That's what Google did, they bought On2 (who had been making codecs for 10 years or so without getting sued). I'll believe it when a court rules that a patent actually applies, there is too much for MPEG LA to gain from FUDing VP8 and almost nothing from having an actual patent pool.
Doesn't have the side effect of strangulating the money supply.
Not to mention that assets are subject to risk like any other investment. They'd much prefer to sit on a pile of gold, which can, really, be any resource, just as long as it's the designated currency, as that inflates the value of whatever it is beyond it's utility value and basically ties the whole economy into it. If this "gold" isn't tied to the economy it is just another investment, if it is, then increasing economic output makes their assets worth more without them ever entering the production equation.
And of course, if the assets only keep up with inflation the actual gain from sitting them is net zero, ahead of cash, but cash is economic lube, not (nor should it be) an investment. If you want to save, you want to purchase exactly such stable assets, inflation isn't a monster that suddenly jumps you from behind in a stable, modern economy, it is expected and can be counteracted if retaining value is all you are after.
Randomised positioning is just about a requirement of an on screen keyboard used for this purpose. Of course random key mapping works for the keyboard as well.
What I'm saying is that the argument of "X doesn't make the victim any less dead" holds for any X, so it doesn't give any more, or less weight to any particular X.
But as far as consequences go... If we had a reliable method of determining that a person is no more likely to commit more murders then anyone else, then it would indeed stop being about removing the person from society.
Taxing electricity is unlikely to have resulted in more efficient incandescent bulbs, this did. There isn't really a fixation on light bulbs, but they were ripe for an overhaul at the given time.
I guess you don't see how raising a big stink about something that could have been solved with a swift project rename (or prevented with a dictionary lookup and/or a Google search to see if the project name was taken). And yes, when your first argument is about how someone is acting childish you are trying to sidestep the debate with what amounts to name calling. Pointing out that this is equally childish behaviour is not at all the same.
And what amounts to a good old "you must be bitter" swipe? Please.
Fair enough. It sounds like in the current legal situation higher granularity then full hard drive encryption would be advantageous. I imagine the prosecution would be required to be more specific as to what and why they want decrypted, whereas a whole hard they can request full access while only looking for specific things.
So do you pay the fee, or should we match up your playlist against our library of several million song?
To which the response is: "I have direct licenses from all artists featured, good luck." If that one is intimidating you probably weren't careful about securing rights and possibly really do need to pay up.
And what seems to be lost is that this incredible overreaction to what the critics like to derisively call childish (in what I suspect is an atempt to bypass arguments about why it is a problem, "Come on, it's childish, they are wrong by default!") is incredibly childish on its own.
No, actually they don't do that. There's a reason they send people to your establishment, it's to gather evidence, they wouldn't do that if they were just suing left and right. Now if some of your properly licee
You don't opt out of paying for the music in your establishment, you stop playing theirs and don't pay. They'll come inspect regularly, but if you are clean, you're clean. Hard part is collecting enough music not gobbled up by ASCAP and similar organisations (the RIAA actually doesn't do this).
If it's that unobtrusive, I don't see how it compares to being run over by a car.
The comparison is between two cases of being run over by a car. At no point was a direct comparison made. Let's see how this works in math: 1:2::5465165120:10930330240, as in '1 is to 2 as 5465165120 is to 10930330240'. No more is he comparing Steam to being run over by a car then I'm comparing 2 to 10930330240. Analogies, how do they work?
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on how you define poorer I suppose. Different for sure, but not necessarily worse off.
That's what Google did, they bought On2 (who had been making codecs for 10 years or so without getting sued). I'll believe it when a court rules that a patent actually applies, there is too much for MPEG LA to gain from FUDing VP8 and almost nothing from having an actual patent pool.
Doesn't have the side effect of strangulating the money supply.
Not to mention that assets are subject to risk like any other investment. They'd much prefer to sit on a pile of gold, which can, really, be any resource, just as long as it's the designated currency, as that inflates the value of whatever it is beyond it's utility value and basically ties the whole economy into it. If this "gold" isn't tied to the economy it is just another investment, if it is, then increasing economic output makes their assets worth more without them ever entering the production equation.
And of course, if the assets only keep up with inflation the actual gain from sitting them is net zero, ahead of cash, but cash is economic lube, not (nor should it be) an investment. If you want to save, you want to purchase exactly such stable assets, inflation isn't a monster that suddenly jumps you from behind in a stable, modern economy, it is expected and can be counteracted if retaining value is all you are after.
Better to have the rich "tax" a growing economy by sitting on their deflating currency?
Randomised positioning is just about a requirement of an on screen keyboard used for this purpose. Of course random key mapping works for the keyboard as well.
You should ask Theo...
And how many people use just the stock install? How many use it for a workstation?
What I'm saying is that the argument of "X doesn't make the victim any less dead" holds for any X, so it doesn't give any more, or less weight to any particular X.
But as far as consequences go... If we had a reliable method of determining that a person is no more likely to commit more murders then anyone else, then it would indeed stop being about removing the person from society.
Whether he is executed or not doesn't make the victim any less dead.
Pun intended?
Yes, you are spinning. Either that or you think that watts are a measure of light output, in which case you were spun.
Taxing electricity is unlikely to have resulted in more efficient incandescent bulbs, this did. There isn't really a fixation on light bulbs, but they were ripe for an overhaul at the given time.
Better technology to meet the new demands? Prosperous!
I guess you don't see how raising a big stink about something that could have been solved with a swift project rename (or prevented with a dictionary lookup and/or a Google search to see if the project name was taken). And yes, when your first argument is about how someone is acting childish you are trying to sidestep the debate with what amounts to name calling. Pointing out that this is equally childish behaviour is not at all the same.
And what amounts to a good old "you must be bitter" swipe? Please.
Fair enough. It sounds like in the current legal situation higher granularity then full hard drive encryption would be advantageous. I imagine the prosecution would be required to be more specific as to what and why they want decrypted, whereas a whole hard they can request full access while only looking for specific things.
Also, if its a problem of adoptions, fork it and let the badly named one die for want of users and contributors.
And yet celebrity magazines that publish nonconsensual upskirt (and other "wardrobe malfunction") pictures seem to be popular with both genders...
To which the response is: "I have direct licenses from all artists featured, good luck." If that one is intimidating you probably weren't careful about securing rights and possibly really do need to pay up.
And what seems to be lost is that this incredible overreaction to what the critics like to derisively call childish (in what I suspect is an atempt to bypass arguments about why it is a problem, "Come on, it's childish, they are wrong by default!") is incredibly childish on its own.
Being upset by names that aren't even directed you is childish as well. I don't see why I should take sides in a childish spat.
"We know there is a body. You don't have to incriminate yourself by telling us where you hid it, lead us instead."
No, actually they don't do that. There's a reason they send people to your establishment, it's to gather evidence, they wouldn't do that if they were just suing left and right. Now if some of your properly licee
You don't opt out of paying for the music in your establishment, you stop playing theirs and don't pay. They'll come inspect regularly, but if you are clean, you're clean. Hard part is collecting enough music not gobbled up by ASCAP and similar organisations (the RIAA actually doesn't do this).
"But I need to see Avatar in the theatre, it is the most important thing ever." And on the wheel turns.
The comparison is between two cases of being run over by a car. At no point was a direct comparison made. Let's see how this works in math: 1:2::5465165120:10930330240, as in '1 is to 2 as 5465165120 is to 10930330240'. No more is he comparing Steam to being run over by a car then I'm comparing 2 to 10930330240. Analogies, how do they work?