Disgusting
Phil Da Lick!
File sharer appeals $1.9 million verdict
Jammie Thomas, the file sharer hit with a record $1.92 million fine for
downloading 24 songs, has confirmed she will be appealing the verdict.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/260512/file-sharer-appeals-19-million-verdict.html
I read this with mixed feelings until I got to this bit:
"Mrs Thomas was a single mother who, at worst, downloaded and shared
some music on Kazaa, music for which *she had already lawfully purchased
the CDs*, without any hint at all of a commercial motive," the filing
argues."
Wankers. Wish I could get paid twice for stuff.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
I recommended reading "Remix" by Lawrence Lessig. I just bought a copy, but
you can now get it here under a Creative Commons license:
http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/pdf%20files/Remix.pdf
If nothing else, at least read the Preface.
--
Chicken Little was right.
DFS
Better look closer into the story, Duh.
"The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on
Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music
subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies.
For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24
infringements."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-06-18-music-downloading_N.htm
It wasn't her property to try and give away to freeloading thieves. I'm not
defending the fine (way out of line) or the recording industry, but she's a
dumbass.
"From day one, we've been willing to settle this case for somewhere between
$3,000 and $5,000," said Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a9y16Zokxk90
Phil Da Lick!
> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>> *This* is precisely what's wrong with the music industry at the
>> moment...
>>
>> File sharer appeals $1.9 million verdict
>>
>> Jammie Thomas, the file sharer hit with a record $1.92 million fine
>> for downloading 24 songs, has confirmed she will be appealing the
>> verdict.
>> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/260512/file-sharer-appeals-19-million-verdict.html
>>
>> I read this with mixed feelings until I got to this bit:
>> "Mrs Thomas was a single mother who, at worst, downloaded and shared
>> some music on Kazaa, music for which *she had already lawfully
>> purchased the CDs*, without any hint at all of a commercial motive,"
>> the filing argues."
>>
>> Wankers. Wish I could get paid twice for stuff.
>
>
> Better look closer into the story, Duh.
>
Oh. They "accused" her. Why didn't you say? Hang her then, if they
"accused" her.
Hadron
The problem you nasty little freeloader you, is that while she MIGHT
have had legitimate copies, it was NOT her right to then give it to all
and sundry for free. I know you think stealing is ok, but mosst of us do
not.
FWIW, I think the fine ridiculously excessive. Something like 5K would
have been enough as a warning.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
DFS
No need to stay so uninformed. There are plenty of stories about the case.
They had incontestable proof of what she did.
Phil Da Lick!
> The problem you nasty little freeloader you,
This begets my tone below...
> I know you think stealing is ok,
You have no proof of that claim you pathetic shameless lying cunt. And
you've been corrected enough times. Pigeons learn faster than you.
Peter Köhlmann
Well, pigeons have braincells
--
Individualists unite!
JEDIDIAH
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>> *This* is precisely what's wrong with the music industry at the
>>>> moment...
>>>>
>>>> File sharer appeals $1.9 million verdict
>>>>
>>>> Jammie Thomas, the file sharer hit with a record $1.92 million fine
>>>> for downloading 24 songs, has confirmed she will be appealing the
>>>> verdict.
>>>> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/260512/file-sharer-appeals-19-million-verdict.html
>>>>
>>>> I read this with mixed feelings until I got to this bit:
>>>> "Mrs Thomas was a single mother who, at worst, downloaded and shared
>>>> some music on Kazaa, music for which *she had already lawfully
>>>> purchased the CDs*, without any hint at all of a commercial motive,"
>>>> the filing argues."
>>>>
>>>> Wankers. Wish I could get paid twice for stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>> Better look closer into the story, Duh.
>>>
>>> "The recording companies accused .....
>>
>> Oh. They "accused" her. Why didn't you say? Hang her then, if they
>> "accused" her.
>>
>
> The problem you nasty little freeloader you, is that while she MIGHT
> have had legitimate copies, it was NOT her right to then give it to all
No. The problem is that these works are not worth the damage amount.
A nearly 30 year old Journey song probably doesn't net the label 80K in a year.
> and sundry for free. I know you think stealing is ok, but mosst of us do
> not.
>
> FWIW, I think the fine ridiculously excessive. Something like 5K would
> have been enough as a warning.
>
--
On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...
When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were |||
meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \
arbitrarily assigned.
Ezekiel
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:-fednfZcBYoh_cnX...@brightview.co.uk...
The verdict seems very excessive BUT... a jury of her peers did find her
guilty of this and given the inherent leniency in the court system there's
probably a lot more to this than this article is reporting.
Hadron
You're talking to Phil Da Freeloader. He thinks R&D where you dont make
a physical product is essentially free and you should be made to give
your work away since you're not losing anything tangible. He is, as
Kelsey said, freetard scum.
Hadron
Well, your definition of stealing differs from mine I grant you. But you
seem to think people should be paid twice for example. Why not? Do you
think people who go back to see a film twice at the cinema should not
pay twice?
You're problem is that you're a tight arsed freeloader.
amicus_curious
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
news:lU15m.8430$Uf1...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> No need to stay so uninformed. There are plenty of stories about the
> case.
>
> They had incontestable proof of what she did.
>
There is no issue on the facts here, I think. Certainly the woman poached a
lot of tunes from Kaaza. What is wrong is the misuse of the law. Civil law
is intended to compensate people who have been harmed by the actions of the
defendant. Damages are set based on the harm done to the plaintiff.
Punitive damages can be awarded as additional punishment in particularly
egregious cases where the harm was found to be intentional.
In the case of the RIAA lawsuits, they are using statutory damage provisions
of copyright laws to obtain judgments wildly beyond any actual harm
committed by the defendant in the case. It is the equivalent of having the
death penalty applied to shoplifters. Certainly the shoplifter is a felon
and causing some harm to the merchant, but that sort of penalty would be
seen as excessive. I think that such a ridiculous result will harm the RIAA
in that the courts will see a reason to apply other principles of law in
these cases. Copyright laws do not provide for "joint and several"
liability which could make the defendant guilty for all downloading done by
anyone. The law could have been written that way, but it was not, and so
the damage can only be the direct result of the defendant's actions.
Poaching the MP3 files is not theft, per se, it is, rather, a "conversion",
which is unauthorized use of someone's asset. It is like sneaking into the
ballpark without paying for a ticket. The ballpark would have an empty seat
absent the violator's use of it. To the extent that the RIAA could show
that a defendant's likely behavior would have been to purchase some number
of recordings and so the profits from those sales were lost, the RIAA is
damaged, but even at 1,700 recordings, that is likely to be just a few
dollars of profits for the record companies, considering the costs of
distribution and even the artist's costs. It would be limited to the
company's reasonable profit on a per track sold basis, I would think.
The RIAA companies' business model is undergoing a complete upheaval. In
the past, the record companies did a lot of work for their profits and
provided an essential service, i.e. manufacturing the media needed for
distributing the content. With the internet and the proliferation of high
quality, very low cost audio recording equipment, the role of the record
company is strongly diminished. An artist can record and publish and
distribute almost on their own, with no need for the assistance provided by
the historic "label". My understanding is that the music marts of a decade
ago are largely out of business today due to the iTunes, et al, distribution
and iPlayer kind of reproduction.
The RIAA is an anachronism that is on its way out but is not going honorably
and is wreaking havoc along the way.
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> The problem you nasty little freeloader you,
>> This begets my tone below...
>>
>>
>> > I know you think stealing is ok,
>>
>> You have no proof of that claim you pathetic shameless lying cunt. And
>> you've been corrected enough times. Pigeons learn faster than you.
>>
>
> Well, your definition of stealing differs from mine I grant you. But you
> seem to think people should be paid twice for example. Why not? Do you
> think people who go back to see a film twice at the cinema should not
> pay twice?
So you think you should pay twice if you want to listen to your music on
your ipod and your cd?
And your example of the cinema is a piss poor one. The cinema experience
constitutes more than the content of the film.
> You're problem is that you're a tight arsed freeloader.
Your problem is you obviously have more money than sense.
Phil Da Lick!
No, he doesn't think that.
> and you should be made to give your work away
He doesn't think that either. If you could read and undestand the
english language you'd know that.
> since you're not losing anything tangible.
An idea is not tangible. An implementation of an idea is. And is covered
quite rightly in software terms by copyright. Whilst this protects you
and your implementation, it doesn't take any rights away from the rest
of the world other than the right to copy/distribute your work.
> He is, as Kelsey said, freetard scum.
Wrong. My love of 'free' has nothing to do with cost. But cretins like
you can't understand that.
Hadron
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> The problem you nasty little freeloader you,
>>
>> This begets my tone below...
>>
>>
>> > I know you think stealing is ok,
>>
>> You have no proof of that claim you pathetic shameless lying cunt. And
>> you've been corrected enough times. Pigeons learn faster than you.
>>
>
> Well, your definition of stealing differs from mine I grant you. But you
> seem to think people should be paid twice for example. Why not? Do you
^^^^^
That should have said "should NOT be paid twice" of course ....
chrisv
>Hadron snotted:
>>
>> You're talking to Phil Da Freeloader. He thinks R&D where you dont make
>> a physical product is essentially free
>
>No, he doesn't think that.
>
>> and you should be made to give your work away
>
>He doesn't think that either. If you could read and undestand the
>english language you'd know that.
>
> > since you're not losing anything tangible.
Since he has told you *many times* that he does *not* think those
things, Quack, your claims are nothing but bald-faced lies.
Documented.
P.S. Is it fun, being a shameless liar, Quack?
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> You're problem is that you're a tight arsed freeloader.
>
> Your problem is you obviously have more money than sense.
"Hadron"'s problem is simply that he is a flaming asshole.
--
Q: How many Zen masters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master stays out
of the way.
Tim Smith
That (or your summary) missed a lot of details. First, she was actually
sharing 1700 songs, most of which she had not purchased on CD. Second,
she had not paid for sharing right to *any* of the songs--so even for
the ones she had on CD, she has not paying twice. (If you want to buy
rights to copy and distribute and unrestricted, unmetered, number of
copies, you will pay a lot more than the cost of a song download or a
CD).
Other things missing there:
1. Before suing, they sent her a cease-and-desist letter (twice,
actually). She neither ceased nor desisted.
2. After they sued, they offered to settle for a couple thousand
dollars. For someone sharing 1700 songs, that's not too bad.
3. After she lost the first trial, and was hit with around a $250k
judgement, the RIAA again offered to settle for a couple thousand. She
refused, preferring to appeal.
She got a new trial on appeal, due to an error in jury instructions.
4. Somewhere in there, shortly after she was caught, she replaced her
hard disk, carefully only restoring from backups those files not related
to file sharing. When ordered to turn over the hard disk that was used
for the alleged file sharing, she turned over the NEW disk, and claimed
it was the OLD disk. So, she violated a production order in discovery,
and she lied under oath about what she did, adding perjury to her
misdeeds.
5. She claimed to not even have a Kazaa account, when it was easily
proven that she did, and she had it a long time.
6. She tried to say her kids must have done the file sharing, even
though her computer was locked down pretty good, and they didn't have
access to her account. Nice Mom there, trying to blame the kids.
7. In her second trial, she changed parts of her story when she saw the
original lies weren't going over well.
That is how she ended up at $1.9 million. Statutory damages can range
from $750 per song to $150k. The jury apparently saw a *blatantly*
guilty person who was willing to commit perjury, tamper with evidence,
lie to her own lawyers, and try to blame her kids, and so decided to
stick it to her by picking from the middle of the range, instead of
going for the $750 they tend to go for when they think the defendant has
some redeeming qualities.
The most ridiculous of all is that after the second trial and the $1.9
million award, the RIAA, according to several news accounts, said it
still wants to talk settlement, in the low thousands range. And she
*STILL* refuses to even sit down and talk with them unless they offer a
settlement that involves no money and no admission of guilt.
In other words, she is a moron, who is doing everything she can to make
it worse on herself.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote:
And then they proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was
guilty. In fact, beyond a reasonable doubt--and close to beyond *any*
doubt. You should try actually reading the day by day accounts of the
court proceedings.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
> No. The problem is that these works are not worth the damage amount.
>
> A nearly 30 year old Journey song probably doesn't net the label 80K in a
> year.
Even if the jury had went for the minimum statutory amount ($750 per
song), she'd be on the hook for $18000, which is 3 to 6 times what the
RIAA is willing to settle for.
There was no rational reason whatsoever for her to go trial. By the end
of discovery, she knew exactly what they had against her, knew it was a
pretty open and shut case, and knew she would probably lose, and knew
that the BEST case then would be much more damages than she could settle
for. She wasted the court's time and the jury's time, and the jury got
pissed.
--
--Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH
> In article <slrnh59db...@nomad.mishnet>,
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>> No. The problem is that these works are not worth the damage amount.
>>
>> A nearly 30 year old Journey song probably doesn't net the label 80K in a
>> year.
>
> Even if the jury had went for the minimum statutory amount ($750 per
> song), she'd be on the hook for $18000, which is 3 to 6 times what the
> RIAA is willing to settle for.
>
> There was no rational reason whatsoever for her to go trial. By the end
What you are describing is simple extortion.
> of discovery, she knew exactly what they had against her, knew it was a
> pretty open and shut case, and knew she would probably lose, and knew
> that the BEST case then would be much more damages than she could settle
> for. She wasted the court's time and the jury's time, and the jury got
> pissed.
>
Yes, a great reason for a jury to award more in damages than these
songs make their respective labels in a year.
--
These Mac Fanboys want vi imposed on everyone. |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> *This* is precisely what's wrong with the music industry at the moment...
>>
>>
>> File sharer appeals $1.9 million verdict
>>
>> Jammie Thomas, the file sharer hit with a record $1.92 million fine for
>> downloading 24 songs, has confirmed she will be appealing the verdict.
>>
>> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/260512/file-sharer-appeals-19-million-verdict.html
>>
>> I read this with mixed feelings until I got to this bit:
>> "Mrs Thomas was a single mother who, at worst, downloaded and shared
>> some music on Kazaa, music for which *she had already lawfully purchased
>> the CDs*, without any hint at all of a commercial motive," the filing
>> argues."
>>
>> Wankers. Wish I could get paid twice for stuff.
>
> That (or your summary) missed a lot of details. First, she was actually
> sharing 1700 songs, most of which she had not purchased on CD. Second,
> she had not paid for sharing right to *any* of the songs--so even for
> the ones she had on CD, she has not paying twice. (If you want to buy
> rights to copy and distribute and unrestricted, unmetered, number of
> copies, you will pay a lot more than the cost of a song download or a
> CD).
>
> Other things missing there:
>
> 1. Before suing, they sent her a cease-and-desist letter (twice,
> actually). She neither ceased nor desisted.
You would be the first to claim such a thing.
Now as far as the numbers go, the plaintiffs only bothered to try and prove
24 of the 1700 songs were actually infringed upon. That's the only subset of
the whole amount that the RIAA even tried to prove was being shared.
That's a number that should never have been uttered in the trial if the
defense wasn't asleep and it is no more relevant in the court of public
opinion.
Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> > There was no rational reason whatsoever for her to go trial. By the end
>
> What you are describing is simple extortion.
Suing someone to enforce your legal rights is not extortion. Or are you
referring to them offering to settle for a fraction of what the
*minimum* damages would be in court? Hard to see how offering to let
someone get off the hook for much less is extortion.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> > 1. Before suing, they sent her a cease-and-desist letter (twice,
> > actually). She neither ceased nor desisted.
>
> You would be the first to claim such a thing.
You didn't learn your lesson last time, did you?
--
--Tim Smith
wispygalaxy
Poor woman. She has to support her children, and all they could do is give
her this hefty fine. Maybe she was scared of losing, so she kept fighting
and not thinking straight.
Andrew Halliwell
Amoebas learn faster than him.
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
Andrew Halliwell
<snip>
/me does a double take...
/me goggles...
/me rubs his eyes...
> The RIAA is an anachronism that is on its way out but is not going honorably
> and is wreaking havoc along the way.
I don't believe it...
A post in which a well known wintroll says lots of things...
Not one of which I disagreed with...
Is this a sign of the apocalypse?
:)
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Hadron
> Phil Da Lick! <phil_t...@removethisspamtrap.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> The problem you nasty little freeloader you,
>>
>> This begets my tone below...
>>
>>
>> > I know you think stealing is ok,
>>
>> You have no proof of that claim you pathetic shameless lying cunt. And
>> you've been corrected enough times. Pigeons learn faster than you.
>
> Amoebas learn faster than him.
iPhone not a PDA eh degree boy?
WINE not an emulator eh?
Keep it up.
You prefer to carry 3 devices than one in case you get mugged eh?
LOL.
Keep taking the kool-aid.
Andrew Halliwell
> And then they proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was
> guilty. In fact, beyond a reasonable doubt--and close to beyond *any*
> doubt. You should try actually reading the day by day accounts of the
> court proceedings.
sells individual tracks for thousands of dollars each...
And manages to remain afloat...
A fair and just fine would've been how much she'd wronged them.
1200 songs, fine, even if a cd costs $10, that's only $1200 assuming 10
songs on a CD. Add on a few grand for costs and it'd not account to much
more than 10 thousand. Maybe judging by american legal expenses triple that.
Certainly not worth $750 per track let alone the 2 MILLION she *WAS* fined.
That's just taking the piss.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
Peter Köhlmann
> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>
>> Phil Da Lick! <phil_t...@removethisspamtrap.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> The problem you nasty little freeloader you,
>>>
>>> This begets my tone below...
>>>
>>>
>>> > I know you think stealing is ok,
>>>
>>> You have no proof of that claim you pathetic shameless lying cunt. And
>>> you've been corrected enough times. Pigeons learn faster than you.
>>
>> Amoebas learn faster than him.
>
> iPhone not a PDA eh degree boy?
No, it isn't.
> WINE not an emulator eh?
Never has been
> Keep it up.
You first
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
amicus_curious
"Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:lbjfi6-...@ponder.sky.com...
> amicus_curious <AC...@sti.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> /me does a double take...
> /me goggles...
> /me rubs his eyes...
>
>
>> The RIAA is an anachronism that is on its way out but is not going
>> honorably
>> and is wreaking havoc along the way.
>
> I don't believe it...
> A post in which a well known wintroll says lots of things...
> Not one of which I disagreed with...
>
>
> Is this a sign of the apocalypse?
Not at all. It is a sign that your mind is so closed on the Linux issue
that you interpret anything counter to your ideas as being surely from a
"Wintroll" or "astroturfer" or such label as continually applied by the COLA
Linux fans. You hate Microsoft for being richer than you or some similar
reason and you love Linux because you hate Microsoft.
You can continue to look at Microsoft as being a bumbling monopolist
continuing to obtain riches by abusing the PC using world and so deserving
of your hate, but that isn't a very productive attitude. Microsoft is the
far and away market leader in a very mature technical product market. To
the degree that they fail to service all of the needs of that market, they
create a framework that provides opportunity for clever developers to
fulfill specific needs and deliver their solution in an immediately usable
form along with a built-in standard of comparison for a prospective customer
to evaluate that solution and see a simple, understandable feature,
function, benefit analysis in the developer's favor. Thank God for Bill
Gates, I say.
Andrew Halliwell
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>>
>>> Phil Da Lick! <phil_t...@removethisspamtrap.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> The problem you nasty little freeloader you,
>>>>
>>>> This begets my tone below...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I know you think stealing is ok,
>>>>
>>>> You have no proof of that claim you pathetic shameless lying cunt. And
>>>> you've been corrected enough times. Pigeons learn faster than you.
>>>
>>> Amoebas learn faster than him.
>>
>> iPhone not a PDA eh degree boy?
>
> No, it isn't.
Nope. It's a phone. IT HAS PDA FEATURES but it is a PHONE.
Which is exactly what I said on the subject originally.
>> WINE not an emulator eh?
>
> Never has been
Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't.
>> Keep it up.
>
> You first
He's got to get it up, which is where his main problem lies.
Sinister Midget III
> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> The problem you nasty little freeloader you,
>>
>> This begets my tone below...
>>
>>
>> > I know you think stealing is ok,
>>
>> You have no proof of that claim you pathetic shameless lying cunt. And
>> you've been corrected enough times. Pigeons learn faster than you.
>
What an unfair advantage!
--
Are you really American if your ethnicity has to be hyphenated?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Linux Mint 7
Friends don't let friends use Windows
William Poaster
> Peter K�hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Phil Da Lick! <phil_t...@removethisspamtrap.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> The problem you nasty little freeloader you,
>>>>>
>>>>> This begets my tone below...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > I know you think stealing is ok,
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no proof of that claim you pathetic shameless lying cunt. And
>>>>> you've been corrected enough times. Pigeons learn faster than you.
>>>>
>>>> Amoebas learn faster than him.
>>>
>>> iPhone not a PDA eh degree boy?
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Nope. It's a phone. IT HAS PDA FEATURES but it is a PHONE.
> Which is exactly what I said on the subject originally.
>
>>> WINE not an emulator eh?
>>
>> Never has been
>
> Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't.
>
>>> Keep it up.
>>
>> You first
>
> He's got to get it up, which is where his main problem lies.
Ah, there you're wrong.
The Hadron M$ faboi troll is *very good* at lying! =-)
--
Some of Hadron Quack's blunders:
Surely you are not comparing the
non-existent Linux (at that time)
with Windows 98?
Hadron: Message-ID: <npk5rvz...@homelinux.net>
Linux as a desktop OS is pretty much doomed it would appear.
Too little too late.
Hadron: Message-ID: <fnd3jj$or8$2...@registered.motzarella.org>
Google Earth on Linux runs through its own Wine installer. Unless they
have gone "native"
Hadron: Message-ID: <gu1v6l$dmo$1...@news.motzarella.org>
Getting high performance Video cards working is a damn sight
easier on XP because the installers are better.
Debian/Ubuntu are a pain in the hole �- you need to recompile the latest
NVidia drivers using a set version of the compiler, for example, when
changing kernels.
Hadron: Message-ID: � <c9rks4-...@news.individual.net>
Tim Smith
Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > And then they proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was
> > guilty. In fact, beyond a reasonable doubt--and close to beyond *any*
> > doubt. You should try actually reading the day by day accounts of the
> > court proceedings.
>
> I'd be more interested in seeing the accounts of the record company that
> sells individual tracks for thousands of dollars each...
>
> And manages to remain afloat...
>
> A fair and just fine would've been how much she'd wronged them.
> 1200 songs, fine, even if a cd costs $10, that's only $1200 assuming 10
> songs on a CD. Add on a few grand for costs and it'd not account to much
> more than 10 thousand. Maybe judging by american legal expenses triple that.
>
> Certainly not worth $750 per track let alone the 2 MILLION she *WAS* fined.
> That's just taking the piss.
Songs typically cost orders of magnitude more than $1/song when you are
trying to buy a license that allowed making and distributing as many
copies as you want on an unmetered, flat fee basis.
That's why, for example, the licensing costs for music used in "Clerks"
cost more than the production cost of the film. $27k for the music, just
under $26k for production costs. It cost them around $2000 per song.
She really should have taken the settlement offer. It was a bargain.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
> >> iPhone not a PDA eh degree boy?
> >
> > No, it isn't.
>
> Nope. It's a phone. IT HAS PDA FEATURES but it is a PHONE.
> Which is exactly what I said on the subject originally.
So you think "phone" and "PDA" are mutually exclusive?
>
> >> WINE not an emulator eh?
> >
> > Never has been
>
> Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't.
So the Wine developers, and pretty much everyone else, was wrong when it
was universally considered to be an emulator for the first several years
of its existence?
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> And then they proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was
>> guilty. In fact, beyond a reasonable doubt--and close to beyond *any*
>> doubt. You should try actually reading the day by day accounts of the
>> court proceedings.
>
> I'd be more interested in seeing the accounts of the record company that
> sells individual tracks for thousands of dollars each...
>
> And manages to remain afloat...
>
> A fair and just fine would've been how much she'd wronged them.
> 1200 songs, fine, even if a cd costs $10, that's only $1200 assuming 10
> songs on a CD. Add on a few grand for costs and it'd not account to much
> more than 10 thousand. Maybe judging by american legal expenses triple that.
>
> Certainly not worth $750 per track let alone the 2 MILLION she *WAS* fined.
> That's just taking the piss.
Your ability to stay ignorant of the facts in arguments you take part in
simply astonishing.
Hadron
> Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Phil Da Lick! <phil_t...@removethisspamtrap.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> The problem you nasty little freeloader you,
>>>>>
>>>>> This begets my tone below...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > I know you think stealing is ok,
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no proof of that claim you pathetic shameless lying cunt. And
>>>>> you've been corrected enough times. Pigeons learn faster than you.
>>>>
>>>> Amoebas learn faster than him.
>>>
>>> iPhone not a PDA eh degree boy?
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Nope. It's a phone. IT HAS PDA FEATURES but it is a PHONE.
> Which is exactly what I said on the subject originally.
It's also a PDA. Hence the "PDA features".
Duh.
Is it also NOT an mp3/whatever player because you can make a call?
Seriously, how dumb are you?
>
>>> WINE not an emulator eh?
>>
>> Never has been
>
> Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't.
You are wrong. You know are wrong.
Wine emulates the Windows API. It has been explained many times. As has
why the name changed : because of ignorant know nothing like you and
Peter.
Emulation is NOT limited to HW.
The original development NG was the emulator one. Why do you think that
was?
>
>>> Keep it up.
>>
>> You first
>
> He's got to get it up, which is where his main problem lies.
hahahaha .... not.
Hadron
And he doesn't know what an emulator does in the general sense. Its
another example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. A bit
like when he laughed loud and knowingly and informed us that CS courses
don't do compiler design courses - a surprised to me and many others who
took them.
Andrew Halliwell
> So the Wine developers, and pretty much everyone else, was wrong when it
> was universally considered to be an emulator for the first several years
> of its existence?
It is simply an API layer that allows windows binaries to (sometimes) run in
other operating systems, usually linux, though OSX and BSD too.
Wine Is Not an Emulator.
I know it's a backronym but they at least put the effort in to emphasise
that fact after all the time people had been calling it that.
An emulator emulates HARDWARE.
Vice is an emulator. Fuse is an emulator. UAE is an emulator.
Wine is not and has never been.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
Hadron
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> So the Wine developers, and pretty much everyone else, was wrong when it
>> was universally considered to be an emulator for the first several years
>> of its existence?
>
> Wrongly so, it emulates nothing.
Yes it does.
> It is simply an API layer that allows windows binaries to (sometimes)
> run in
An "API" layer which EMULATES what the same function calls do in the
Windows API libraries you moron.
> other operating systems, usually linux, though OSX and BSD too.
> Wine Is Not an Emulator.
> I know it's a backronym but they at least put the effort in to emphasise
> that fact after all the time people had been calling it that.
>
> An emulator emulates HARDWARE.
See? Little knowledge.
Hadron
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> So the Wine developers, and pretty much everyone else, was wrong when it
>> was universally considered to be an emulator for the first several years
>> of its existence?
>
> Wrongly so, it emulates nothing.
> It is simply an API layer that allows windows binaries to (sometimes) run in
> other operating systems, usually linux, though OSX and BSD too.
> Wine Is Not an Emulator.
> I know it's a backronym but they at least put the effort in to emphasise
> that fact after all the time people had been calling it that.
>
> An emulator emulates HARDWARE.
Emulate \Em"u*late\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Emulated; p. pr. &
vb. n. Emulating.]
To strive to equal or to excel in qualities or actions; to
imitate, with a view to equal or to outdo, to vie with; to
rival; as, to emulate the good and the great.
[1913 Webster]
Further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator#Emulators_in_computer_science
,----
| Emulation refers to the ability of a computer program or electronic
| device to imitate another program or device
`----
Now, you clueless know nothing, tell me that the code under the Wine API
does NOT emulate the Windows libraries. Go on, I dare you.
There are of COURSE also HARDWARE emulators.
The word "emulation", "emulate" is NOT limited to HW.
Get a f*cking clue for once.
> Vice is an emulator. Fuse is an emulator. UAE is an emulator.
> Wine is not and has never been.
Wine is and always was.
WINdows Emulator.
Do some research before your start gobbing off. Your big head and little
knowledge is a cause of much humour, but it can't be good for your self
esteem.
William Poaster
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> So the Wine developers, and pretty much everyone else, was wrong when it
>> was universally considered to be an emulator for the first several years
>> of its existence?
>
> Wrongly so, it emulates nothing.
> It is simply an API layer that allows windows binaries to (sometimes) run in
> other operating systems, usually linux, though OSX and BSD too.
> Wine Is Not an Emulator.
> I know it's a backronym but they at least put the effort in to emphasise
> that fact after all the time people had been calling it that.
>
> An emulator emulates HARDWARE.
> Vice is an emulator. Fuse is an emulator. UAE is an emulator.
> Wine is not and has never been.
Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running
Windows applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating
systems. Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs would,
running **without the performance or memory usage penalties of an
emulator**, with a similar look and feel to other applications on your
desktop.
http://www.winehq.org/about/
Peter Köhlmann
> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>
>> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> So the Wine developers, and pretty much everyone else, was wrong when
>>> it was universally considered to be an emulator for the first several
>>> years of its existence?
>>
>> Wrongly so, it emulates nothing.
>
> Yes it does.
No, it does not. It translates windows system calls into those of the
underlying OS
>> It is simply an API layer that allows windows binaries to (sometimes)
>> run in
>
> An "API" layer which EMULATES what the same function calls do in the
> Windows API libraries you moron.
So the Posix layer in windows is an emulator, too?
As was the OS/2 layer in windows?
What is Glibc? According to your definition, it is an emulator
KDE is an emulator, too. So is Gnome. According to your idiotic definition
>> other operating systems, usually linux, though OSX and BSD too.
>> Wine Is Not an Emulator.
>> I know it's a backronym but they at least put the effort in to
>> emphasise that fact after all the time people had been calling it that.
>
>
>>
>> An emulator emulates HARDWARE.
>
> See? Little knowledge.
Well, that is the usual task of an emulator.
>> Vice is an emulator. Fuse is an emulator. UAE is an emulator.
>> Wine is not and has never been.
>
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> iPhone not a PDA eh degree boy?
>>
> He's got to get it up, which is where his main problem lies.
> --
> | spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
> | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
> | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
> | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
> | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
No wonder I bug "Hadron". I have a Ph.D.
--
Someone whom you reject today, will reject you tomorrow.
Marti van Lin
LOL, Hadron proves again that he has no clue, what on Earth a emulator
is. And I seriously doubt, that he will ever manage to get /any/
emulator like Basilisk, UAE or openMSX to work. Because they at least
need a image of the original $MACHINE's firmare and a disk image that
provides the rest of the OS or game/application.
According to Hadron, WinE is a emulator. Riiiight :-)
--
|_|0|_| Marti van Lin
|_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
|0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com
Ezekiel
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> So the Wine developers, and pretty much everyone else, was wrong when it
>> was universally considered to be an emulator for the first several years
>> of its existence?
>
> Wrongly so, it emulates nothing.
> It is simply an API layer that allows windows binaries to (sometimes) run
> in
> other operating systems, usually linux, though OSX and BSD too.
> Wine Is Not an Emulator.
> I know it's a backronym but they at least put the effort in to emphasise
> that fact after all the time people had been calling it that.
>
> An emulator emulates HARDWARE.
Oh really. It's absolutely has to be hardware. According to you the only
type of emulation is "hardware" emulation.
WOW!!!!
> BSc in Computer Science
I'd see if you can get a refund. The product appears to be defective.
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:nok5m.65174$b9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Then why are your posts as useless and stupid as those from "7" ?
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>>
>>> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>> So the Wine developers, and pretty much everyone else, was wrong when
>>>> it was universally considered to be an emulator for the first several
>>>> years of its existence?
>>>
>>> Wrongly so, it emulates nothing.
>>
>> Yes it does.
>
> No, it does not. It translates windows system calls into those of the
> underlying OS
Yes. Thus emulating the output/functionality of the Windows API.
Get a clue.
>
>>> It is simply an API layer that allows windows binaries to (sometimes)
>>> run in
>>
>> An "API" layer which EMULATES what the same function calls do in the
>> Windows API libraries you moron.
>
> So the Posix layer in windows is an emulator, too?
> As was the OS/2 layer in windows?
>
> What is Glibc? According to your definition, it is an emulator
> KDE is an emulator, too. So is Gnome. According to your idiotic definition
>
>>> other operating systems, usually linux, though OSX and BSD too.
>>> Wine Is Not an Emulator.
>>> I know it's a backronym but they at least put the effort in to
>>> emphasise that fact after all the time people had been calling it that.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> An emulator emulates HARDWARE.
>>
>> See? Little knowledge.
>
> Well, that is the usual task of an emulator.
In the old days before SW started replacing HW in many situations.
>
>>> Vice is an emulator. Fuse is an emulator. UAE is an emulator.
>>> Wine is not and has never been.
>>
Wine IS an emulator. Hiding behind outdated phraseology does not change
that.
Hadron
It is an emulator. Its original name was WINdows Emulator.
It emulates the Windows API.
Why that is so hard for you to understand is anyones guess.
PS I have written them for Presentation Manager too.
Emulation can mean emulation of HW OR SW.
You guys really need to grow up and THINK before starting your COLA
"advocate" love ins.
Hadron
In what? Cletus humour and arse kissing?
>
> Then why are your posts as useless and stupid as those from "7" ?
>
I have a degree too (NOT, I hasten to add, one as mediocre and common
place as CS (especially not one which doesnt cover compiler design)), as
I would expect most people in tech groups to. But boasting about them is
"not done". It's like trying to enforce your superiority on people by
certificate waving. And since mine was .. no. No need to boast.
It doesn't "bug" me. I just find it amazing he feels the need to show
it. Why does he think almost no one else on usenet does it? Answer :
because you look like a big head and show off. Better to let your answer
do the talking. Which in his case would not really work since he doesn't
even have the cop on to look up the definition of emulator or do the leg
work to see the history of WINE.
Phil Da Lick!
> Its original name was WINdows Emulator.
Source?
Ezekiel
Once again... it's not all that difficult. WINE "emulates" the Win32 API so
that Windows apps can run on Linux. For example... there's no *registry* on
Linux so WINE gives "emulates" the presense of a registry (and other
Windows things like C:\) for the apps.
<quote>
WINE (WINdows Emulator) Frequently Asked Questions
From: da...@net1.dagar.com ()
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine, comp.windows.x.i386unix,
comp.os.linux.answers
Subject: WINE (WINdows Emulator) Frequently Asked Questions
Date: 27 Nov 1998 17:30:52 GMT
Message-ID: <73mnkc$g...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
Summary: This posting contains a list of Frequently Asked Questions
(and their answers) about Wine, a program that allows UNIX
workstation users to run MS Windows binaries. This should be
read by anyone wishing to know more about the ongoing development
of this programming project.
Archive-name: windows-emulation/wine-faq
</quote>
Phil Da Lick!
> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Its original name was WINdows Emulator.
>> Source?
>
> Once again... it's not all that difficult. WINE "emulates" the Win32 API so
> that Windows apps can run on Linux. For example... there's no *registry* on
> Linux so WINE gives "emulates" the presense of a registry (and other
> Windows things like C:\) for the apps.
Oh dear.
Wine is *not* an emulator. An "emulator" emulates (in software or
hardware) the architecture and instruction set of a *platform*. Wine is
(in the words of the guys running the project) a "translation layer" for
the win32 API. There is no need to emulate anything as both platforms
run on the same architecture. And again, from the horse's mouth: 'As
Wine's name says: "Wine Is Not an Emulator"'.
Both of these myths are debunked here by the guys running the project.
Two minutes research. Sheesh.
Hadron
Halliwell, please read the above. Don't be so damn small minded and
closed minded. Ignorance is only an issue if you choose to remain
ignorant. Remember your degree is not so much to show what you know, but
more to show you can learn.
Marti, hope you're red in the face and have learnt not to shill and suck
up with your "me too" routine quite so quickly.
Zeke, thanks. I was going to wait a while and then rope-a-dope them (not
for the first time with WINE).
Hadron
Sheesh.
Go and read the ducking document he linked too.
"emulate" is a word with more than one strict meaning.
Emulate is emulating HW OR SW.
FFS, what is it with you ignorant freetards?!?!?!?
Logan Rathbone
*plonks this thread*
Just /drop it/ already, people.
Ezekiel
It's simply a matter of semantics. It doesn't diminish what Wine is or make
it any less of an application. Just like a tomato is technically a fruit
and a cashew is technically a seed and not a nut. These are simply
technical classifications that don't change the fact that cashews are used
as nuts (not seeds) and tomatos are most often used as vegetables and not
fruit.
Technically what Wine does is to *emulate* the Win32 API. That's not a bad
thing but in the technical sense it is the correct definition.
--- Key phrase of what "Emulation" is = "imitates or reproduces another
system" which is exactly what Wine does.
<quote>
Emulation
The term "emulation" comes from the verb "emulate," which means to imitate
or reproduce. Therefore, computer emulation is when one system imitates or
reproduces another system. This can be done using hardware, software, or a
combination of the two. However, since hardware is expensive to reproduce,
most emulation is done via software.
</quote>
http://www.techterms.com/definition/emulation
Hadron
It's called a discussion Logan. And trying to explain to people that
some words are not limited to the simple meaning they are aware
of. There are indeed SW emulators. WINE is just such a one.
See the Emulator Wiki for more explanation.
Frankly the "I know it all" small minded ignorance of some the posters
he is quite simply shocking.
--
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/
"Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't." - AH
** http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dec7cb073d761af4
JEDIDIAH
> In article <slrnh5a0o...@nomad.mishnet>,
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> > 1. Before suing, they sent her a cease-and-desist letter (twice,
>> > actually). She neither ceased nor desisted.
>>
>> You would be the first to claim such a thing.
>
> You didn't learn your lesson last time, did you?
Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.
--
MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact |||
that it is most compatable with itself. / | \
JEDIDIAH
>
>> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> And then they proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was
>>> guilty. In fact, beyond a reasonable doubt--and close to beyond *any*
>>> doubt. You should try actually reading the day by day accounts of the
>>> court proceedings.
>>
>> I'd be more interested in seeing the accounts of the record company that
>> sells individual tracks for thousands of dollars each...
>>
>> And manages to remain afloat...
>>
>> A fair and just fine would've been how much she'd wronged them.
>> 1200 songs, fine, even if a cd costs $10, that's only $1200 assuming 10
>> songs on a CD. Add on a few grand for costs and it'd not account to much
>> more than 10 thousand. Maybe judging by american legal expenses triple that.
>>
>> Certainly not worth $750 per track let alone the 2 MILLION she *WAS* fined.
>> That's just taking the piss.
>
> Your ability to stay ignorant of the facts in arguments you take part in
> simply astonishing.
So's yours.
Those works outlived their usefulness a long time ago.
The idea that any of them is worth 80K even if you bought them outright
is rather astounding.
JEDIDIAH
>
>> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> So the Wine developers, and pretty much everyone else, was wrong when it
>>> was universally considered to be an emulator for the first several years
>>> of its existence?
>>
>> Wrongly so, it emulates nothing.
>> It is simply an API layer that allows windows binaries to (sometimes) run in
>> other operating systems, usually linux, though OSX and BSD too.
>> Wine Is Not an Emulator.
>> I know it's a backronym but they at least put the effort in to emphasise
>> that fact after all the time people had been calling it that.
>>
Websters... the last refuge of the clueless.
Take the vernacular and try to abuse it in a technical subject.
>> An emulator emulates HARDWARE.
>
> Emulate \Em"u*late\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Emulated; p. pr. &
> vb. n. Emulating.]
> To strive to equal or to excel in qualities or actions; to
> imitate, with a view to equal or to outdo, to vie with; to
> rival; as, to emulate the good and the great.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> Further:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator#Emulators_in_computer_science
>
> ,----
>| Emulation refers to the ability of a computer program or electronic
>| device to imitate another program or device
> `----
>
> Now, you clueless know nothing, tell me that the code under the Wine API
> does NOT emulate the Windows libraries. Go on, I dare you.
...the only problem with this is that it trivialized the concept to the
point where a lot of things that are obviously not emulators would need
to be considered such.
[deletia]
Hadron
Only by people with no idea.
But WINE is a SW system which EMULATES Windows. How you fail to see that
is anyones guess.
It was good enough back then and its good enough now. The fact that you
or Halliwell might get confused is not really how thing work when
redefining words.
Phil Da Lick!
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> Its original name was WINdows Emulator.
>>>> Source?
>>> Once again... it's not all that difficult. WINE "emulates" the Win32 API so
>>> that Windows apps can run on Linux. For example... there's no *registry* on
>>> Linux so WINE gives "emulates" the presense of a registry (and other
>>> Windows things like C:\) for the apps.
>>
>> Oh dear.
>>
>> Wine is *not* an emulator. An "emulator" emulates (in software or
>> hardware) the architecture and instruction set of a *platform*. Wine is
>> (in the words of the guys running the project) a "translation layer" for
>> the win32 API. There is no need to emulate anything as both platforms
>> run on the same architecture. And again, from the horse's mouth: 'As
>> Wine's name says: "Wine Is Not an Emulator"'.
>>
>> http://www.winehq.org/myths
>>
>> Both of these myths are debunked here by the guys running the project.
>> Two minutes research. Sheesh.
>>
>
> Sheesh.
>
> Go and read the ducking document he linked too.
No. Not interested in wintroll revisionism. The meaning of "Emulator" in
computing circles is well documented. If you're having problems with
that stick your head up your arse and hum real loud.
> "emulate" is a word with more than one strict meaning.
However you're not arguing the semantics of "emulate". You're arguing
about the definition of "Emulator". A narrower definition. And if you
want to argue the toss over the name they chose for their project go and
tell them. Or accept their definition.
> FFS, what is it with you ignorant freetards?!?!?!?
>
Dunno. Mebbes putting up with you pricks?
Hadron
Err yes. As I described it.
Once again:
,----
| It has recently become common to use the word "emulate" in the context
| of software. However, before 1980, "emulation" referred only to hardware
| emulation, while "simulation" referred to software emulation[
`----
Where "recent" is not this year ...
And Zeke even quoted it for you.
Look, I have written SW emulators. They were called emulators. They are
emulators. Just because you know about HW emulators does not preclude SW
emulators.
Do TRY and think for yourself. You cant go on stealing other peoples
thoughts and hard work all the time freetard.
Phil Da Lick!
Oh fuck me.
#1: An "emulator" can be either software or hardware.
#2: However anyone with half a clue can write a piece of software that
emaulates the functionality of any other piece of software whilst being
different under the hood. That doesn't make that software "an emulator".
JEDIDIAH
It's no more an emulator than Linux itself is.
>
> It was good enough back then and its good enough now. The fact that you
> or Halliwell might get confused is not really how thing work when
> redefining words.
>
I've been using Linux and wine for longer than you've been aware of
them and it's never been referred to as an "emulator" in all that time.
That's rather the point of the name.
Ezekiel
One more thing...
<quote>
2.2. Does Wine emulate a full computer?
No, as the name says, Wine Is Not a (CPU) Emulator. Wine just provides the
Windows API....
2.5. When will Wine integrate an x86 CPU emulator so we can run Windows
applications on non-x86 machines?
The short answer is 'probably never'. Remember,
Wine Is Not a (CPU) Emulator.
7.3. Is there a Usenet newsgroup for Wine?
Yes, and it's called comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine. The newsgroup serves as
a place for users and developers to discuss Wine, and for minor
announcements for the general public. Major announcements will be cross
posted to other appropriate newsgroups, such as the following:
</quote>
http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/wine-faq/index
Gee... why would they possibly put the newsgroup for Wine in
comp.EMULATORS.ms-windows.wine ?????
Wine doesn't emulate a CPU (as they repeatedly say) but it DOES emulate the
Win32 environment.
Phil Da Lick!
Dunno. Ask em. But the name is wine, not wince.
> Wine doesn't emulate a CPU (as they repeatedly say) but it DOES emulate the
> Win32 environment.
It emulates the functionality of the win32 *API* - environment is a poor
choice or word there. But that doesn't make it an emulator by the common
definition.
Hadron
And there we have the crux for those too dumb to figure it out until
now.
>
>
> 2.5. When will Wine integrate an x86 CPU emulator so we can run Windows
> applications on non-x86 machines?
> The short answer is 'probably never'. Remember,
> Wine Is Not a (CPU) Emulator.
And again. People getting hung up on CPU....
>
> 7.3. Is there a Usenet newsgroup for Wine?
>
> Yes, and it's called comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine. The newsgroup
> serves as
emulators? NO!!!!!!!! Say it aint so. Poor, poor Phil da Freetard.
> a place for users and developers to discuss Wine, and for minor
> announcements for the general public. Major announcements will be cross
> posted to other appropriate newsgroups, such as the following:
>
> </quote>
>
> http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/wine-faq/index
>
>
>
>
> Gee... why would they possibly put the newsgroup for Wine in
> comp.EMULATORS.ms-windows.wine ?????
>
> Wine doesn't emulate a CPU (as they repeatedly say) but it DOES emulate the
> Win32 environment.
>
Of course. As anyone involved in SW to any reasonable level
knows. Clearly too high a level for Phil, Andy and Peter.
Andrew Halliwell
> No wonder I bug "Hadron". I have a Ph.D.
Put it in your sig.
:)
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> No wonder I bug "Hadron". I have a Ph.D.
>
> Put it in your sig.
Nah. It isn't in Computer Science. Although a couple of tasks here have
called on some of the stuff I studied getting it.
My take on Ph.D.'s is pretty jaded, though -- some real clowns have made it
through Ph.D. programs.
However, getting one does mean you can probably dig through mounds of books
pretty good.
--
Keep it short for pithy sake.
Hadron
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> No wonder I bug "Hadron". I have a Ph.D.
>
>
> Put it in your sig.
> :)
He wouldn't dare. No one would believe that someone with a PhD would be
so unable to verify facts himself and instead rely on the oily dribbles
that Roy trickles out of his backside.
Remember that Chris is on record as saying he doesn't care about the
truth if its found outside of COLA. That's how much he can be relied
upon for fact based decision making.
Tim Smith
Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> An emulator emulates HARDWARE.
Most emulators people are familiar with emulate hardware, but the
historical usage of the term in computing as been broader, including
emulating software systems. That's why the original wine developers
considered wine to be an emulator. In fact, the first name they came up
with was winemu, but the decided they wanted a shorted name, so it
became wine, and the release notes said it meant WINdoes Emulator, and
the discussion of it on usenet took place in the comp.emulators
hierarchy.
They started de-emphasizing the use of "emulator" because of people like
you, who mistakenly think an emulator must emulate hardware, so that
people wouldn't think that wine being an emulator implied that it must
be slow (hardware emulators of that day were generally slow).
This is all documented in the old wine release notes, FAQs,
comp.emulator.* posts, and mailing lists.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> > It was good enough back then and its good enough now. The fact that you
> > or Halliwell might get confused is not really how thing work when
> > redefining words.
> >
>
> I've been using Linux and wine for longer than you've been aware of
> them and it's never been referred to as an "emulator" in all that time.
> That's rather the point of the name.
So you didn't start using wine until the late '90s?
Wine FAQ, version 5.11b, from 4 Oct 1997:
The Wine (Windows Emulator) FAQ
version 5.11b
(mid October 1997)
...
1.1: What is Wine, and what is it supposed to do?
Wine is both a program loader and an emulation library that will
allow UNIX users to run MS Windows applications on an x86 hardware
platform running under some UNIXes. The program loader will load and
execute an MS Windows application binary, while the emulation
library will take calls to MS Windows functions and translate these
into calls to UNIX/X, so that equivalent functionality is achieved.
...
1.2: Why call it 'Wine'?
The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows Emulator, or
Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right. Use whichever one you like
best.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine/msg/bd872c
886eaf33fe>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine/msg/bd872c886eaf33fe>
Release notes for wine release 981108:
This is release 981108 of Wine, the MS Windows emulator. This is
still a developers only release. There are many bugs and many
unimplemented API features. Most applications still do not work
correctly.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine/msg/17d9c0
ffb51dee7e>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine/msg/17d9c0ffb51dee7e>
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb
> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>> No wonder I bug "Hadron". I have a Ph.D.
>>
>>
>> Put it in your sig.
>> :)
>
> He wouldn't dare. No one would believe that someone with a PhD would be
> so unable to verify facts himself and instead rely on the oily dribbles
> that Roy trickles out of his backside.
>
> Remember that Chris is on record as saying he doesn't care about the
> truth if its found outside of COLA. That's how much he can be relied
> upon for fact based decision making.
Ahlstrom is obviously a complete loser.
Roy Schestowitz is gone for a couple of days and Ahlstrom falls
to pieces.
Aardvark Sucubus Hunter
<VBG>
DFS
> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>> No wonder I bug "Hadron". I have a Ph.D.
>>
>>
>> Put it in your sig.
>> :)
>
> He wouldn't dare. No one would believe that someone with a PhD would
> be so unable to verify facts himself and instead rely on the oily
> dribbles that Roy trickles out of his backside.
>
> Remember that Chris is on record as saying he doesn't care about the
> truth if its found outside of COLA. That's how much he can be relied
> upon for fact based decision making.
hmmm... if Linosuck saved his $25/week allowance for 7 months, he could
afford a "Ph.D."
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/09/nation/chi-phony-degreesaug10
Hadron
Have to love that
"people like you"
Andy, here's a hint at what that means : "clueless noobs with no clue".
Do try to grow up and develop a spine. It's as clear as day to anyone
with a clue that "emulate" does not limit itself to "hardware".
Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2009-07-08, Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh5a0o...@nomad.mishnet>,
> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> > 1. Before suing, they sent her a cease-and-desist letter (twice,
> >> > actually). She neither ceased nor desisted.
> >>
> >> You would be the first to claim such a thing.
> >
> > You didn't learn your lesson last time, did you?
>
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.
Your definition of "lie" seems to be any fact you don't know. Like the
time you called me a liar because I reported that the shipping version
of Symphony did not handle formulas in ODF spreadsheets produced by the
shipping version of OpenOffice. Then when I gave a link to Lotus's
support site, where they acknowledge that problem, you slunk away from
the thread.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
"Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchdomain.com> wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>
> Then why are your posts as useless and stupid as those from "7" ?
Because he admires 7's language and reasoning skill. Didn't you see that
post a few days or so ago where he was going on about how good 7 is?
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron
WTF?!?!? You are joking?
I saw 7 shilling him (or was it AH?) though. Maybe that was a "thank you".
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <h34mlq$5j7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Once again, both Zeke and Timmy get it wrong. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
Timmy, to his shame, thinks trolling is "reasoning".
Well, that does explain much about him.
Zeke? He's simply a nasty little shit.
--
Your mode of life will be changed for the better because of new developments.
DFS
> Den 2009-07-09 skrev Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com>:
>>
>> A fair and just fine would've been how much she'd wronged them.
>
> She haven't wronged them in any way.
Why don't you use that as your defense when you get busted for sharing
songs?
>> That's just taking the piss.
>
> And wrongly so.
Ezekiel
> 2009-07-09 skrev Phil Da Lick!
> <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>> Gee... why would they possibly put the newsgroup for Wine in
>>> comp.EMULATORS.ms-windows.wine ?????
>
> There is no such group.
Don't let your incompetence get in the way of reality. You're another
Linux "advocate" who spouts his nonsense without actually having a clue.
Have your nym go slink away.
<quote>
comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
About this group:
Description A free MS-Windows emulator under X.
Language English
Categories Computers
Access Public - Usenet
</quote>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine/topics
Hadron
It's probably a Halliwell nym, trying to recover from the shame of being
caught being a clueless know nothing with limited experience again.
"Its not a PDA it's a phone".
LOL!
It would be like saying the PS3 is not a console it's a, err, mp3
player.
Ezekiel
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> In article <h34mlq$5j7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchdomain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Then why are your posts as useless and stupid as those from "7" ?
>>
>> Because he admires 7's language and reasoning skill. Didn't you see that
>> post a few days or so ago where he was going on about how good 7 is?
>
> Once again, both Zeke and Timmy get it wrong. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.
Is this another classic example of your worthwhile posts. I could write a
script that posts stupid 1-liners. It would accurately do the same thing as
your posts without wasting oxygen.
> Timmy, to his shame, thinks trolling is "reasoning".
>
> Well, that does explain much about him.
That's ripe coming from someone who's only purpose here is to shill other
posts with stupid 1-liners.
> Zeke? He's simply a nasty little shit.
If you don't like being corrected then perhaps you should consider making
accurate posts. This way your feelings won't get hurt Miniwitz.
Ezekiel
How pathetically *stupid* are these freetards anyway. This "gunner" idiot
nym comes along and proclaims that 'There's no such group' - and what...
we're supposed to ignore reality and believe this moron just because he
says there isn't.
I'm not calling him *stupid* just to throw around insults either. One really
has to be a complete idiot to make a claim like this that can be completely
disproven in about 5 seconds.
Moshe Goldfarb
Jeb is totally clueless.
Sometimes I have to wonder if the guy lives in a cave or
something because obviously he doesn't get out in the real world
too much.
Moshe Goldfarb
LiarSuck will suck up to anyone.
Roy Schestowitz has been gone so LiarSuck needs another
sphincter to attach his mouth to.
Truly pathetic.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>> In article <h34mlq$5j7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "Ezekiel" <ze...@nosuchdomain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Then why are your posts as useless and stupid as those from "7" ?
>>
>> Because he admires 7's language and reasoning skill. Didn't you see that
>> post a few days or so ago where he was going on about how good 7 is?
>
> WTF?!?!? You are joking?
>
> I saw 7 shilling him (or was it AH?) though. Maybe that was a "thank you".
No joke.....
I replied something like "7 is mentally deranged".