And the biggest bulls-eye appears to be on Android, in large part because its architecture is most like that of the desktop PC but also because there are so many variants in use -- too many for Google or the carriers to patch securely.
So if an exploit occurs it will likely only affect some handsets as opposed to every handset.
And if a fix is created, it will only be applied to some handsets as opposed to every handset.
They can. It's only their philosophy that prevents them from doing so. Neither the MPEG-LA, nor their own license, prevents them from supporting H.264. They could even distribute an H.264 plugin for Firefox on all supported platforms completely legally.
Three dots, sufficiently not in a row, are called a triangle.
Not if you do not draw lines between them. But lines do not enter into touch detection in iOS, all you ever have are points.
This is only true if the author intends the term to be taken in a strict mathematical sense. The word "shape" is not solely mathematical. Neither is triangle. Hence the Summer Triangle.
Or are you saying that astronomers have actually connected the three stars in question? That would be quite a feat!
Three dots are three dots. They CAN represent a triangle as long as you properly define them as 3 line segments, but by themselves, the 3 dots, a triangle are not.
No, you do not need to actually connect the dots to make a triangle.
The problem is that when someone says, "makes a triangle" or "makes a shape", they don't always mean you have actually connected the dots. You may be surprised to learn that not everyone speaks solely in mathematical terms.
Because he wouldn't say, "The videos do not play for me (probably a Flash issue, I'm looking forward to have that replaced with something more reliable)" if he were trying to view it on an iPad. You don't have "Flash issues", you just have no Flash. Also, there would be no *trying* to get the videos to play.
Not a techie? He worked as a technician for Atari, and worked on the design for the motherboard for Breakout. You also don't successfully manage a technology company like Apple without having a grasp of technology.
Of course, Woz was far more adept at hardware, which brings a lot of people to make the claim that Jobs is just a businessman.
Three dots, sufficiently not in a row, are called a triangle. Look up in the sky tonight (northern hemisphere) and you'll see what's called the Summer Triangle.
These three dots make up a triangle, these three dots a square, etc. Claiming that it's a lie to say these are shapes is a bit much.
Try again - the JIT has to interpret your class file when it runs it. Java is STILL a scripting language.
Interpreted/scripting is going from a high-level language to machine code each and every time it runs. Java bytecode is neither a scripting language, nor is it a high-level language.
By your logic, C is a scripting language. Or running non-native binaries (such as PPC programs on an Intel Mac via Rosetta, running Windows programs via Wine on Linux, or even using a DirectX to OpenGL translation layer to port a game from Windows) is interpreted and/or scripting.
Java is no more compiled than converting a word doc to a pdf is "compiling" it. You cannot execute the resulting class files directly
It's compiled for the virtual machine. Your choice of PDF as an example is rather interesting. Had you instead chosen PostScript, you'd have had greybeards provide countless counterexamples.
But no matter how you want to look at it, it's absurd to maintain that Java isn't compiled.
Companies don't exist to make money. They exist to serve the desires of those involved in the company. One aspect of that is usually to make money (non-profit corporations, for example (and by definition), do not exist to make money).
In the case of the license for Solaris was chosen to serve a purpose, and that purpose was almost certainly not specifically to make money. Sure, making money was taken into consideration, but acting like it was the sole motivator is not exactly rational. No more so than saying a person takes a specific job with the sole motivation of making money. That's almost impossible, as there are plenty of motivations for the exact jobs people choose, and while making money is the most obvious, it's not as simple as just that.
Now, to be sure, those in charge of corporations in the US tend to run them with the sole goal of making money, that doesn't make it some sort of universal truth. Whenever I see someone who tries to portray it as such generally has as their motivation a way of promoting actions that would otherwise be indefensible for their inherent repugnance.
Except that's not what you said. You said it's impossible to make a home video without the MPEG-LA thinking you owe them money. This story demonstrates that they don't want any money for most such situations.
And every proper device that creates h.264 comes with a license, so it's a non-point. But IICV was talking about eventually sharing, not the creation process (otherwise his point is a non-issue as well).
How about if you encode using, say, x264? The tool is free, but you'd still have to pay the MPEG-LA for... well, owning some specific variants of some algorithms.
Most people already have an h.264 license. However, if you use x264 and don't have an h.264 license (pretty much impossible these days unless you run Linux), then yes, you probably owe them like a dollar or something. But they aren't going to go after you for this.
And this still falls under the category of paying for the tools you use. I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. This is especially true if you make money using those tools.
Honestly, in this case, fear mongering is better than just taking it - I mean, it's nearly impossible to make a home video without creating something that MPEG LA thinks you should pay them for.
This story demonstrates the exact opposite of your assertion.
So if I don't conform to the Consumerist society, and instead to save money by only buying two cellphones over ~15 years time, that makes me "strange". I see.....
Yes! That's exactly my point.
Did I just step into that movie THX-1138, where people buy stuff just to buy stuff, even when it's illogical to so do?
Why is it illogical to buy a cell phone (more than two per fifteen years or whatever your arbitrary cutoff is)?
You are strange, not that there's anything wrong with that.
If you're making money you should be paying for the tools you use. This isn't some nefarious trick, it's honest business. I don't see how this is a problem at all, unless the royalties were absurd (which they aren't).
That's sort of like saying that you always find something you've lost in the last place you look. That's because once you find it you stop looking.
You generally don't hear about new fees for previously free services until after they're announced because they usually only tell you about them after they implement them.
Slashdot Mirror
And the biggest bulls-eye appears to be on Android, in large part because its architecture is most like that of the desktop PC but also because there are so many variants in use -- too many for Google or the carriers to patch securely.
So if an exploit occurs it will likely only affect some handsets as opposed to every handset.
And if a fix is created, it will only be applied to some handsets as opposed to every handset.
An imaginary DRAWN triangle still involves lines so yes, that is exactly what they have done.
Do you know what "imaginary" means? It means that no, that's *NOT* what they've done, they've just imagined it being done.
And in that exact same way, there's nothing wrong with calling three dots a "triangle", because the speaker is similarly conveying an imaginary shape.
Why can FF not offer H.264 video?
They can. It's only their philosophy that prevents them from doing so. Neither the MPEG-LA, nor their own license, prevents them from supporting H.264. They could even distribute an H.264 plugin for Firefox on all supported platforms completely legally.
Three dots, sufficiently not in a row, are called a triangle.
Not if you do not draw lines between them. But lines do not enter into touch detection in iOS, all you ever have are points.
This is only true if the author intends the term to be taken in a strict mathematical sense. The word "shape" is not solely mathematical. Neither is triangle. Hence the Summer Triangle.
Or are you saying that astronomers have actually connected the three stars in question? That would be quite a feat!
Did you flunk Geomotry?
Really? No, I didn't flunk geometry.
Three dots are three dots. They CAN represent a triangle as long as you properly define them as 3 line segments, but by themselves, the 3 dots, a triangle are not.
No, you do not need to actually connect the dots to make a triangle.
The problem is that when someone says, "makes a triangle" or "makes a shape", they don't always mean you have actually connected the dots. You may be surprised to learn that not everyone speaks solely in mathematical terms.
Because he wouldn't say, "The videos do not play for me (probably a Flash issue, I'm looking forward to have that replaced with something more reliable)" if he were trying to view it on an iPad. You don't have "Flash issues", you just have no Flash. Also, there would be no *trying* to get the videos to play.
Or Ballmer, while we're at it.
Not a techie? He worked as a technician for Atari, and worked on the design for the motherboard for Breakout. You also don't successfully manage a technology company like Apple without having a grasp of technology.
Of course, Woz was far more adept at hardware, which brings a lot of people to make the claim that Jobs is just a businessman.
Three dots, sufficiently not in a row, are called a triangle. Look up in the sky tonight (northern hemisphere) and you'll see what's called the Summer Triangle.
These three dots make up a triangle, these three dots a square, etc. Claiming that it's a lie to say these are shapes is a bit much.
Because maybe you're trying to watch a Flash video of this iPad on an iPad?
It's clear from his post that it's not on an iPad. Surprise, Flash sucks even if you're not on a iOS device!
Try again - the JIT has to interpret your class file when it runs it. Java is STILL a scripting language.
Interpreted/scripting is going from a high-level language to machine code each and every time it runs. Java bytecode is neither a scripting language, nor is it a high-level language.
By your logic, C is a scripting language. Or running non-native binaries (such as PPC programs on an Intel Mac via Rosetta, running Windows programs via Wine on Linux, or even using a DirectX to OpenGL translation layer to port a game from Windows) is interpreted and/or scripting.
Google for "javac". You might learn something.
Java is an interpreted scripting language.
Wow, your ignorance of Java is astonishing.
Java is no more compiled than converting a word doc to a pdf is "compiling" it. You cannot execute the resulting class files directly
It's compiled for the virtual machine. Your choice of PDF as an example is rather interesting. Had you instead chosen PostScript, you'd have had greybeards provide countless counterexamples.
But no matter how you want to look at it, it's absurd to maintain that Java isn't compiled.
No, they are a company that exists to make money.
Companies don't exist to make money. They exist to serve the desires of those involved in the company. One aspect of that is usually to make money (non-profit corporations, for example (and by definition), do not exist to make money).
In the case of the license for Solaris was chosen to serve a purpose, and that purpose was almost certainly not specifically to make money. Sure, making money was taken into consideration, but acting like it was the sole motivator is not exactly rational. No more so than saying a person takes a specific job with the sole motivation of making money. That's almost impossible, as there are plenty of motivations for the exact jobs people choose, and while making money is the most obvious, it's not as simple as just that.
Now, to be sure, those in charge of corporations in the US tend to run them with the sole goal of making money, that doesn't make it some sort of universal truth. Whenever I see someone who tries to portray it as such generally has as their motivation a way of promoting actions that would otherwise be indefensible for their inherent repugnance.
Except that's not what you said. You said it's impossible to make a home video without the MPEG-LA thinking you owe them money. This story demonstrates that they don't want any money for most such situations.
And every proper device that creates h.264 comes with a license, so it's a non-point. But IICV was talking about eventually sharing, not the creation process (otherwise his point is a non-issue as well).
Translation:
In practical terms, it's good news. In ideological terms, it's bad news.
paying for the tools you use
How about if you encode using, say, x264? The tool is free, but you'd still have to pay the MPEG-LA for... well, owning some specific variants of some algorithms.
Most people already have an h.264 license. However, if you use x264 and don't have an h.264 license (pretty much impossible these days unless you run Linux), then yes, you probably owe them like a dollar or something. But they aren't going to go after you for this.
And this still falls under the category of paying for the tools you use. I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. This is especially true if you make money using those tools.
Honestly, in this case, fear mongering is better than just taking it - I mean, it's nearly impossible to make a home video without creating something that MPEG LA thinks you should pay them for.
This story demonstrates the exact opposite of your assertion.
So if I don't conform to the Consumerist society, and instead to save money by only buying two cellphones over ~15 years time, that makes me "strange". I see.....
Yes! That's exactly my point.
Did I just step into that movie THX-1138, where people buy stuff just to buy stuff, even when it's illogical to so do?
Why is it illogical to buy a cell phone (more than two per fifteen years or whatever your arbitrary cutoff is)?
You are strange, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Let the fear-mongering commence!
If you're making money you should be paying for the tools you use. This isn't some nefarious trick, it's honest business. I don't see how this is a problem at all, unless the royalties were absurd (which they aren't).
That doesn't sound strange at all.
It is very strange, these days.
Most people don't need cellphones.
Who said 'need'?
In my whole life I've owned exactly two:
And you're rather strange, QED.
Sounds like somebody's brain didn't get enough Windows last night.
nothing like 60hz directly into your bum
Is that why they call you "Lumpy"?
That's sort of like saying that you always find something you've lost in the last place you look. That's because once you find it you stop looking.
You generally don't hear about new fees for previously free services until after they're announced because they usually only tell you about them after they implement them.