I fail to see how having no choice in carrier (absent "jail breaking" the phone - what an odd turn of phrase to use on a device *I own*) is a positive.
What the hell are you talking about? One can buy an iPhone from a variety of carriers. Oh, you're conflating what happens in the US with the entire world. Silly you.
Decrying FUD and putting your fingers in your ears because someone said something you disagree with doesn't make it untrue.
MPEG-LA are a cartel that needs to be out of business.
You do realize that MPEG-LA going out of business doesn't eliminate or invalidate the patents in the pool, right? All that is going to do is make it a bigger pain for anyone who wants to implement video codecs by having to individually go to all licensors.
They are actively stifling progress in the useful arts and preventing progress in general.
Breaking up the MPEG-LA isn't going to stop the businesses whose patents making up the pool from being able to do so anyway. It's just going to create more hassles on the licensees.
I love how people like you throw out the term FUD as a catch all for anything you dislike hearing. FUD has a connotation of spreading something that is false or dubious in order to effect someone's perceptions. What was false or dubious in what the AC said? Is it not true that Google provides no indemnification? Is it not true that Google is an MPEG-LA licensee? How does the fact that the MPEG-LA may or may not provide indemnification have any bearing on those statements or somehow make them false?
Just because you feel something is common knowledge doesn't mean that it is,
Just because you're living under a rock and didn't know a pretty common fact about how Chromium is open sourced doesn't mean it isn't common knowledge.
How could you not have realized that? Pretty much everyone has known that since Google announced it quite a long time ago and stated that it was going to be open source. From here:
Chromium is the open-source project behind Google Chrome.
In any case, I think WebM is likely a better solution than including a known patent-encumbered codec in Firefox.
Why? Why is it better to include a codec that has patent uncertainty and thus any of it's user (excepting Google of course since they did license the MPEG-LA pool) are wide open to huge claims of infringement from some of the biggest corporations in the world?
Yes, they are using the GUI as well. And they are probably doing so to cut development time for other things they care about more than reimplementing another GUI around WebKit.
A few months ago Congress did pass a law giving the sitting president power to "kill switch" the internet
No they didn't. The bill hasn't even gone to a vote of the full Senate. What you were reading about was a Senate panel passing it. The two aren't synonymous.
I am all for open source but isn't an open source mpeg4 codec kind of an oxymoron?
Why would that be an oxymoron? If the source is available to see, modify and distribute what is the oxymoron? That your source code may be covered by patents in some regions of the world doesn't change the fact that your code is still open source.
They're going to have to spend money keeping the A4 competitive with other ARM SoC offerings from companies who make them for a living.
Why? It's not as if they are marketing the A4 to other companies in competition to those other chips. The A4 is being built for themselves only so it only has to be enough to fit their needs.
Yes, but these deaths can be tenuously linked to Apple! zOMG TEH STEVE JOBS IS KILLING INNOCENT CHINESE FACTORY WORKERS!!! Never mind that Foxconn is the one who determines and pays their salary not Apple or any of the other contractors of Foxconn's plants.
What boggles the mind is why can't they pay a few more bucks to the people working in Foxconn(who are jumping off buildings) who actually make these iDevices?
Because Apple isn't responsible for the salaries of Foxconn employees? And why do you single out Apple in contrast to the dozens of other huge companies that contract with Foxconn like Microsoft, Logitech, Intel, Cisco, Dell, Nokia, HP, or Sony?
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people.
Ratified treaties are just as much "laws" as anything passed by Congress. Perhaps you need to re-read the Constitution?
This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
Except that you're wrongly attributing a quote that paraphrases something Jefferson said as if all the Founding Fathers were of a similar opinion. This is not true. Amongst those that can be named, James Monroe is probably the most obvious example of disagreeing with such a notion.
you will only save money a few million at a time this way, but put a few of these kinds of efforts together and you will see a big change.
Yeah, we're going to see some real big change. How cute and naive. Any such purported "savings" will just be funneled to other pork projects. Come back to me when you see something like the government cutting back on something and saving 10 billion dollars.
Give credit where due, instead of whining about how it's not good enough. Here's a hint it'll never be good enough, so take what you can get.
I'm sorry, but I'm never going to jizz in my pants over a couple million dollars when the government is spending upwards of 5+ billion dollars a day.
Yeah cause getting back a few million is definitely going to make a huge dent in that multi-trillion dollar debt. Hopefully you aren't thinking any of these savings are going to come back to you or any of us, either, as it'll just quickly get earmarked for pork projects.
If an area only had Comcast as a potential ISP, and Comcast decided to block 4chan because it offended their Christian sensibilities, that would be a form of censorship.
Yes, because that is a suppression of speech.
If Walmart convinced your town to pass a rule saying that all garage sales must happen in Walmart parking lots, and Walmart kicked your garage sale out of its parking lot because it didn't like your novelty lamp that looked like a woman's leg, that would be censorship.
No it wouldn't be. Censorship is about the suppression of speech or other forms of communication. Selling things in your front yard is not a form of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see how having no choice in carrier (absent "jail breaking" the phone - what an odd turn of phrase to use on a device *I own*) is a positive.
What the hell are you talking about? One can buy an iPhone from a variety of carriers. Oh, you're conflating what happens in the US with the entire world. Silly you.
Everyone should have at least two names. No excuses.
Why?
If you can't distribute without licensing the patents, it's not freely distributable, hence not open source has defined by the OSI.
People distribute, for example, the ffmpeg, xvid, x264 source code all the time without having the license any patents.
Decrying FUD and putting your fingers in your ears because someone said something you disagree with doesn't make it untrue.
MPEG-LA are a cartel that needs to be out of business.
You do realize that MPEG-LA going out of business doesn't eliminate or invalidate the patents in the pool, right? All that is going to do is make it a bigger pain for anyone who wants to implement video codecs by having to individually go to all licensors.
They are actively stifling progress in the useful arts and preventing progress in general.
Breaking up the MPEG-LA isn't going to stop the businesses whose patents making up the pool from being able to do so anyway. It's just going to create more hassles on the licensees.
I love how people like you throw out the term FUD as a catch all for anything you dislike hearing. FUD has a connotation of spreading something that is false or dubious in order to effect someone's perceptions. What was false or dubious in what the AC said? Is it not true that Google provides no indemnification? Is it not true that Google is an MPEG-LA licensee? How does the fact that the MPEG-LA may or may not provide indemnification have any bearing on those statements or somehow make them false?
Just because you feel something is common knowledge doesn't mean that it is,
Just because you're living under a rock and didn't know a pretty common fact about how Chromium is open sourced doesn't mean it isn't common knowledge.
I didn't realize Chromium was open source.
How could you not have realized that? Pretty much everyone has known that since Google announced it quite a long time ago and stated that it was going to be open source. From here:
Chromium is the open-source project behind Google Chrome.
In any case, I think WebM is likely a better solution than including a known patent-encumbered codec in Firefox.
Why? Why is it better to include a codec that has patent uncertainty and thus any of it's user (excepting Google of course since they did license the MPEG-LA pool) are wide open to huge claims of infringement from some of the biggest corporations in the world?
Yes, they are using the GUI as well. And they are probably doing so to cut development time for other things they care about more than reimplementing another GUI around WebKit.
A few months ago Congress did pass a law giving the sitting president power to "kill switch" the internet
No they didn't. The bill hasn't even gone to a vote of the full Senate. What you were reading about was a Senate panel passing it. The two aren't synonymous.
I am all for open source but isn't an open source mpeg4 codec kind of an oxymoron?
Why would that be an oxymoron? If the source is available to see, modify and distribute what is the oxymoron? That your source code may be covered by patents in some regions of the world doesn't change the fact that your code is still open source.
To everybody else, they wouldn't learn anything from a small company being sued.
Why would MPEG-LA sue them if they already licensed the patent pool?
They're going to have to spend money keeping the A4 competitive with other ARM SoC offerings from companies who make them for a living.
Why? It's not as if they are marketing the A4 to other companies in competition to those other chips. The A4 is being built for themselves only so it only has to be enough to fit their needs.
Yes, but these deaths can be tenuously linked to Apple! zOMG TEH STEVE JOBS IS KILLING INNOCENT CHINESE FACTORY WORKERS!!! Never mind that Foxconn is the one who determines and pays their salary not Apple or any of the other contractors of Foxconn's plants.
What boggles the mind is why can't they pay a few more bucks to the people working in Foxconn(who are jumping off buildings) who actually make these iDevices?
Because Apple isn't responsible for the salaries of Foxconn employees? And why do you single out Apple in contrast to the dozens of other huge companies that contract with Foxconn like Microsoft, Logitech, Intel, Cisco, Dell, Nokia, HP, or Sony?
Selling things is not a form of speech. Thus being disallowed from selling a product in someone else's store is not censorship.
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people.
Ratified treaties are just as much "laws" as anything passed by Congress. Perhaps you need to re-read the Constitution?
This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
Except that you're wrongly attributing a quote that paraphrases something Jefferson said as if all the Founding Fathers were of a similar opinion. This is not true. Amongst those that can be named, James Monroe is probably the most obvious example of disagreeing with such a notion.
It's difficult to tell when it's a bunch of lawyers trying to line their pockets from the deaths of innocents.
Last time I checked, no one was able to "line their pockets" from a criminal trial.
you will only save money a few million at a time this way, but put a few of these kinds of efforts together and you will see a big change.
Yeah, we're going to see some real big change. How cute and naive. Any such purported "savings" will just be funneled to other pork projects. Come back to me when you see something like the government cutting back on something and saving 10 billion dollars.
Give credit where due, instead of whining about how it's not good enough. Here's a hint it'll never be good enough, so take what you can get.
I'm sorry, but I'm never going to jizz in my pants over a couple million dollars when the government is spending upwards of 5+ billion dollars a day.
Because it'll make Monty even more butthurt than he already?
I'd blame that on shoddy loans issued by investment bankers, while politicians are more or less in charge of covering up the mess.
The only flaw in that is that the US already owed the 10s of trillions long before the bailouts even started.
Yeah cause getting back a few million is definitely going to make a huge dent in that multi-trillion dollar debt. Hopefully you aren't thinking any of these savings are going to come back to you or any of us, either, as it'll just quickly get earmarked for pork projects.
If an area only had Comcast as a potential ISP, and Comcast decided to block 4chan because it offended their Christian sensibilities, that would be a form of censorship.
Yes, because that is a suppression of speech.
If Walmart convinced your town to pass a rule saying that all garage sales must happen in Walmart parking lots, and Walmart kicked your garage sale out of its parking lot because it didn't like your novelty lamp that looked like a woman's leg, that would be censorship.
No it wouldn't be. Censorship is about the suppression of speech or other forms of communication. Selling things in your front yard is not a form of speech.
He was claiming that NO ONE could obtain an app unless it was through the official app store. This is patently false.
Then don't buy their phone if you disagree with the terms of use. Did Apple force you or anyone else to buy an iPhone and agree to their terms?