Anyone who uses 'fanboys/bois' of any kind in an argument really isn't worth paying attention to. The only fanboys round here are in your head; they make a nice imaginary enemy to tilt against though don't they?
Whoah! I never mentioned fanboys or fanboisms.
Just because an article is about an OS X desktop search product, doesn't mean we can't compare it to the Open Source equivilants (or Google/MS's proprietary offerings for that matter).
Indeed. I was calling into question using such a serious term for a simulation / group mental exercise.
As for the management consultants having been govt. management consultants, color me unsurprised. They'd know exactly how to 'lobby' for investment to be made in infrastructure.
So that we can debunk it, or see if it stands? If it was not there, we wouldn't have the chance to hear others opinion on the matter.
I do see your point (although you could make the same statement about Cobyneal posting a vision he had of pink ponies and their relationship to Global Warming to the science section).
I dunno, I'd just like to see stuff that's a little more.... sciency (sp?) in the science section.
I know requires the use of both hands, so you would have to put down your phone in a way that you can be seen and you can see the screen and lastly without holding it
That was my first thought as well, but it will be nice to have the software ready for when little wireless spec displays & cameras are available (if they haven't thought of a solution already).
I thought it was a serious exercise, but perusing the second article:
...war game, held in January in Davos, Switzerland, by the World Economic Forum and management consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
[emp mine] Double bah!
A bunch of telco management consultants, playing a "war game" (yeesh) to drum up business (Oh wow, lets recommend investments in Telco infrastructure!)
In fact, the second page of the second article even states the obvious:
"You can see the Internet as a self-regulating supply-and-demand mechanism," Froutan said. "The more people use it, the slower it gets, so the less people use it. If 10,000 people go to a site that normally supports 100 users, 9,000 will give up, while the other thousand will get very slow connectivity but will keep going until they get the job done."
Better to bury it on the second page hey? Might spoil the sensationalist headlines a little.
What the hell is this doing in slashdot's science section?
Buying the product does not make you an owner of a copy of the work.
You've mentioned elsewhere in this thread that you find copyright law to be scary & confusing and noone really understands it. Given that, I've no idea why you believe you can be so authorative in this post.
Get a clue before posting on copyright issues in future.
Every time I have a conversation with you, you accuse me of not reading the article, then go on with a comment showing you haven't read it yourself.
However, this time you've outdone yourself. Not content with ignoring just the article, you've commented without even reading the slashdot summary.
You said: thats nice fucktard but this isn't just about parallels it's about vmware as well. thank you for tackling a complete non issue with regards to parallels.
TFS states:
articles outlining the positions of two VM vendors, Parallels and VMWare. Both have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up. First, Parallels:
117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, 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, or
[emph mine]
It is amazing to me just how many people in this forum believe they have to give up their rights because an EULA tells them to.
Doesn't work that way. Apple's EULA states that Mac OS X can only be installed on an Apple branded Macintosh. No generic PC, no virtual machine.
Leaving aside the legality of EULAs for a second.... How in hell are Vmware/Parallels bound by a license agreement between a Apple & an Apple customer?
you just controdicted yourself in the same sentence. any form of reprisal WILL take the form of legal action,
Whilst Apple may take legal reprisals, the easiest form of reprisal (against Parallels) would be to simply stop selling parallels at the Apple store. How do you think that would affect sales?
Oh - and if you'd actually bothered to read either article before posting, you would have seen non-legal reprisals mentioned:
Legal issues aside, Parallels doesn't want to strain its relationship with Apple, who can be rather fickle at times about which companies are in its favor. "We have a very good working relationship with Apple, and we don't want to do anything to jeopardize the great partnership that's been so valuable to both of us," he added.
and:
Neither VMWare nor Parallels is willing to risk angering the deities that reside at Apple corporate just for a few extra software sales. Based off of inside reports that I've received from various developers who have to work closely with Apple (no one at Parallels or VMWare, just in case you were curious), it can be very easy to fall out of Apple's favor for even the slightest, most petty of issues
Idiot. Please try to comprehend the discussion before posting.
It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility.
Although the article does talk about the 'legality' of running OS X on non-Mac PCs, it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).
No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.
LOL Well, You're obviously a non-scientist yourself, as your willingness to resort to authority argument clearly demonstrates.
Fair enough.
However, before my appeal to Authority, I did quite clearly state that his arguments dismissing global 'warming" (due to localised cooling) were false.
"Climate change" describes the local effects of global warming.
It's perfcetly obvious that Nigel Calder doesn't understand that - he gives examples of local cooling as evidence that those in the man-made climate change camp are wrong.
From the linked article:
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter's billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
If he had the slightest clue, he would not be spouting this thoroughly debunked argument.
Slashdot Mirror
So what's this got to do Apple's EULA? Maybe you should actually read it for a change?
The assertion was made that you didn't have the right to copy Apple's software to your HDD or memory without agreeing to Apple's EULA.
However, if you've bought a copy of the program, you're explicitly allowed do so by US copyright law.
Try to keep up.
Anyone who uses 'fanboys/bois' of any kind in an argument really isn't worth paying attention to. The only fanboys round here are in your head; they make a nice imaginary enemy to tilt against though don't they?
Whoah! I never mentioned fanboys or fanboisms.
Just because an article is about an OS X desktop search product, doesn't mean we can't compare it to the Open Source equivilants (or Google/MS's proprietary offerings for that matter).
"War Games" can be very serious exercises indeed
Indeed. I was calling into question using such a serious term for a simulation / group mental exercise.
As for the management consultants having been govt. management consultants, color me unsurprised. They'd know exactly how to 'lobby' for investment to be made in infrastructure.
So that we can debunk it, or see if it stands? If it was not there, we wouldn't have the chance to hear others opinion on the matter.
I do see your point (although you could make the same statement about Cobyneal posting a vision he had of pink ponies and their relationship to Global Warming to the science section).
I dunno, I'd just like to see stuff that's a little more.... sciency (sp?) in the science section.
(whinge over, back to your scheduled broadcast)
I know requires the use of both hands, so you would have to put down your phone in a way that you can be seen and you can see the screen and lastly without holding it
That was my first thought as well, but it will be nice to have the software ready for when little wireless spec displays & cameras are available (if they haven't thought of a solution already).
The EULA states that you may only use one copy on any Apple-labled machine. But maybe you can buy another copy and run THAT in a virtual machine?
Why not just boot linux & run your mac partition under vmware? No need for any extra* licenses.
*I don't consider vmware to be an extra license.
A bunch of telco management consultants, playing a "war game" (yeesh) to drum up business (Oh wow, lets recommend investments in Telco infrastructure!)
In fact, the second page of the second article even states the obvious:Better to bury it on the second page hey? Might spoil the sensationalist headlines a little.
What the hell is this doing in slashdot's science section?
Buying the product does not make you an owner of a copy of the work.
You've mentioned elsewhere in this thread that you find copyright law to be scary & confusing and noone really understands it. Given that, I've no idea why you believe you can be so authorative in this post.
Get a clue before posting on copyright issues in future.
I have a feeling the beta was as you described, so your mistake was understandable.
Kudos to you to coming back to a dead discussion & saying you were wrong - 99% of slashdotters won't do that.
However, this time you've outdone yourself. Not content with ignoring just the article, you've commented without even reading the slashdot summary.
You said: thats nice fucktard but this isn't just about parallels it's about vmware as well. thank you for tackling a complete non issue with regards to parallels.
TFS states:[emph mine]
Did you even read my comment? I included a quote from the relevant section of US copyright law. That quote directly contradicts your stance.
Maybe you can come up with a link that backs up your point of view?
Utter Nonsense (at least in the US):
Looking at United States Code, Chapter 17:[emph mine]
It is amazing to me just how many people in this forum believe they have to give up their rights because an EULA tells them to.
That would be the joy of contributory copyright infringement.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! There is no copyright infringement if you own the copy of OS X you're going to install in a VM.
I'll ignore the rest of your comment as the rest of your logic is based on this false premise.
doable is such a relative term .. anti gravity is doable too!
Inorrect. Doable means "able to be done".
Please link to the home-anti-gravity-howto if you believe anti gravity is doable too!
Doesn't work that way. Apple's EULA states that Mac OS X can only be installed on an Apple branded Macintosh. No generic PC, no virtual machine.
Leaving aside the legality of EULAs for a second.... How in hell are Vmware/Parallels bound by a license agreement between a Apple & an Apple customer?
Whilst Apple may take legal reprisals, the easiest form of reprisal (against Parallels) would be to simply stop selling parallels at the Apple store. How do you think that would affect sales?
Oh - and if you'd actually bothered to read either article before posting, you would have seen non-legal reprisals mentioned:and:Idiot. Please try to comprehend the discussion before posting.
It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility.
Although the article does talk about the 'legality' of running OS X on non-Mac PCs, it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).
No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.
So what do people say when vendors behave the same way towards Microsoft?
I don't know about people - I can only give my opinion. But I'd say "Microsoft Sucks for doing that."
OS X is already virtualised - it has been for ages. Not supported, but certainly doable.
Be nice if Apple gave a bit more help to their customers however - I am not a big fan of artifical restrictions.
but I think the original innovator was Google with "Google Desktop Search"
You're not even remotely close. Beagle predated both spotlight & GDS. I think even Vista's desktop search was demoed prior to GDS.
right thats why you called the guy leading the research team a lone nut in an attempt to discredit his theory.
/.)
Incorrect. Svensmark led the research. Calder is a reporter. Svensmark hasn't called other climate change research into question, Calder has.
You've been telling me to rtfa, but you clearly haven't read it yourself. Unbelievable (well, not really on
you don't do anything to support your argument in that quote.
Let me break it down for you.
Calder offers local cooling as an example of how anthropogenic climate change scientists are wrong.
However, anthropogenic climate change scientists predict local cooling in their models.
Therefore, one of Calder's 'proofs' that anthropogenic climate change scientists are incorrect is faulty.
Please note that I am not commenting on Cosmic Ray/Cloud formation experiment, until it is indepentantly reproduced (CERN is currently doing this).
LOL Well, You're obviously a non-scientist yourself, as your willingness to resort to authority argument clearly demonstrates.
Fair enough.
However, before my appeal to Authority, I did quite clearly state that his arguments dismissing global 'warming" (due to localised cooling) were false.
hahahahaha!
:-)
You're the lone nut in this case
It's perfcetly obvious that Nigel Calder doesn't understand that - he gives examples of local cooling as evidence that those in the man-made climate change camp are wrong.
From the linked article:If he had the slightest clue, he would not be spouting this thoroughly debunked argument.