1. Publish a product that's better than competitors'.
2. Open source it.
3. Earn the cheers from the free software crowd, and get the advantage from external contributors, as only large browser vendor.
4. Your users will love the freedom they have, and your product will be famous for its extendibility. They'll love ad-blockers as the web gets more and more annoying ads.
5. Get more and more market share by staying better than your shitty competitors.
6. Let other browser vendors copy your success by open-sourcing their browser as well, or giving up to EEE the WWW.
7. Start your downfall: a) Require add-ons to be signed because we live now in a world of apps and every app is is signed. b) Publish ads in your product's start page. Enjoy the annoyment of your users. c) Integrate an useless closed source product. (Pocket). Enjoy the annoyment of your users. d) Announce that your addon API will be locked down. e) Publish your "principles for content blocking". <====== We are here f) Enforce them. This is the point of no return.
8. Gently shove a Yoda Doll up your user's asses. Be careful, its larger than the dicks the other browser vendors ram up their ass as well. That's also the only reason your browser is still used.
WiFi routers aren't like mobile phones with separate application processor and baseband. Instead, they only have one chip, mostly due to more cost involved in having two chips. Thats why this new rule is so bad: it doesn't mandate that there is a part that has to remain free, so the vendors do what companies always do, take the cheapest solution (this isn't wrong by itself), and lock down the only processor which does both application and baseband.
The FCC should either mandate that there is a second, fully flashable part of the chip, or simply solve the problem itself, and this is installing proper tracking down hardware at airports where WiFi devices could interfere the wheather radar. Then they could find, stop, and make accountable for, those who abuse the freedom of their WiFi devices. As this costs money, they rather chose to limit freedom, and still remain vulnerable like before. Those who want to attack airports still can get illegal devices.
Only public projects are free. And this is IMO a fair model. If you want to hide your code from the public, it means in most cases that your software is closed source. And that usually means you make money with it, where its just fair to give github a small part of it, these are basic economic "supply chain" rules. Conversely, if your code is public, it most likely is open source as well. There is some public content on github which is not open source licensed, but most of it is.
And about learning git, it has a steep learning curve, but once you know it, its real fun. CVS isn't distributed, I really like git for its speed and features like git blame. Sadly many people think git == github.
Data are programs and programs are data. There is no real distinction between those two. Also, currently I think that the human component is the weakest part of the system. Of course, the "big bugs" get the news coverage, and some are really serious like heartbleed, mostly because it persists in millions of non-updated devices, but most times, modern cybercriminals just use other means, where the user an some authorization step of some form in order to install the payload, be it the "it department" calling, the classical "password update procedure please visit this website" e-mail, or infected warez the user got via bittorrent.
And building a house is a fairly simple task compared to writing some programs. You should better compare software to digging tunnels in the mountains. You never know what type of stone is ahead, and if you reach sand, you have to cool it so that it's stable etc. You can make small test drills in order to find that out, but you won't know it for the complete length of the tunnel. And if management now demands that the tunnel has to be larger, it means alot of effort, the longer your tunnel already is.
That's a legal argument that the plaintiffs made. The judge denied that one.
That's correct, the judge denied the argument. However, he argued the argument is denied because the plaintiffs didn't provide evidence that the publication of Happy Birthday in The Everyday Song Book in 1922 was authorized. He didn't argue that it was denied because the publication was only done by a licensee, like you say.
If you published an authorized work under the Copyright Act of 1909, and missed a copyright mark, the work would become public domain. From the ruling (some quotes removed):
Under the Copyright Act of 1909, one secured a federal copyright by publishing a work with proper notice. Before such publication, the work was protected by common law copyright. If the work was published without notice, two things happened: the author (1) failed to obtain a federal copyright and (2) lost the common law copyright as well.
General publication, which would cause a forfeiture, occurs “when, by consent of the copyright owner, the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner, even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur.” 1 Nimmer 4.03. By contrast, a limited publication, which does not cause a forfeiture, is when “tangible copies of the work are distributed both (1) to a ‘definitely selected group,’ and (2) for a limited purpose, without the right of further reproduction, distribution or sale.” Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis., 944 F.2d at 1452. Moreover, “mere performance or exhibition of a work does not constitute a [general] publication of that work.” Am. Vitagraph, Inc. v. Levy, 659 F.2d 1023, 1027 (9th Cir. 1981).
The judge even said that this would apply for the 1922 publication:
If the [1922] publication was authorized, that could make it a general publication (without proper copyright notice), divesting the Hill sisters of their common law copyright.
But later on, he sais:
As Defendants [Time Warner] point out, there is no direct evidence that the Hill sisters had authorized Summy Co. to grant permission for the publication of the lyrics in The Everyday Song Book.
And concludes:
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy their initial burden under Rule 56. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED as to this issue.
The 1909 Copyright Act, which governs E51990, did not require that a work be registered to obtain a federal copyright. See 2-7 Nimmer 7.16. But registration was nonetheless highly desirable, not only because it was a precondition to the filing of an infringement suit, but also because, once registered, the certificate of registration “shall be admitted in any court as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.” 17 U.S.C. 209 (1909 Act); see also 17 U.S.C. 410(c) (1976 Act) (providing for the presumption of validity in the modern Copyright Act). Furthermore, “[a]lthough the ‘facts’ stated in a certificate of registration are limited to the date, name and description of the work, and name of the registration holder, a majority of courts have held that 209 [of the 1909 Copyright Act] creates a rebuttable presumption that the certificate holder has met all the requirements for copyright validity.” Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 944 F.2d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir. 1991). Once a claimant shows that she has a certificate of registration, the burden of proof shifts to the opposing party who must “offer some evidence or proof to dispute or deny the [claimant’s] prima facie case.” United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2011).
Unlike other algorithms compared here, brotli includes a static dictionary. It contains 13’504 words or syllables of English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Russian and Arabic, as well as common phrases used in machine readable languages, particularly HTML and JavaScript.
This means that brotli isn't a general purpose algorithm, but only built for the web, not more. I guess that future versions of the algorithm will include customized support for other, smaller languages, whose compression databases are only downloaded if you open a web page in that language.
Its not just that. Of course, skype has developed one of the best NAT hole punching algorithms on this planet, but it provides more than just a "dumb wire", like providing friends lists for every user, general state of the user "online, not online, doesn't want to be disturbed, etc", and chat.
If you want the software to "automagically" do its job, it is indeed not a simple task. You'd need to correlate what you hear with what you see, this is generally hard. But if you let the user to the "hard work" and associate e.g. the image of clapping hands with the clap sound, or other visual occurences with their audio counterpart, the software only has to calculate an interpolation, with the easiest setup being splines.
VP9's main difference to VP8 is that it had a massive tradeoff between better compression, and worse encoder performance. This makes VP9 good for static video sites like youtube, but very bad for realtime applications like video chats/conferencing where you encode only once.
VP9 with webrtc is pointless, microsoft knows that. And the war over HTML5 video formats is already lost to H.264. Nobody wants to store and provide videos in two formats, even though all browsers support one.
If they actually want to support open codecs, they should add VP8 to webrtc, or their custom generalized NIH of WebRTC.
For thousands of years, technological advancement was super slow (yea I know, it sounds like pirates vs temp, but this is real).
For thousands of years, we had almost no economy, everybody produced almost everything they needed themselves. Look at indigenous people around the world, they can mostly live without trading regularly, they only trade once per year for things like booze, or guns.
For thousands of years, we had no machines to do our job, we had tools. Our economy is focused at how to improve those machines, and about "higher" services than survival. Our anchestors were motivated to work by the ache in their stomach for food. How are we?
In history, most highly developed societies protected their knowledge as well as they could, against copying. There was no patent system that protected them from infringers. Often, their inventions were never shared, leading in civilisations falling, without much of their knowledge and technology remaining. With the patent system, you publish your findings, and after twenty years everybody is free to use them.
I don't like if companies try to prolong patent protection with tricks, or only publish the general idea, get that protected (trivial patents), and keep the actual algorithms or ideas behind in secret. Patents should be no "I protect now a space ship that can fly without rocket fuel, that uses the internet", they should be "by adding these parts to the train's engine, it uses less fuel, it bases on this general idea, and works this way and that way".
Patents are intended as motivation to share technological secrets, not for giving technology companies a monopoly over obvious ideas.
1. to serve as deterrent 2. protect society from possibly dangerous people 3. give some form of revenge for done crimes, and do it in an ordered way (not letting the damaged do the job)
Here we have at least 1. met.
But 2. is met in some ways as well. He is a danger to economy, and economy is correlated with society in many ways. If people like him go unpunished, everybody would just start a piracy website, and movie studios would have actual losses.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Publish a product that's better than competitors'.
2. Open source it.
3. Earn the cheers from the free software crowd, and get the advantage from external contributors, as only large browser vendor.
4. Your users will love the freedom they have, and your product will be famous for its extendibility. They'll love ad-blockers as the web gets more and more annoying ads.
5. Get more and more market share by staying better than your shitty competitors.
6. Let other browser vendors copy your success by open-sourcing their browser as well, or giving up to EEE the WWW.
7. Start your downfall:
a) Require add-ons to be signed because we live now in a world of apps and every app is is signed.
b) Publish ads in your product's start page. Enjoy the annoyment of your users.
c) Integrate an useless closed source product. (Pocket). Enjoy the annoyment of your users.
d) Announce that your addon API will be locked down.
e) Publish your "principles for content blocking". <====== We are here
f) Enforce them. This is the point of no return.
8. Gently shove a Yoda Doll up your user's asses. Be careful, its larger than the dicks the other browser vendors ram up their ass as well. That's also the only reason your browser is still used.
9. Enjoy your 2% market share.
WiFi routers aren't like mobile phones with separate application processor and baseband. Instead, they only have one chip, mostly due to more cost involved in having two chips. Thats why this new rule is so bad: it doesn't mandate that there is a part that has to remain free, so the vendors do what companies always do, take the cheapest solution (this isn't wrong by itself), and lock down the only processor which does both application and baseband.
The FCC should either mandate that there is a second, fully flashable part of the chip, or simply solve the problem itself, and this is installing proper tracking down hardware at airports where WiFi devices could interfere the wheather radar. Then they could find, stop, and make accountable for, those who abuse the freedom of their WiFi devices. As this costs money, they rather chose to limit freedom, and still remain vulnerable like before. Those who want to attack airports still can get illegal devices.
Fully agree. Is Mars such a hospitable place so that you have to think of a fake reason in order to get somebody in a story stranded on it?
The distance between the "fastest" and "slowest" gets larger and larger, but the gaps are getting smaller because things like SSDs fill them.
Github does not charge to host projects. Github therefore must use one of these three methods to make a profit if they don't start charging for use.
It does: https://github.com/pricing
Only public projects are free. And this is IMO a fair model. If you want to hide your code from the public, it means in most cases that your software is closed source. And that usually means you make money with it, where its just fair to give github a small part of it, these are basic economic "supply chain" rules. Conversely, if your code is public, it most likely is open source as well. There is some public content on github which is not open source licensed, but most of it is.
And about learning git, it has a steep learning curve, but once you know it, its real fun. CVS isn't distributed, I really like git for its speed and features like git blame. Sadly many people think git == github.
1. Download Linux ...
2. Confirm its not Ubuntu
3.
Data are programs and programs are data. There is no real distinction between those two. Also, currently I think that the human component is the weakest part of the system. Of course, the "big bugs" get the news coverage, and some are really serious like heartbleed, mostly because it persists in millions of non-updated devices, but most times, modern cybercriminals just use other means, where the user an some authorization step of some form in order to install the payload, be it the "it department" calling, the classical "password update procedure please visit this website" e-mail, or infected warez the user got via bittorrent.
And building a house is a fairly simple task compared to writing some programs. You should better compare software to digging tunnels in the mountains. You never know what type of stone is ahead, and if you reach sand, you have to cool it so that it's stable etc.
You can make small test drills in order to find that out, but you won't know it for the complete length of the tunnel. And if management now demands that the tunnel has to be larger, it means alot of effort, the longer your tunnel already is.
That's a legal argument that the plaintiffs made. The judge denied that one.
That's correct, the judge denied the argument. However, he argued the argument is denied because the plaintiffs didn't provide evidence that the publication of
Happy Birthday in The Everyday Song Book in 1922 was authorized.
He didn't argue that it was denied because the publication was only done by a licensee, like you say.
If you published an authorized work under the Copyright Act of 1909, and missed a copyright mark, the work would become public domain. From the ruling (some quotes removed):
Under the Copyright Act of 1909, one secured a federal copyright by publishing a
work with proper notice. Before such publication, the work was protected by common
law copyright. If the work was published without notice, two things happened: the
author (1) failed to obtain a federal copyright and (2) lost the common law copyright as
well.
General publication, which would cause a forfeiture, occurs “when, by consent of
the copyright owner, the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned,
given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized
offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner, even if a sale or other such
disposition does not in fact occur.” 1 Nimmer 4.03. By contrast, a limited publication,
which does not cause a forfeiture, is when “tangible copies of the work are distributed
both (1) to a ‘definitely selected group,’ and (2) for a limited purpose, without the right of
further reproduction, distribution or sale.” Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis., 944 F.2d
at 1452. Moreover, “mere performance or exhibition of a work does not constitute a
[general] publication of that work.” Am. Vitagraph, Inc. v. Levy, 659 F.2d 1023, 1027
(9th Cir. 1981).
The judge even said that this would apply for the 1922 publication:
If the [1922] publication was authorized, that could
make it a general publication (without proper copyright notice), divesting the Hill sisters
of their common law copyright.
But later on, he sais:
As Defendants [Time Warner] point out, there is no direct evidence
that the Hill sisters had authorized Summy Co. to grant permission for the publication of
the lyrics in The Everyday Song Book.
And concludes:
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy their initial burden under Rule 56. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED as to this issue.
From the ruling:
The 1909 Copyright Act, which governs E51990, did not require that a work be registered to
obtain a federal copyright. See 2-7 Nimmer 7.16. But registration was nonetheless
highly desirable, not only because it was a precondition to the filing of an infringement
suit, but also because, once registered, the certificate of registration “shall be admitted in
any court as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.” 17 U.S.C. 209 (1909 Act);
see also 17 U.S.C. 410(c) (1976 Act) (providing for the presumption of validity in the
modern Copyright Act). Furthermore, “[a]lthough the ‘facts’ stated in a certificate of
registration are limited to the date, name and description of the work, and name of the
registration holder, a majority of courts have held that 209 [of the 1909 Copyright Act]
creates a rebuttable presumption that the certificate holder has met all the requirements for
copyright validity.” Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. Creative House Promotions,
Inc., 944 F.2d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir. 1991). Once a claimant shows that she has a
certificate of registration, the burden of proof shifts to the opposing party who must “offer
some evidence or proof to dispute or deny the [claimant’s] prima facie case.” United
Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2011).
From the paper:
Unlike other algorithms compared here, brotli includes a static dictionary. It contains 13’504
words or syllables of English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Russian and Arabic, as well as common
phrases used in machine readable languages, particularly HTML and JavaScript.
This means that brotli isn't a general purpose algorithm, but only built for the web, not more. I guess that future versions of the algorithm will include customized support for other, smaller languages, whose compression databases are only downloaded if you open a web page in that language.
Of course, they TTS the communications, its not storage which is the problem.
... or can you simply store some arbitrary log, and tell them it's your actual communication data?
Its not just that. Of course, skype has developed one of the best NAT hole punching algorithms on this planet, but it provides more than just a "dumb wire", like providing friends lists for every user, general state of the user "online, not online, doesn't want to be disturbed, etc", and chat.
Damn, their uptime this year will be less than 99,94%!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
Good idea, but one can also exaggerate it: http://www.aisb.org.uk/media/f...
And yes, this was the last entry on the list provided.
Blockchain patents incoming.
And certification, as you can't just let anybody mine bitcoins, I mean this is anarchy.
If you want the software to "automagically" do its job, it is indeed not a simple task. You'd need to correlate what you hear with what you see, this is generally hard. But if you let the user to the "hard work" and associate e.g. the image of clapping hands with the clap sound, or other visual occurences with their audio counterpart, the software only has to calculate an interpolation, with the easiest setup being splines.
That's what I mean.
Microsoft has IP in linux as well, still they have no native support for ext4.
VP9's main difference to VP8 is that it had a massive tradeoff between better compression, and worse encoder performance. This makes VP9 good for static video sites like youtube, but very bad for realtime applications like video chats/conferencing where you encode only once.
VP9 with webrtc is pointless, microsoft knows that. And the war over HTML5 video formats is already lost to H.264. Nobody wants to store and provide videos in two formats, even though all browsers support one.
If they actually want to support open codecs, they should add VP8 to webrtc, or their custom generalized NIH of WebRTC.
Customers are very fickle and will leave your company if someone improves upon what you have.
They won't leave you if the person who has done the improvement doesn't want to build a big company like yours, just to try whether they can make money with your invention. They enable people running a business much smaller than yours to challenge you. Otherwise, you are just crunched.
There are many industries that don't have patent protections and thrive with innovation.
Can you give me examples?
The government relieves you of the obligation to build up a private army and punish contract breakers yourself.
For thousands of years, technological advancement was super slow (yea I know, it sounds like pirates vs temp, but this is real).
For thousands of years, we had almost no economy, everybody produced almost everything they needed themselves. Look at indigenous people around the world, they can mostly live without trading regularly, they only trade once per year for things like booze, or guns.
For thousands of years, we had no machines to do our job, we had tools. Our economy is focused at how to improve those machines, and about "higher" services than survival. Our anchestors were motivated to work by the ache in their stomach for food. How are we?
In history, most highly developed societies protected their knowledge as well as they could, against copying. There was no patent system that protected them from infringers. Often, their inventions were never shared, leading in civilisations falling, without much of their knowledge and technology remaining. With the patent system, you publish your findings, and after twenty years everybody is free to use them.
I don't like if companies try to prolong patent protection with tricks, or only publish the general idea, get that protected (trivial patents), and keep the actual algorithms or ideas behind in secret. Patents should be no "I protect now a space ship that can fly without rocket fuel, that uses the internet", they should be "by adding these parts to the train's engine, it uses less fuel, it bases on this general idea, and works this way and that way".
Patents are intended as motivation to share technological secrets, not for giving technology companies a monopoly over obvious ideas.
Prison serves multiple goals:
1. to serve as deterrent
2. protect society from possibly dangerous people
3. give some form of revenge for done crimes, and do it in an ordered way (not letting the damaged do the job)
Here we have at least 1. met.
But 2. is met in some ways as well. He is a danger to economy, and economy is correlated with society in many ways. If people like him go unpunished, everybody would just start a piracy website, and movie studios would have actual losses.