pontifex22 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 @V Plamondon Well spoken, but please don't worry much about "them". Stupidity is a hobby of mankind, they like burning the Giordano Brunos from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Plamondon Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 alright , just lighten up okay, I cant imagine you going to a girl saying " I have a proposition to initiate a fornication" . Sadly, I only just got the joke now. I BEEPED the "Major-General's Song" in the BEEP, by V Plamondon, inspired by krrr I have a proposition to initiate to fornicate, I've information pornographic, graphical, and intricate, I know the shows of strippers, and I love the clubs historical, From Halifax to Buffalo, in order categorical; I'm very well acquainted too with payments mathematical, I understand positions, both the simple and erotical, About the strippers circuit I'm teeming with a lot o' news--- With many hookers moves in the form of the hypotenuse. I'm very good at fornicating but not so much at calculus, I swear I know I haven't touched that animalculous; In short, in matters pornographic, graphical, and intricate, I have a proposition to initiate to fornicate. I know our dancer's repertoire, Candy Cane's and Miss Dancealots, I answer all personals, blondes or redheads what a paradox, Men swoon in anticipation since the times of Heliogabalus, In strippers I have seen peculiarities parablous. I can tell undoubted silicone from naturals like Stephanies, I hop from club to club like those Frogs of Aristophanes, Then I can hum the tune of which the strippers have danced to afore, And whistle all the songs from that infernal strip-clup Pinafore. Then I can write a porno film in Babylonic cuneiform, And tell you every detail of a sexy nurse's uniform; In short, in matters pornographic, graphical, and intricate, I have a proposition to initiate to fornicate. In fact, I know we try to join the "mile high club" when travelling, When I can tell at sight women desirous for a javelin, When such affairs as orgies and parties I'm not wary at, And when I know precisely what is meant by "purple lariat", When I have learnt what pornos have been made with modern gunnery, When I know more of all pornographic films set in a nunnery: In short, when I've a camera placed properly with strategy, You'll say a better hidden camera has never seen one pee--- For all my sexual knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury, Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century; In short, in matters pornographic, graphical, and intricate, I have a proposition to initiate to fornicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryu-ka Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 How come OSX is "partially based on free software" and yet is commercial? That's an interesting point... GNU is a free OS base kernel, and yet, Apple is using it as commercial software. Isn't that like trying to sell Linux? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacUser2525 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 That's an interesting point... GNU is a free OS base kernel, and yet, Apple is using it as commercial software. Isn't that like trying to sell Linux? They do not use the Linux kernel (the GNU kernel is the HURD it is not usable at the moment) they use the Mach kernel they do however use the GNU tools/tool chain to build/boot their OS in fact without the GNU software included in OS X it will not even boot. This is point I always wondered about why people don't make it more you are entitled to run GPL software without restriction according to the GPL and limiting the hardware you can run that software on is definitely a restriction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Plamondon Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 GPL software can be incorporated into commercial works as long as the terms of the GPL license is adhered to, the main condition being that source code being made freely available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatZilla Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The source code of the derivative work, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishduck Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 They do not use the Linux kernel (the GNU kernel is the HURD it is not usable at the moment) they use the Mach kernel they do however use the GNU tools/tool chain to build/boot their OS in fact without the GNU software included in OS X it will not even boot. This is point I always wondered about why people don't make it more you are entitled to run GPL software without restriction according to the GPL and limiting the hardware you can run that software on is definitely a restriction. OSX is based on a heavily modified UNIX base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Plamondon Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 The source code of the derivative work, right? The source code of the GPL portion. Incorporating GPL works with non-GPL does not cause the non-GPL works to become GPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konami® Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 OSX is based on a heavily modified UNIX base. It is true what you said: http://apple.doit.wisc.edu/macosx/support/faqa.html The Darwin/Mac OS X kernel is based on a heavily modified and enhanced version of Carnegie Mellon University's Mach 3.0 that supports SMP, and the BSD portion is derived from FreeBSD from the FreeBSD Project and is based on 4.4BSD-Lite2 from the University of California at Berkeley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Conte Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Should read it again tomorrow because it was a long day and I didn't get anything. And dunno why I'm giving information lol But if installing X86 is illegal then why would us report that we install it and we're helping others to install? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishduck Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 It is true what you said: http://apple.doit.wisc.edu/macosx/support/faqa.html The easiest way of describing the darwin kernel is: BSD with the sharp corners rounded off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redratfish Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I'm fairly certain, that if Dell had smarter lawyers, Dell would already know that it could do what Psystar is doing, and we would have already seen Dell Hackintoshes. give dell 3 more years. my mind tells me they will bring out the first hacktosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redliner Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 O.0 just ten john does; where do I sign up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redliner Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Oh wow... total thread kill LOL... LIVE!!!!! LIVE!!!! I need more drama!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
projekt k Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 good post. valuable info. ive always felt it was proper to thank people who made my day bright lol actually it was a real intelligent post and i enjoyed it. i dont think apple will ever really try to stop this, as long as you dont sell hackintosh's on the outside lol. Like i talk about macs constantly and i just bring shock n awe to people, some ven buy a mac. Many know in the film and audio industry was advantages osx has over xp and vista. From stability to compatibility apple has brought us some good software. Like if I go get a pc i get {censored} with it, if im new to the music industry i can go buy a new mac mini and have garage band with it just to be able to learn from. then move to logic and be set. I have recorded on a mac mini, if the budget is low u can definetly record on one and good. I ran pro tools on one with 28 plug ins running. I have a pentium 4 pc that can only run like 3 plug ins lol. anyways everyonehave a great day or evening, peace projekt k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Essentially, if someone allows a particular activity, either by expressly permitting it, or simply by not taking any action even when having full knowledge of the aforementioned activity, then the aforementioned individual or corporation is barred for pursuing a cause of action for an activity it has permitted. Every heard of the "continuing violations doctrine"? While what you suggest is true to a certain degree, Judges ultimately can and will do whatever they please. Like the rest of the government, the legal system is corrupt, incompetent and the ultimate fraud. Last night, I was studying case law where three Federal Appeals Judges unanimously determined that offering a $10 referral discount on a vacuum cleaner could be considered a "security" under SEC jurisdiction: http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/cases/mlm/federal/5bell.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Plamondon Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 Every heard of the "continuing violations doctrine"? I'm sorry, you are going to have to explain how employee discrimination has anything to do with this topic. While what you suggest is true to a certain degree, Judges ultimately can and will do whatever they please. Like the rest of the government, the legal system is corrupt, incompetent and the ultimate fraud. If this is what you believe, why are you studying case law? Seems to me that if you believe "the legal system is corrupt, incompetent and the ultimate fraud" than the only possible reason you would be studying case law, is so that you can affirm your beliefs, as oppossed to expanding your knowledge. Last night, I was studying case law where three Federal Appeals Judges unanimously determined that offering a $10 referral discount on a vacuum cleaner could be considered a "security" under SEC jurisdiction:http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/cases/mlm/federal/5bell.htm I don't find anything in this case that suggests that "judges will do whatever they please". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I'm sorry, you are going to have to explain how employee discrimination has anything to do with this topic. Try reading this: The "continuing violations doctrine" provides that in certain contexts, continuing misconduct by a defendant will justify the aggregation or parsing of its misbehavior, with the effect of rescuing a plaintiff's claim or claims from the relevant statute of limitations. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1133232 The "continuing violations doctrine" can theoretically be applied to any cause of action, including copyright violations. What you seem to be advocating here is that you can violate anyones copyright, so long as you notify them of your violation and they do not sue you in a timely manner. Sorry, I do not think courts will uphold such an untenable practice. I would add that Apple could also make a distinct claim on the release of new versions of OS X. So, if a Court decided that the statue of limitations had run out on say 10.4 Tiger, the Court might still hear Apple claims on 10.5 Leopard and etc. If this is what you believe, why are you studying case law? I study case law to minimize my exposure to the overtly corrupt American legal system. Seems to me that if you believe "the legal system is corrupt, incompetent and the ultimate fraud" than the only possible reason you would be studying case law, is so that you can affirm your beliefs, as oppossed to expanding your knowledge. Actually, I find that studying case law refutes my "beliefs." In short, like TV, case law significantly misrepresents reality. After studying case law, I was shocked to see how courts really operate. The vast majority of cases, I would think about 99%, yield no published case law. Furthermore, since judges "write" (it is actually plagiarized to a large extent) the case law, they are free to distort the facts of the case however they please in order to make their ruling seem correct. If you expect any reasonable application of law, you have to plan to take your case to an appellate court (they "write" the majority of case law). This takes years and the odds that an appellate court will correctly apply the law are far below 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Plamondon Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 Try reading this: The "continuing violations doctrine" provides that in certain contexts, continuing misconduct by a defendant will justify the aggregation or parsing of its misbehavior, with the effect of rescuing a plaintiff's claim or claims from the relevant statute of limitations. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1133232 The "continuing violations doctrine" can theoretically be applied to any cause of action, including copyright violations. What you seem to be advocating here is that you can violate anyones copyright, so long as you notify them of your violation and they do not sue you in a timely manner. Sorry, I do not think courts will uphold such an untenable practice. I would add that Apple could also make a distinct claim on the release of new versions of OS X. So, if a Court decided that the statue of limitations had run out on say 10.4 Tiger, the Court might still hear Apple claims on 10.5 Leopard and etc. The only gain in applying the "continuing violations doctrine" is that the statute of limitations does not ever run out. The affirmative defense of "estoppel by acquiescence" still applies. I study case law to minimize my exposure to the overtly corrupt American legal system. There really isn't much evidence of significant corruption in many legal jurisdictions, although there is significant amount of reprehensible misuse and misconduct of litigants in most jurisdictions. Actually, I find that studying case law refutes my "beliefs." In short, like TV, case law significantly misrepresents reality. After studying case law, I was shocked to see how courts really operate. The vast majority of cases, I would think about 99%, yield no published case law. Furthermore, since judges "write" (it is actually plagiarized to a large extent) the case law, they are free to distort the facts of the case however they please in order to make their ruling seem correct. If you expect any reasonable application of law, you have to plan to take your case to an appellate court (they "write" the majority of case law). This takes years and the odds that an appellate court will correctly apply the law are far below 100%. How have you come to these conclusions? And what do they have to do with this topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts