You're judging everything by SOME rules the US goverment is making. a) When one of the two parties writes the rules, it's not fair to pass judgement using those rules. b) There rules stand against former one (ie: US Constitution).
In any case, anyone with enough money to buy miner to control a 51%, could probably buy Butterfly Labs, or just hire people to design/build him his own machines; no need to go to a retail.
It's publicly documented, but it's not "standard". Standard means that it works the same way on most implementations (like HTTP or IMAP). That doesn't apply here, there's just a single complete implementation.
Knowing Cisco and knowing networking are completely different things.
I've known a few Electrical Engineers whom I've asked about tecnical information on IPv6 routing. They insisted I didn't need to know that much (I was building my own routing box), that if I used cisco just enabling a checkbox would help me do what I wanted, there was no point in doing thing myself.
Well, firefox, doesn't play the video actually, flash does.
In case it won't run on your PC (because you've insuficint CPU, or not the SINGLE arquitecture they support), then firefox won't play anything flash-based, because flash won't run.
This is exactly what I was wondering. Why bother? Just for some minor patent issue?
It's really a matter of principle. Plenty of people care about openness, that's why we have free software and all that. The same applies here.
And yes it's minor as I've never had to touch the issue as an end user: it just works. Videos play, without me having to pay anyone anything.
Sure you have to pay someone. You just don't do it directly, you pay the hardware manufacturer, who, in turn, payed someone else.
On the one hand I am glad to see competition, different approaches to the same problem, let the best one win. More codecs, more attempts to find the perfect video compression, that's a good thing. However when it comes to standards, it's gettig trickier. How many standards to support? Which one is to be "the standard"? And with H264 as it is - for me as an end user completely free and doing the job well - I don't see much room for VP9, really.
It's not always the best that wins, but rather the one with the largest company backing it up, or the one with better marketing.
We have XMPP+Jingle, SIP+SIMPLE, OMA IMPS, and now this IMPP joins the club. Guess why people stick to Live Messenger, Skype, Google Talk, Facebook and (gasp) ICQ? These have providers and a pre-existing audience, and people don't care about the inner workings. You can have the best-thought-out, most efficient, open and extensible gem of a protocol, but how many people are going to download a (likely clunky) client and nag their relatives, friends and coworkers into installing it too? Yes, there are a few and we all know one; just wait until said project goes belly-up.
People started caring about gtalk's inner workings when they realized they could not longer see a lot of their contacts (the non-google ones) in the new "hangouts" clients.
Jabber precedes Skype. XMPP precedes Gtalk.
Seems like most of your claims are invalid.
Also, there's a new XMPP<->SIP federation standards in the works (it's still a IETF draft though).
XMPP doesn't provide for much in the way of security unless you are using strictly private single servers.
Once your contacts are scattered across multiple jabber servers all bets are off as far as security. Your server will almost surely end up forwarding your message to other servers insecurely.
XMPP also struggles with binary blobs (images) etc.
a) There's GPG for XMPP, which is not so uncommon. b) They intend to federate to XMPP, so, all this applies to IMPP. c) SSL isn't end-to-end.
I think GP was trying to state something on the grounds of "why do you have such a preference for FLOSS software, but work building propietary software?".
So authors can't possibly want to provide for their children or grandchildren?
I really disklike the how we inhereted all that "inheretance" stuff from the monarchy. The son of the rich are rich, and it's a right of blood. Wow, kings and princes weren't the same, right?
Having known many older authors, I assure you that's not true.
If copyright expired at death, what incentive would P.G. Wodehouse or SF Grandmaster Jack Williamson (both of whom continued writing into their late eighties or early nineties) have had?
Which is why I support fixed-length copyright terms, rather than life or life-plus.
Copyright exists to motivate author to create works of art, not to make their grandchildren richer.
Yeah, but if copyright expires on death, then the book completed by the author's family is half uncopyrighted, half copyrighted by whomever completed it. Since noone know which half is which, it's essentially the same as being fully copyrighted by the family.
No, that's unusual. Most of the people that don't add a license don't add it to their software because don't want to restrict it's usage. They just want to share the code.
People that WANT complex licenses with plenty of restrictions will be explicit about them.
Slashdot Mirror
The US goverment will most likely loose the war, since it seems their current war is against the freedom and right of it's own inhabitants.
You're judging everything by SOME rules the US goverment is making.
a) When one of the two parties writes the rules, it's not fair to pass judgement using those rules.
b) There rules stand against former one (ie: US Constitution).
He stands out in the fact that he dedicates more time to working than blogging/tweeting/facebooking, etc.
In any case, anyone with enough money to buy miner to control a 51%, could probably buy Butterfly Labs, or just hire people to design/build him his own machines; no need to go to a retail.
You really think Bitcoins are unstable? Try investing in Argentine Pesos!
Nobody runs silverlight, hence, nobody is interested in cracking it, and therefore, not bugs are found.
It's publicly documented, but it's not "standard".
Standard means that it works the same way on most implementations (like HTTP or IMAP).
That doesn't apply here, there's just a single complete implementation.
It comes with Office, so it's a business computer that can also play the tablet game, right?
Except that there's no Outlook. Try getting business done without that.
I've been doing business without having used Outlook in all my life. And I know plenty of others.
And you can't join a domain. That goes hand-in-hand with the above.
Why? There's email without domains. Plenty of businessmen use google apps, or other alternatives for their stuff.
Isn't there any developer mode or something like that?
Because they're giving these ones out for free?
Knowing Cisco and knowing networking are completely different things.
I've known a few Electrical Engineers whom I've asked about tecnical information on IPv6 routing. They insisted I didn't need to know that much (I was building my own routing box), that if I used cisco just enabling a checkbox would help me do what I wanted, there was no point in doing thing myself.
Of course, all of them cisco certified.
You do realize that gstreamer is a library?
Using that argument, firefox doesn't support HTTPS either, since it uses openssl for SSL.
I deal with this by simply avoiding countries that have software patents.
Well, firefox, doesn't play the video actually, flash does.
In case it won't run on your PC (because you've insuficint CPU, or not the SINGLE arquitecture they support), then firefox won't play anything flash-based, because flash won't run.
This is exactly what I was wondering. Why bother? Just for some minor patent issue?
It's really a matter of principle. Plenty of people care about openness, that's why we have free software and all that. The same applies here.
And yes it's minor as I've never had to touch the issue as an end user: it just works. Videos play, without me having to pay anyone anything.
Sure you have to pay someone. You just don't do it directly, you pay the hardware manufacturer, who, in turn, payed someone else.
On the one hand I am glad to see competition, different approaches to the same problem, let the best one win. More codecs, more attempts to find the perfect video compression, that's a good thing. However when it comes to standards, it's gettig trickier. How many standards to support? Which one is to be "the standard"? And with H264 as it is - for me as an end user completely free and doing the job well - I don't see much room for VP9, really.
It's not always the best that wins, but rather the one with the largest company backing it up, or the one with better marketing.
It's not a service, it's a standard being drafted by the IETF, which would allow any xmpp or sip server to federate to the other protocol.
Plenty of distributions are already ahead of you and have moved over to MariaDB anyway.
We have XMPP+Jingle, SIP+SIMPLE, OMA IMPS, and now this IMPP joins the club. Guess why people stick to Live Messenger, Skype, Google Talk, Facebook and (gasp) ICQ? These have providers and a pre-existing audience, and people don't care about the inner workings. You can have the best-thought-out, most efficient, open and extensible gem of a protocol, but how many people are going to download a (likely clunky) client and nag their relatives, friends and coworkers into installing it too? Yes, there are a few and we all know one; just wait until said project goes belly-up.
People started caring about gtalk's inner workings when they realized they could not longer see a lot of their contacts (the non-google ones) in the new "hangouts" clients.
Jabber precedes Skype. XMPP precedes Gtalk.
Seems like most of your claims are invalid.
Also, there's a new XMPP<->SIP federation standards in the works (it's still a IETF draft though).
XMPP doesn't provide for much in the way of security unless you are using strictly private single servers.
Once your contacts are scattered across multiple jabber servers all bets are off as far as security.
Your server will almost surely end up forwarding your message to other servers insecurely.
XMPP also struggles with binary blobs (images) etc.
a) There's GPG for XMPP, which is not so uncommon.
b) They intend to federate to XMPP, so, all this applies to IMPP.
c) SSL isn't end-to-end.
As for binary blobs, there's jingle.
Yeah, but good luck trying to find an exploit on the OpenBSD kernel to access my stuff.
I think GP was trying to state something on the grounds of "why do you have such a preference for FLOSS software, but work building propietary software?".
So authors can't possibly want to provide for their children or grandchildren?
I really disklike the how we inhereted all that "inheretance" stuff from the monarchy. The son of the rich are rich, and it's a right of blood.
Wow, kings and princes weren't the same, right?
Having known many older authors, I assure you that's not true.
If copyright expired at death, what incentive would P.G. Wodehouse or SF Grandmaster Jack Williamson (both of whom continued writing into their late eighties or early nineties) have had?
Which is why I support fixed-length copyright terms, rather than life or life-plus.
Copyright exists to motivate author to create works of art, not to make their grandchildren richer.
Authors and Inventors
That means it makes no sense for copyright to extend beyond death.
Yeah, but if copyright expires on death, then the book completed by the author's family is half uncopyrighted, half copyrighted by whomever completed it.
Since noone know which half is which, it's essentially the same as being fully copyrighted by the family.
No, that's unusual.
Most of the people that don't add a license don't add it to their software because don't want to restrict it's usage. They just want to share the code.
People that WANT complex licenses with plenty of restrictions will be explicit about them.