Why do you presume that short term limits are going to prevent corruption? Why wouldn't it just mean that they'll do even more blatant bullshit since it doesn't matter anyway since they have no worries about re-election?
The fuss is that "zOMG TEH APPLE IS EBIL!!!" ignoring the fact that all Apple is doing is setting up a second project to maintain the pieces they don't require.
So many government mandated standards require the use of patented technology. Every single digital TV standard worldwide requires licenses for a hundred or more patents just to build the receiver/decoder. Then you need licenses on top of that to actually decode the audio and video content.
Implementing the ATSC standard is not mandated by the government. There are plenty of TVs that lack an ATSC receiver. Also your other examples of the "so many government mandated standards" fails pretty hard as well since the government does not mandate any of them. Those are all private industry standards that you are free to not implement if you don't want to.
FRAND terms are for the implementers of the standard. Unless you are going to claim that every human on earth is going to implement each of these standards themselves your point fails.. The patent grant is only "limited" to those people who will actually be doing the implementing and for all of those implementors you will be able to get access to the patents under FRAND terms. If you as an implementer can't, it's not FRAND.
No you're way more than a zero off. Homo Erectus originated nearly 2 million years ago. So even if it had been 300,000 rather than 30,000 you're still nearly an order of magnitude off from being even remotely right.
The point is that when Apple does something no different from Android (which is not called a walled garden) the only response from these whiners is to whine about "walled gardens" when that isn't the implication of this change. This has nothing to do with trying to lock down OS X. It's about giving users control of what applications can be installed.
Of course. The point was that the idiot above was trying to conflate the statement to mean that Apple is trying to claim that signing executables was their invention when that wasn't even remotely the implication. Then he had to try to through in the lame "BUT TEH LOONIX DID IT FRIST!!!" thing.
Because it's....APPLE!!! Apple implementing features from other OSes who warn about unsigned applications or allow you to restrict the source of installable applications (none of which are called walled gardens by doing so) clearly can only mean that they want to disallow anyone from installing what they want. IT MUST BE!!!! MY ANTI-APPLE BIAS WON'T LET ME THINK OTHERWISE!!!
It's not a walled garden when it's entirely YOUR CHOICE to restrict where you want apps to only be installable from. If you don't like the default option, click on one of the two other options.
Exactly. And these are the purported "technically-savvy users" who are most complaining about how they can't figure out a combo box and how to type in their password.
Great, and those technically-savvy users can just click the other option and stop whining. For the average user, this option is great. Is a combo box really that hard for you "technically-savvy users" to figure out?
It was only called "new" within the scope of what OS X has done previously. So for OS X, this is new. Must idiots like you always whine about such things in order to go "BUT LOONIX HAD IT FIRST!!!".
Sort of like how Android by default "spreads FUD" about apps not coming from the Android market? Since, you know, you have to check the "other sources" option in order to sideload apps? Yes, even on the vanilla versions of Android from Google it defaults to blocking sideloaded apps.
Yes, there is! Apple is adding a similar option to what Android has had for years to control the source of applications you can install!! LOCK DOWN!! WALLED GARDENS!!! IT'S ARMAGEDDON!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that is what the article states for the reason why it would lead to more research.
It would return an errno.
Said by the guy who gets spanked by 5 year olds when playing Halo on the 360.
Yes, it includes a secondary digital copy for playback on other devices than a PC or your DVD player. What's so hard to understand about it?
Why do you presume that short term limits are going to prevent corruption? Why wouldn't it just mean that they'll do even more blatant bullshit since it doesn't matter anyway since they have no worries about re-election?
Or just help to maintain the spinned off project?
The fuss is that "zOMG TEH APPLE IS EBIL!!!" ignoring the fact that all Apple is doing is setting up a second project to maintain the pieces they don't require.
So many government mandated standards require the use of patented technology. Every single digital TV standard worldwide requires licenses for a hundred or more patents just to build the receiver/decoder. Then you need licenses on top of that to actually decode the audio and video content.
Implementing the ATSC standard is not mandated by the government. There are plenty of TVs that lack an ATSC receiver. Also your other examples of the "so many government mandated standards" fails pretty hard as well since the government does not mandate any of them. Those are all private industry standards that you are free to not implement if you don't want to.
FRAND terms are for the implementers of the standard. Unless you are going to claim that every human on earth is going to implement each of these standards themselves your point fails.. The patent grant is only "limited" to those people who will actually be doing the implementing and for all of those implementors you will be able to get access to the patents under FRAND terms. If you as an implementer can't, it's not FRAND.
PDF is an Apple format? Since when?
They aren't breaking compatibility. They are simply moving features they don't need into a separately maintained project.
No you're way more than a zero off. Homo Erectus originated nearly 2 million years ago. So even if it had been 300,000 rather than 30,000 you're still nearly an order of magnitude off from being even remotely right.
If the patent is only granted to a limited number of people it's not FRAND. Hence it would be against these very terms.
Any form of licensing for standards is incompatible with open source software.
No, it's incompatible with the GPL. There are plenty of other "open source software" licenses.
Did you fail at math? Homo Sapiens originated about 200,000 years ago. Last time I checked, 30,000 was less than 200,000.
No for audio/video you need libraries written using SIMD assembly. Anything else is going to be way too slow.
The point is that when Apple does something no different from Android (which is not called a walled garden) the only response from these whiners is to whine about "walled gardens" when that isn't the implication of this change. This has nothing to do with trying to lock down OS X. It's about giving users control of what applications can be installed.
Of course. The point was that the idiot above was trying to conflate the statement to mean that Apple is trying to claim that signing executables was their invention when that wasn't even remotely the implication. Then he had to try to through in the lame "BUT TEH LOONIX DID IT FRIST!!!" thing.
Because it's....APPLE!!! Apple implementing features from other OSes who warn about unsigned applications or allow you to restrict the source of installable applications (none of which are called walled gardens by doing so) clearly can only mean that they want to disallow anyone from installing what they want. IT MUST BE!!!! MY ANTI-APPLE BIAS WON'T LET ME THINK OTHERWISE!!!
It's not a walled garden when it's entirely YOUR CHOICE to restrict where you want apps to only be installable from. If you don't like the default option, click on one of the two other options.
Exactly. And these are the purported "technically-savvy users" who are most complaining about how they can't figure out a combo box and how to type in their password.
Great, and those technically-savvy users can just click the other option and stop whining. For the average user, this option is great. Is a combo box really that hard for you "technically-savvy users" to figure out?
It was only called "new" within the scope of what OS X has done previously. So for OS X, this is new. Must idiots like you always whine about such things in order to go "BUT LOONIX HAD IT FIRST!!!".
Sort of like how Android by default "spreads FUD" about apps not coming from the Android market? Since, you know, you have to check the "other sources" option in order to sideload apps? Yes, even on the vanilla versions of Android from Google it defaults to blocking sideloaded apps.
Yes, there is! Apple is adding a similar option to what Android has had for years to control the source of applications you can install!! LOCK DOWN!! WALLED GARDENS!!! IT'S ARMAGEDDON!!!!