting down an "argument from personal incredulity" by pointing out the OPs COMPLETE lack of supporting data. Personally, I sit on the fence in this argument, and will happily point out that fiat declarations on either side (barring "I met them!", and then it's time for a sanity assessment) are full of both hubris and bullshit.
Invisible unicorns? Garage-dragons?
While you're quoting wiki pages on logical fallacies, take a gander at 'strawman', would you?
After that, take a moment out and realize that the laws of physics don't give the slightest bit of a shit what you think of invisible unicorns, dragons, or anything else for that matter. They deal with processes and interactions, and they deal with these things in a UNIVERSAL, UNBIASED way. An idea that offends you intellectually is completely unaffected by your emotions, and will exist (or not exist) regardless of any fiat declarations of impossibility that you make.
Negative!
Married for nearly 9 years, 3 kids, and often 'sexed-up' before that, actually. The secret is using the FUNNY part a lot, and the nerdy part only where appropriate.
Actually, any nerd worth his calculator ought to be able to get women, if only by data-analysis of their failed attempts. "Oh, she got that 'no-booty-for-you' look on her face in the midst that 15 minute rant about big-endian architectural superiority, don't do THAT anymore." Or you can hit on the nerdy women, they exist, and they want (to be tactful) "a lil' Cap'n in 'em" too. Just take care that she's not adamant about the superiority of little-endian machines...
Something to think about...
It sure is. I already think about things like that (but not EXACTLY that, so it's being added to the thought-mill), but only as an intellectual exercise. I fully expect (intend?) to be dead by the time we came up with even the most basic 'metatheory of everything' that had the ability to compensate for changes in the laws of physics themselves.
Great crazy-maker though, Cthulhu would be proud! :-D
Yes, but see, on slashdot CUBICLE > SPACEVEHICLE (I'd have said mom's basement, but I like being right) so these scoffers are really an AUTHORITY on spacetravel, not like some pansy 'astronaut' who doesn't have a glorious 'Project Manager' or 'Senior Developer' to tell them how life works.
In the FACE of evidence that there are aliens you can make up any explanation to disregard the evidence and be completely credible.
I know, right! EVERYBODY knows Newton 'WON' physics back a few hundred years ago, why all the hoopla? I mean, WTF do these 'scientists' think they're doing with all their math and the rest of their lies? Someone should put a stop to this, as it's a pointless effort, being that "Physics as we know it today" is correct, so say metlin, so shall it be for all time.
Because we know every detail about every iota of matter and every detail about every energy transfer, right?
I think you overestimate your fellow humans there, being that we've oh-so-barely scratched the surface of understanding the world around us. How long have we known about radio waves? Microwaves, particularly? How about Bose-Einstein condensates? Mmmhmmm. Seems to me that there is a WHOLE LOT goin on right under (and inside!) our noses that we BARELY are able to detect, let alone understand in any significant way. Don't get me started on complex systems, the nature of many-variabled interactions or even something so esoteric as 'consciousness'. We know next to nothing (and in some cases, I'd bet we know EXACTLY nothing) about a great many of the universe's more detailed workings. Even those bits we THINK we know oftentimes cannot be verified by lack of proper experimental apparatus.
No offense, but your post kind of comes of as a QBASIC programmer scoffing at the guy writing in C because YOU see no reason anyone would need to use malloc(), as the 'physics' already has a solution for that, and anything beyond your comprehension is, of course, irrelevant.
I'm not making any fiat declarations about aliens, programming languages or physics, just that you DON'T KNOW what you DON'T KNOW. Neither do I, but I (for one) am accepting of that. I am however very unaccepting of the resemblance to Donald Rumsfeld in my first sentence of this paragraph, that's just wrong.
$ units '21 months' 'fortnights' :-)
45 and change, BTW.
if understand($POPCULTUREREFERENCE)==FAIL {
postobnoxioustroll(slashdot.org);
feelsmug();
checkpostreplies(slashdot.org);
noticedupe(http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=624513&cid=24319179);
noticefail(http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=624513&cid=24320141);
stopsmug();
feelshitty();
return(1);
}
I prefer NetLogo myself, but that's because I like to whip up little simple simulations of various systems, and netlogo excels at exactly that.
LOL, I threadjacked the jackthread. Excellent.