Yeah, I'd say Psystar made a few mistakes that wrecked their case.
Hell, even shipping it preloaded I thought was a bad idea that opened them up to liability.
They should have shipped the hard drive blank with a disk that prompted you for the OSX installation media. And built the system from scratch on the customers premises.
And then offered to burn a restore image to dvd after that.
Less customer friendly, but I -think- it would have survived the court challenges.
Yes. A copy you are explicitly permitted to make. See my response to your other post. I even cited the copyright act directly.
What's truly astonishing is that you know about the backup for archival purposes... which is LITERALLY right next to the bloody line that says you can make not just one copy... but as many copies are necessary provided each copy is an essential step in using the software.
(So the copy to the hard drive is good. The copy to ram is good. The copy to L2 cache? That's covered too. Any incidental copying made to the swap file. Yep covered.
You don't need an EULA to grant you this permission. You already have this right. Straight out of the copyright act.
Although AFAIK there is nothing stopping you from running it directly from the DVD in a DVD drive if it would technically work.... because installing it is an essential step...
There's nothing in the copyright act that allows you to install and use a copy of software. You are allowed to make a backup, but it explicitly states that must be for archival purposes only.
You are incorrect.
17 USC 117 Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs:
it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
(2)...talks about backups for archival purposes...which is the limitation you mentioned yourself.
I mean REALLY... how is it you know all about (2) but deny that (1) even exists.
You can make copies as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program. Its that simple. Unless you are going to argue that loading your copy of computer software into a computer is not an essential step to using it...???
Then presumably you aren't going to buy books either. Because you aren't allowed to copy those without permission either. And in that case they don't come with any license granting you to copy under certain circumstances.
I have no problem with copyright law. It doesn't bug me in the least that I need a license to make copies. Book vendors don't wander around telling me that I need license to read a book, or try to dictate via contracts of adhesion what brand of bookmark I use.
So should you be able to put it on multiple machines
The simple answer is no.
Putting it on multiple machines is making copies. Copyright applies to... not surprisingly...the right to make copies.
So no, you can't buy 1 copy and then install it on as many computers as you like.
(A pedant might note that installing it and using it loads a copy onto the hard drive, and then from the hard drive into ram etc... but copyright explicitly grants you the right to make those copies necessary to use the software.)
I mean, why should they force you to obey the software licence? It's yours, right?
The copy is yours. The right to make copies is not yours.
Deciding to reject the GPL doesn't remove the fact that the software is still protected by copyright, and if you reject the GPL, then you can't redistribute it unless you work out some other license agreement with the copyright holder(s).
Has Psystar won this case then software licences would be unenforceable
Not at all, just that certain terms are.
Sure, it means you now "own" your copy of OS X
In the same sense that I "own" my copy of Pink Floyd's "The Wall". I own it. Nobody disputes that I own it. I can listen to it where I want, how I want, on whatever hardware I want, and nobody really disputes that either.
I still don't have the the right to make and sell copies though. Even though I own my copy.
If I want to do that I better get a license from whoever holds the rights to "The Wall".
Software -should- be the same way. And it largely is, although software companies are trying to add on these EULAs as well.
The GPL is NOT an EULA. You do not need, and have never needed to agree to the GPL to use GPL software.
The GPL is a redistribution license that you only need to even think about once you start making copies.
So I have a product in a box, with a sales receipt that says paid in full, showing the product was sold to me; often with the condition that its a final sale if i so much as open the box... sometimes its a final sale anyway, if I purchased it... wait for it... "on sale".;)
And yet no sale has happened. Only a software vendor could or would try to believe that.
You accept the license, and the sale is done, or you don't accept the license, and you can take the software back to the shop and ask for your money back.
They've really got your number don't they.
But in the end, all this has been explained again and again years ago
Psystar actually lost their case primarily on a variety of other technicalities.
However, the whole validity of EULAs in general is NOT settled at all, and still varies by jurisdiction, state, and court circuit.
Software vendors have been pushing this "licensed not sold" argument, and it has gotten some traction in some quarters, but its hardly "the law" at this point.
The software itself (but not the media it is contained on) is still 100% the property of Apple.
Nope. I'd have to have agreed to some sort of licensing agreement for that fiction to take hold. But I declined and am not in agreement with any licensing agreements.
Thus they sold me a box containing a copy of the software. First sale doctrine dictates that I own that copy of the software, and can do what I want with it.
they all know that what they are doing isn't quite legal
We all know it violates the EULA.
We all know Apple would very much like it to be illegal.
We all know that in and of itself violating an EULA is not by itself illegal. At worst, by disagreeing to the EULA we do not have a license agreement with Apple to use the software.
What *exactly* does not having a "license" mean though?
Remember, we bought the copy of the software. Apple sold it to us. That copy belongs to us. Even without a "license" we still own that copy.
First sale doctrine gives us explicit rights to use what we own.
Per the copyright act, we may install and use a copy of software we own. We do not actually need a license agreement over and above "owning a copy" for that. (Just as you do not need a license to play a compact disc you purchased.)
Per the DMCA we are entitled to circumvent copy protection methods for interoperability, which is precisely what we are doing to get OSX to interoperate with the hardware we are trying to use.
So no, we are not convinced what were doing is "illegal" -- not even a little bit.
All that said, I don't have a hackintosh, and don't want one. If Apple is going to try and control what I can do with the things I purchase then I won't purchase them.
I've got a sharp. I use an HDMI connection. (Actually i have an hdmi receiver, and all my devices including non-hdmi stuff like the Wii plug into the receiver. I've got exactly one hdmi cable going from the receiver to the TV.)
I put the TV in "game" mode, which turns off all the post processing. (Post processing takes a bit of time... which translates to a few ms of extra latency... which makes it unsuitable for gaming. Hence "game mode" turns it all off.)
Next i set the aspect ratio to dot-for-dot which gives pixel perfect 1920x1080.
For one thing, what "the average joe at work" does is none of my concern.
because the only one in the universe that deserves protection is you?
My privacy concerns as far as my boss seeing that I'm surfing the internet when I'm supposed to be working far outweigh anything I'm worried about as far as Google goes.
a) Some of us browse the internet in the course of actually working.
b) Some of us can actually make a personal call, write a personal reminder on a post it note, or look something up on the web without getting fired for stealing from the company.
c) Your boss, if they thought about it, might not be too keen on google profiling his employees while they are supposed to be working. Google clearly places value on the data they are collecting from his employees activities... but he's not being compensated for it. Now Google is "stealing" from him too...;)...actually been stalked by an ex-girlfriend to the point...
I'm genuinely sorry to hear about that. But you must understand that its not a valid argument. The fact that you encountered a pretty extreme case, doesn't somehow invalidate less extreme cases.
If I say my ipod was stolen on the bus... you don't get to counter with "well someone stole my entire life savings, which is so totally removed from what happened to you...".... that may well be true, and it's certainly far worse, but I'm still the victim of theft.
First of all, software doesn't come with a warranty. In fact don't most (or all) EULA's specifically say there is NO warranty, explicit or implied, that makes them liable for damages of any sort?
This is the basic approach:
We provide no warranty:
COMPANY PROVIDES NO REMEDIES OR WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR THE SOFTWARE.
We try and get out of any warranty that you might get from consumer protection laws by explicitly decaring its sold "as-is" and that we don't represent that its "merchantable" or otherwise "fit for any particular purpose". These are "code phrases" to trigger various provisions and exceptions in consumer protection laws.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS".
COMPANY DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Finally, they acknowledge that despite their best efforts to disclaim any obligation to stand behind their product in any way that you still might have some warranty where you are. Talk to your lawyer.
SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS THAT VARY FROM STATE TO STATE.
You mean those Google ads that I block using Adblock Plus?
You mean that Google Analytics junk that I block using NoScript?
Thanks captain obvious! I said avoiding google took effort above and beyond simply not going to their website... which you just confirmed.
Again, who forced you to use Gmail or buy an Android phone?
I don't. But many of the people i communicate with do. Are you actually suggesting I not communicate them?
Avoiding Google on the internet is as simple as installing a couple plugins
And a browser that can use those plugins, on a platform that can run that browser.
Do you think the average joe at work gets to decide which firefox plugins are installed, or whether firefox is installed at all?
And what about mobile access from your phone?
and not using any of their services.
Or communicating with anyone who uses those services. But hey, that's simple too.
Your problem isn't that your data is being mined, it's that other people don't care as much as you do.
If someone wants to be data mined, I'm fine with that. But it shouldn't be "on by default", and opting out shouldn't be a game of cat and mouse with the people trying to track you.
"Oh, just install this blocker, and that blocker, and this plugin, and don't go there, use this proxy for that, never ever use your real name here, and read this news site so you know what you'll have to do tomorrow too "... is the completely wrong approach to dealing with the issue.
Its idiotic on the same level as suggesting that we shouldn't pass laws against stalking because people who don't like to be stalked should just avoid the people stalking them, hire a body guard to keep stalkers away, and put on a blindfold and headphones so they can't see or hear them.
No, I don't, because I opt out through the use of Ghostery
Which aligns with what i said -- that you have to make a pretty serious effort to avoid being tracked.
(I do use GMail, though, but all those parts are exactly identical to any other third-party email host)
Yes and no. Mostly no. When you sign up with gmail you add your data points to the largest advertising and data mining company on the planet. They have their tendrils in everything.
Your data point is integrated with everything else.
When you sign up for a free webmail account with rinkydink-hosting-inc your datapoint is all they have to work with.
Even if rinkydink were every bit as dedicated to invading your privacy as google is, they simply don't have anywhere near the same reach.
Scale matters. Being caught on some tourists vacation photos is irrelevant. But having every camera in the country send its pictures to one database with facial recognition is a massive invasion of privacy.
Rinkydink webmail is a tourists camera. Google is the country spanning camera infrastructure. Don't pretend they are the same just because they both took your picture.
there are lots of search engines....google it if you dont belive me.
Every time you visit a website with google ads you are tracked.
Every time you visit a site with google analytics you get tracked.
Any time you visit any of a gazillion sites with youtube content embedded.... you get tracked.
Every time you exchange an email with someone who uses gmail, (or any other domain hosted by google apps).
Every time someone you know uploads their contact list with your email address in it to google+ or gmail... they can build a ghost social network profile on you. (Facebook does this too...)
Everytime you phone or text message someone who uses an android... actually... i'm just speculating on that one, but if android users can't review their call history, voice and text messages via their google account today... I'd expect it soon.
Avoiding google on the internet isn't nearly as simple as simply not using their search engine.... Google it if you don't beleive me.
Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use Google's services?
Since when is "gun to the head" the standard by which these things are judged anyway?
Is the TSA putting a gun to my head. No. I can choose not to ever leave my house. Is Google putting a gun to my head? No... I can choose not to use the internet.
And if I want to avoid the TSA and Google I guess I might as well live in a cave. But its completely my choice not to live in a cave... nobody put a gun to my head./facepalm
That said, I for one like using the internet.
And you have to take some pretty significant effort to avoid leaving an imprint of yourself on google's stuff.
You aren't private by default, which is as it should be.
And what kind of thing would that be? Businesses demanding payment for services rendered? Or gubmint demanding payment of money owed? Try not paying your taxes Mr Teat Partier, and see what happens.
What this needs is a car analogy:
You need insurance for your car, so you buy some from ABC, and put in on your Visa credit card. So far so good.
Then some idiot rear ends your car... so you call your insurance company, and they tell you your claim can't be processed because you missed a payment on your credit card, and they won't honor your insurance until you repay Visa.
See why this is both weird and wrong? Your insurance is paid up, and paid in full. Its none of ABC's business whether or not your account with visa is in good standing. That's between you and Visa.
That's the problem that is happening here. The government (taking Visas place) loaned the student money to purchase an education. The student then used that money to purchase an education from the school (taking the insurance companies place). So the transaction between you and the school is complete, and the school was paid in full for your education.
Its no more more the school's business to collect payment on your student loan than it is the insurance companies business to do collections for Visa.
Also you are using paragon HFS+ for windows... you should already be aware they have Paragon NTFS for Mac.
A bigger question is whether NTFS is the best filesystem to use, and that's a separate question entirely. And that's a question I don't know the answer to.
So, if the primary OS was windows... then I'd use NTFS.
But if you spend most of your time in linux, and do most of the filesystem writing from linux... then I'd probably pick something robust and linux-native, and then get solutions for OSX and Windows to read it...
Also, I'm curious what percentage don't create any new content regularly (ie dont post) I suspect a large number of people just have their cell phone facebook app passively consume content... and if a circle of friends posts die off, their mobile apps all keep pinging the site for non-existent updates... the entire circle has moved on... but they still all "check in" every 5 minutes according to facebook...
This gets to be a bit of a grey area tho. Alot of these guys have mobile phones with facebook apps, so even if there is no activity, and no active checking of facebook... the apps still login and check for updates...
I expect that counts as "active", even if no new content is ever actually consumed or created.
I had that experience too. As a seller. Except we had multiple offers, and sold some 15k above asking, 35k above the first offer that came in.
We had a potential buyer walk away as well when they were told a bidding war was in progress...
The last car I bought also took nearly a month to close a deal as I and the owner offered and countered via his salesman at a consignment dealership. During that time, the car sat on the lot, and anyone who came to see it was told that although the car wasn't sold there was already an offer on it.
And backpedalling isn't necessarily because it is a lie, but because just because there is a deal in the works -- it could well fall apart, and you don't want to lose a prospective buyer.
If I'm looking at a house in a bidding war, and I put in a sub-asking price, my only real shot of getting the place is if everyone else fails to close. It -can- and does happen -- sometimes its subject to financing and it doesn't go through, or subject to a 3rd party (e.g. an out of the country spouse has to see it an like it before its finalized, and they fly in a week later and decide they don't want it...) but its not all that likely...
Point being, its not always a lie, and its really hard to know when it is or not. My advice... get a buying agent to deal for you. They can cut through some of that crap, and if nothing else, they can keep an eye on the property.
For what its worth, our selling agents tried hard to bring lots of people in at once... open house tours, etc to maximize the odds of multiple offers... that's his job as a selling agent. He earned his commission.
And yet half the people i know say they haven't checked their facebook page in months...
Its there...they can't leave... but its pretty much abandoned...
I'm curious what percentage of people have an account due to the network effect of needing one to see something or other from time to time, and beyond that never using the site.
A lot of people gripe about the 30% cut for in-app purchases, and it looks like crap at first glance. At the same time, without it people could get around paying Apple anything at all by making apps "free" and then having them pay for features with an in-app purchase, and thus get 100% of the money. Same for telling users to go to a website to buy something: devs could get around paying Apple one cent if that were an allowed process.
There is a clear distinction between allowing what you just described and demanding a 30% cut of services offered outside of the App itself.
Dropbox sells cloud storage space and gives away free clients. If you upgrade your dropbox accounts storage space there is no reason apple should take 30% of revenue. Period.
By that logic when I pay my utility bill with my banking app then apple should have claim to 30% of that too. Which is absurd.
Then again, there are people who are completely against Apple taking a cut at all. To those people, I remind them that Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity,
Dropbox isn't a charity either. Why should it donate 30% of revenue to apple when a dropbox customer upgrades their cloudstorage space on dropbox simply because they happened to be holding their iphone when they did it?
There's also the fact that Apple handles distribution costs and payment processing, both of which do cost money.
And there's also the fact that Apple actively prevents you from using any other distribution and payment processing. Lots of big enterprise applications have mobile apps to access their systems on the go (accounting, CRM, etc...) Everyone of them thinks loading the app onto devices through end user itunes accounts is completely idiotic.
Do you think for a second that SAP gets a lot of new business bubbling up from the iphone app store? Or is it 99.9999% customers who already have SAP and want to install the SAP mobile client.
I'm sure SAP would be happy to take on distributing the mobile client directly if they could.
Users SHOULD have the option of adding altnernative app stores or even installing apps directly without having to play an adversarial game of cat and mouse with apple's engineers.
Until apple lets you turn off the walled garden and open up your phone users have every right to be pissed off at apple... even if they CAN technically hack it and get away with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'd say Psystar made a few mistakes that wrecked their case.
Hell, even shipping it preloaded I thought was a bad idea that opened them up to liability.
They should have shipped the hard drive blank with a disk that prompted you for the OSX installation media. And built the system from scratch on the customers premises.
And then offered to burn a restore image to dvd after that.
Less customer friendly, but I -think- it would have survived the court challenges.
Installing it on a computer would require a copy.
Yes. A copy you are explicitly permitted to make. See my response to your other post. I even cited the copyright act directly.
What's truly astonishing is that you know about the backup for archival purposes... which is LITERALLY right next to the bloody line that says you can make not just one copy... but as many copies are necessary provided each copy is an essential step in using the software.
(So the copy to the hard drive is good. The copy to ram is good. The copy to L2 cache? That's covered too. Any incidental copying made to the swap file. Yep covered.
You don't need an EULA to grant you this permission. You already have this right. Straight out of the copyright act.
Although AFAIK there is nothing stopping you from running it directly from the DVD in a DVD drive if it would technically work. ... because installing it is an essential step...
There's nothing in the copyright act that allows you to install and use a copy of software. You are allowed to make a backup, but it explicitly states that must be for archival purposes only.
You are incorrect.
17 USC 117 Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs:
it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
(2) ...talks about backups for archival purposes...which is the limitation you mentioned yourself.
I mean REALLY... how is it you know all about (2) but deny that (1) even exists.
You can make copies as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program. Its that simple. Unless you are going to argue that loading your copy of computer software into a computer is not an essential step to using it...???
Then presumably you aren't going to buy books either. Because you aren't allowed to copy those without permission either. And in that case they don't come with any license granting you to copy under certain circumstances.
I have no problem with copyright law. It doesn't bug me in the least that I need a license to make copies. Book vendors don't wander around telling me that I need license to read a book, or try to dictate via contracts of adhesion what brand of bookmark I use.
So should you be able to put it on multiple machines
The simple answer is no.
Putting it on multiple machines is making copies. Copyright applies to... not surprisingly...the right to make copies.
So no, you can't buy 1 copy and then install it on as many computers as you like.
(A pedant might note that installing it and using it loads a copy onto the hard drive, and then from the hard drive into ram etc... but copyright explicitly grants you the right to make those copies necessary to use the software.)
Actually, no, not at all.
I mean, why should they force you to obey the software licence? It's yours, right?
The copy is yours. The right to make copies is not yours.
Deciding to reject the GPL doesn't remove the fact that the software is still protected by copyright, and if you reject the GPL, then you can't redistribute it unless you work out some other license agreement with the copyright holder(s).
Has Psystar won this case then software licences would be unenforceable
Not at all, just that certain terms are.
Sure, it means you now "own" your copy of OS X
In the same sense that I "own" my copy of Pink Floyd's "The Wall". I own it. Nobody disputes that I own it. I can listen to it where I want, how I want, on whatever hardware I want, and nobody really disputes that either.
I still don't have the the right to make and sell copies though. Even though I own my copy.
If I want to do that I better get a license from whoever holds the rights to "The Wall".
Software -should- be the same way. And it largely is, although software companies are trying to add on these EULAs as well.
The GPL is NOT an EULA. You do not need, and have never needed to agree to the GPL to use GPL software.
The GPL is a redistribution license that you only need to even think about once you start making copies.
no sale has yet happened.
So I have a product in a box, with a sales receipt that says paid in full, showing the product was sold to me; often with the condition that its a final sale if i so much as open the box... sometimes its a final sale anyway, if I purchased it ... wait for it... "on sale". ;)
And yet no sale has happened. Only a software vendor could or would try to believe that.
You accept the license, and the sale is done, or you don't accept the license, and you can take the software back to the shop and ask for your money back.
They've really got your number don't they.
But in the end, all this has been explained again and again years ago
Psystar actually lost their case primarily on a variety of other technicalities.
However, the whole validity of EULAs in general is NOT settled at all, and still varies by jurisdiction, state, and court circuit.
Software vendors have been pushing this "licensed not sold" argument, and it has gotten some traction in some quarters, but its hardly "the law" at this point.
The software itself (but not the media it is contained on) is still 100% the property of Apple.
Nope. I'd have to have agreed to some sort of licensing agreement for that fiction to take hold. But I declined and am not in agreement with any licensing agreements.
Thus they sold me a box containing a copy of the software. First sale doctrine dictates that I own that copy of the software, and can do what I want with it.
they all know that what they are doing isn't quite legal
We all know it violates the EULA.
We all know Apple would very much like it to be illegal.
We all know that in and of itself violating an EULA is not by itself illegal. At worst, by disagreeing to the EULA we do not have a license agreement with Apple to use the software.
What *exactly* does not having a "license" mean though?
Remember, we bought the copy of the software. Apple sold it to us. That copy belongs to us. Even without a "license" we still own that copy.
First sale doctrine gives us explicit rights to use what we own.
Per the copyright act, we may install and use a copy of software we own. We do not actually need a license agreement over and above "owning a copy" for that. (Just as you do not need a license to play a compact disc you purchased.)
Per the DMCA we are entitled to circumvent copy protection methods for interoperability, which is precisely what we are doing to get OSX to interoperate with the hardware we are trying to use.
So no, we are not convinced what were doing is "illegal" -- not even a little bit.
All that said, I don't have a hackintosh, and don't want one. If Apple is going to try and control what I can do with the things I purchase then I won't purchase them.
This.
I've got a sharp. I use an HDMI connection. (Actually i have an hdmi receiver, and all my devices including non-hdmi stuff like the Wii plug into the receiver. I've got exactly one hdmi cable going from the receiver to the TV.)
I put the TV in "game" mode, which turns off all the post processing. (Post processing takes a bit of time... which translates to a few ms of extra latency... which makes it unsuitable for gaming. Hence "game mode" turns it all off.)
Next i set the aspect ratio to dot-for-dot which gives pixel perfect 1920x1080.
Works great.
For one thing, what "the average joe at work" does is none of my concern.
because the only one in the universe that deserves protection is you?
My privacy concerns as far as my boss seeing that I'm surfing the internet when I'm supposed to be working far outweigh anything I'm worried about as far as Google goes.
a) Some of us browse the internet in the course of actually working.
b) Some of us can actually make a personal call, write a personal reminder on a post it note, or look something up on the web without getting fired for stealing from the company.
c) Your boss, if they thought about it, might not be too keen on google profiling his employees while they are supposed to be working. Google clearly places value on the data they are collecting from his employees activities... but he's not being compensated for it. Now Google is "stealing" from him too... ;) ...actually been stalked by an ex-girlfriend to the point ...
I'm genuinely sorry to hear about that. But you must understand that its not a valid argument. The fact that you encountered a pretty extreme case, doesn't somehow invalidate less extreme cases.
If I say my ipod was stolen on the bus... you don't get to counter with "well someone stole my entire life savings, which is so totally removed from what happened to you...".... that may well be true, and it's certainly far worse, but I'm still the victim of theft.
First of all, software doesn't come with a warranty. In fact don't most (or all) EULA's specifically say there is NO warranty, explicit or implied, that makes them liable for damages of any sort?
This is the basic approach:
We provide no warranty:
COMPANY PROVIDES NO REMEDIES OR WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR THE SOFTWARE.
We try and get out of any warranty that you might get from consumer protection laws by explicitly decaring its sold "as-is" and that we don't represent that its "merchantable" or otherwise "fit for any particular purpose". These are "code phrases" to trigger various provisions and exceptions in consumer protection laws.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS".
COMPANY DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Finally, they acknowledge that despite their best efforts to disclaim any obligation to stand behind their product in any way that you still might have some warranty where you are. Talk to your lawyer.
SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS THAT VARY FROM STATE TO STATE.
You mean those Google ads that I block using Adblock Plus?
You mean that Google Analytics junk that I block using NoScript?
Thanks captain obvious! I said avoiding google took effort above and beyond simply not going to their website... which you just confirmed.
Again, who forced you to use Gmail or buy an Android phone?
I don't. But many of the people i communicate with do. Are you actually suggesting I not communicate them?
Avoiding Google on the internet is as simple as installing a couple plugins
And a browser that can use those plugins, on a platform that can run that browser.
Do you think the average joe at work gets to decide which firefox plugins are installed, or whether firefox is installed at all?
And what about mobile access from your phone?
and not using any of their services.
Or communicating with anyone who uses those services. But hey, that's simple too.
Your problem isn't that your data is being mined, it's that other people don't care as much as you do.
If someone wants to be data mined, I'm fine with that. But it shouldn't be "on by default", and opting out shouldn't be a game of cat and mouse with the people trying to track you.
"Oh, just install this blocker, and that blocker, and this plugin, and don't go there, use this proxy for that, never ever use your real name here, and read this news site so you know what you'll have to do tomorrow too "... is the completely wrong approach to dealing with the issue.
Its idiotic on the same level as suggesting that we shouldn't pass laws against stalking because people who don't like to be stalked should just avoid the people stalking them, hire a body guard to keep stalkers away, and put on a blindfold and headphones so they can't see or hear them.
Problem solved. Its simple. /sarcasm
I'd rather live in a world where people
No, I don't, because I opt out through the use of Ghostery
Which aligns with what i said -- that you have to make a pretty serious effort to avoid being tracked.
(I do use GMail, though, but all those parts are exactly identical to any other third-party email host)
Yes and no. Mostly no. When you sign up with gmail you add your data points to the largest advertising and data mining company on the planet. They have their tendrils in everything.
Your data point is integrated with everything else.
When you sign up for a free webmail account with rinkydink-hosting-inc your datapoint is all they have to work with.
Even if rinkydink were every bit as dedicated to invading your privacy as google is, they simply don't have anywhere near the same reach.
Scale matters. Being caught on some tourists vacation photos is irrelevant. But having every camera in the country send its pictures to one database with facial recognition is a massive invasion of privacy.
Rinkydink webmail is a tourists camera. Google is the country spanning camera infrastructure. Don't pretend they are the same just because they both took your picture.
there are lots of search engines....google it if you dont belive me.
Every time you visit a website with google ads you are tracked.
Every time you visit a site with google analytics you get tracked.
Any time you visit any of a gazillion sites with youtube content embedded.... you get tracked.
Every time you exchange an email with someone who uses gmail, (or any other domain hosted by google apps).
Every time someone you know uploads their contact list with your email address in it to google+ or gmail... they can build a ghost social network profile on you. (Facebook does this too...)
Everytime you phone or text message someone who uses an android... actually... i'm just speculating on that one, but if android users can't review their call history, voice and text messages via their google account today... I'd expect it soon.
Avoiding google on the internet isn't nearly as simple as simply not using their search engine. ... Google it if you don't beleive me.
Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use Google's services?
Since when is "gun to the head" the standard by which these things are judged anyway?
Is the TSA putting a gun to my head. No. I can choose not to ever leave my house. Is Google putting a gun to my head? No... I can choose not to use the internet.
And if I want to avoid the TSA and Google I guess I might as well live in a cave. But its completely my choice not to live in a cave... nobody put a gun to my head. /facepalm
That said, I for one like using the internet.
And you have to take some pretty significant effort to avoid leaving an imprint of yourself on google's stuff.
You aren't private by default, which is as it should be.
And what kind of thing would that be? Businesses demanding payment for services rendered? Or gubmint demanding payment of money owed? Try not paying your taxes Mr Teat Partier, and see what happens.
What this needs is a car analogy:
You need insurance for your car, so you buy some from ABC, and put in on your Visa credit card. So far so good.
Then some idiot rear ends your car... so you call your insurance company, and they tell you your claim can't be processed because you missed a payment on your credit card, and they won't honor your insurance until you repay Visa.
See why this is both weird and wrong? Your insurance is paid up, and paid in full. Its none of ABC's business whether or not your account with visa is in good standing. That's between you and Visa.
That's the problem that is happening here. The government (taking Visas place) loaned the student money to purchase an education. The student then used that money to purchase an education from the school (taking the insurance companies place). So the transaction between you and the school is complete, and the school was paid in full for your education.
Its no more more the school's business to collect payment on your student loan than it is the insurance companies business to do collections for Visa.
10.5 and 10.6 and I assume 10.7 have read/write support but its not enabled by default, and is not officially supported.
http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20090913140023382
Also you are using paragon HFS+ for windows... you should already be aware they have Paragon NTFS for Mac.
A bigger question is whether NTFS is the best filesystem to use, and that's a separate question entirely. And that's a question I don't know the answer to.
So, if the primary OS was windows... then I'd use NTFS.
But if you spend most of your time in linux, and do most of the filesystem writing from linux... then I'd probably pick something robust and linux-native, and then get solutions for OSX and Windows to read it...
You never win, it gets harder and harder no matter how good you are, eventually you die
As a fun game, meh, probably not so much.
But as a political statement, and as a response to western military war simulations... golf clap. Well done guys!
So what you're saying is that you could install it no matter what, but in your mind it's an upgrade.
Its an upgrade because the license price reflects that you already have a previous version.
The fact that the installer doesn't validate and enforce this is really irrelevant.
Also, lots of companies sell upgrades that are bit for bit identical to the "full version" except the price you pay for it.
The widespread piracy of windows is the primary reason microsoft upgrades don't work like this... anymore.
Is that 13.14% completely dormant?
Also, I'm curious what percentage don't create any new content regularly (ie dont post) I suspect a large number of people just have their cell phone facebook app passively consume content... and if a circle of friends posts die off, their mobile apps all keep pinging the site for non-existent updates... the entire circle has moved on... but they still all "check in" every 5 minutes according to facebook...
This gets to be a bit of a grey area tho. Alot of these guys have mobile phones with facebook apps, so even if there is no activity, and no active checking of facebook... the apps still login and check for updates...
I expect that counts as "active", even if no new content is ever actually consumed or created.
I had that experience too. As a seller. Except we had multiple offers, and sold some 15k above asking, 35k above the first offer that came in.
We had a potential buyer walk away as well when they were told a bidding war was in progress...
The last car I bought also took nearly a month to close a deal as I and the owner offered and countered via his salesman at a consignment dealership. During that time, the car sat on the lot, and anyone who came to see it was told that although the car wasn't sold there was already an offer on it.
And backpedalling isn't necessarily because it is a lie, but because just because there is a deal in the works -- it could well fall apart, and you don't want to lose a prospective buyer.
If I'm looking at a house in a bidding war, and I put in a sub-asking price, my only real shot of getting the place is if everyone else fails to close. It -can- and does happen -- sometimes its subject to financing and it doesn't go through, or subject to a 3rd party (e.g. an out of the country spouse has to see it an like it before its finalized, and they fly in a week later and decide they don't want it...) but its not all that likely...
Point being, its not always a lie, and its really hard to know when it is or not. My advice... get a buying agent to deal for you. They can cut through some of that crap, and if nothing else, they can keep an eye on the property.
For what its worth, our selling agents tried hard to bring lots of people in at once... open house tours, etc to maximize the odds of multiple offers... that's his job as a selling agent. He earned his commission.
And yet half the people i know say they haven't checked their facebook page in months...
Its there...they can't leave... but its pretty much abandoned...
I'm curious what percentage of people have an account due to the network effect of needing one to see something or other from time to time, and beyond that never using the site.
Do they make up 10% of facebook? 50%? 80%?
A lot of people gripe about the 30% cut for in-app purchases, and it looks like crap at first glance. At the same time, without it people could get around paying Apple anything at all by making apps "free" and then having them pay for features with an in-app purchase, and thus get 100% of the money. Same for telling users to go to a website to buy something: devs could get around paying Apple one cent if that were an allowed process.
There is a clear distinction between allowing what you just described and demanding a 30% cut of services offered outside of the App itself.
Dropbox sells cloud storage space and gives away free clients. If you upgrade your dropbox accounts storage space there is no reason apple should take 30% of revenue. Period.
By that logic when I pay my utility bill with my banking app then apple should have claim to 30% of that too. Which is absurd.
Then again, there are people who are completely against Apple taking a cut at all. To those people, I remind them that Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity,
Dropbox isn't a charity either. Why should it donate 30% of revenue to apple when a dropbox customer upgrades their cloudstorage space on dropbox simply because they happened to be holding their iphone when they did it?
There's also the fact that Apple handles distribution costs and payment processing, both of which do cost money.
And there's also the fact that Apple actively prevents you from using any other distribution and payment processing. Lots of big enterprise applications have mobile apps to access their systems on the go (accounting, CRM, etc...) Everyone of them thinks loading the app onto devices through end user itunes accounts is completely idiotic.
Do you think for a second that SAP gets a lot of new business bubbling up from the iphone app store? Or is it 99.9999% customers who already have SAP and want to install the SAP mobile client.
I'm sure SAP would be happy to take on distributing the mobile client directly if they could.
Users SHOULD have the option of adding altnernative app stores or even installing apps directly without having to play an adversarial game of cat and mouse with apple's engineers.
Until apple lets you turn off the walled garden and open up your phone users have every right to be pissed off at apple... even if they CAN technically hack it and get away with it.