Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

iTunes Prohibits Terrorism 124

Posted by samzenpus
from the great-songs-come-with-great-responsibility dept.
Afforess writes "A recent closer look at the oft-skimmed EULA agreement for iTunes has an interesting paragraph in it, Gizmodo reports. 'You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.' Although humorous, some readers suggested that this may be a defense measure to previously discussed price changes in the iTunes music store."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iTunes Prohibits Terrorism

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13, 2009 @08:04PM (#27564881)

    Terrorism? According to past & present US administrations, this aint abut terrorism. When our allies use missiles to knowingly bomb populations containing civilians, women & children this is collateral damage.

    Totally different from terrorism, which is using missiles to deliberately bomb containing civilians, women & children. One is evil, one, according to past & present US administrations, the other is not.

    Personally, I don't see the huge moral chasm between two reprehensible murderous acts.

  • "Terrorism" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mqduck (232646) <mqduck@@@mqduck...net> on Monday April 13, 2009 @08:13PM (#27564987)

    Isn't it a bit of a leap to use the word 'terrorism' as shorthand for "missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons"? Missiles aren't even necessarily weapons.

    When did "weapons development by those the United States doesn't like" become the definition of terrorism?

  • Re:Laughable. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ToasterMonkey (467067) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:15AM (#27566711) Homepage

    All those Mac users are running Terminal.

    Hey genius, could it be that _ALL_ UNIX admins spend most their time in a terminal, be it putty, gnome-terminal, or Terminal, and gnome-terminal sucks so much ass people would rather use a NonFree(tm) system just for a better terminal emulator?

    Answer: Yes

    Sorry to be so harsh, but trying to devalue OS X because a subset of users spends most their time in a terminal is just bat-shit insane. Did you consider what most Linux desktops are doing?

  • Re:Laughable. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @11:15AM (#27570945)

    http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/

    I used to work on this project (not at colsa, at an academic research institution. We were also funded by the same Army researcher's project). We had a mini version of Mach5, and the folks at Colsa built that to run his simulations. OS X was not an idea OS for a large cluster, but we made it work. Many of the GUI workgroup management tools did not scale to hundreds or thousands of hosts.

    I still think we ended up with Apples is because the researcher for the Army was a big Mac fan, and used OS X for his laptop and workstation. I had wanted a standard x86 cluster at the time (our first generation cluster for the project was x86 w/Linux). Anyway, I ended up an Apple "guy" and continued using it when I left that group and took a job writing software at a cancer research laboratory.

"Silent gratitude isn't very much use to anyone." -- G. B. Stearn

Working...