If I can get a lossless picture for double the size of a lossy format like JPEG, you're damn right I'll use it. PNG is great for a lot of things (web images for one), JPEG is great for others (larger photos or images where space is an issue).
I agree with the first comment of this thread: Why? There's simply no need for another image format when there are more than enough right now to cover one's needs without being patent-encumbered by a company that will likely want to take advantage of their portfolio in the future.
...you gave them permission to distribute......as long as certain requirements are met. If those requirements cannot be met, you cannot distribute the software.
The solutions given almost don't seem worth it, but I'll probably opt-in anyway just so that little bit of money gets drained from Sony so they don't do this again.
I am confused here. You're saying it's "low" to countersue you if you (theoretically, as is this entire discussion) get parts of the GPL invalidated.
Luckily, the GPL has a section suited directly for this legal quandary:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
In effect, you'd either have to get that specific section invalidated as well (good luck), or get the entire GPL ruled unconscionable (in which case the agreement with you and all others for distribution is null and void as a whole, and you'd have to negotiate a new agreement with the copyright holder to continue to be able to distribute).
A judge simply isn't going to "substitute in" a different license if the GPL is invalidated.
a) I do use the xml+xhtml MIME type. View Uberm00 in a browser that supports it (i.e. not IE, Firefox definitely) and check the Content-type sent. If your browser tells my server it supports it, it sends that type.
b) XHTML is fine to use in non-XML content-types. That's why it's XHTML and not XML. There are certain circumstances with oddness (script tags always need an ending tag, for example), but all validate if done correctly. You'll note that the W3C Validator doesn't really care about the Content-type sent from the server, it all validates the same.
c) XHTML is fine to use in the middle of HTML, generally. Using a
won't hurt anything, and using a self-closing script tag (as mentioned by a sibling post) isn't good XHTML practice in the first place.
It's just not that difficult! How hard is it to not use IE-specific code, avoid things like tags, and self-close tags that need it? All my personal works are XHTML 1.1 / CSS 2, and I even usually write HTML in XHTML 1.1 out of habit anyway. There are even ways to get around IE restrictions on what you can do, such as Sl eight</a> for PNG translucency, that don't break standards-compatibility.
I was able to get to Google China without difficulty, in Firefox. It may be that you don't have the appropriate language pack for your browser. However, AFAIK the censorship only works if Google detects that you are indeed in China, so you can't test it from outside.
Indeed, I just found this out. No point to this at all....Of course, if they DID have free hi-fi tracks, I'd be the first to download them, strip out the DRM, and listen forever. But that's no reason not to do it!;^)
This is key. Innovation will simply come from countries that don't have as restrictive laws, who will then be able to capitalize on their inventions. There are many brilliant people in the world; the patent system of the United States is going to be their scientific and innovative downfall.
I don't blame Google either, considering that the ads aren't placed on the typo-squatting sites BY Google, they're placed by the typo-squatters themselves! What is Google supposed to do, weed out any advertisers that seem like they might be using the ads in a non-standard way?
I'll be the first to say it: I'm a cynic. Nothing's wrong with wanting to make a little cash. However, something is wrong with taking a free project and making it, essentially, a non-free project. I'm not saying Azureus is necessarily going to do this (and according to a sibling post it may be open source anyway, so it might not matter), but so many times in the past (e.g. Napster, Kazaa, Suprnova) I've seen a great P2P project corrupted by greed into something much worse than the original. That's not simply making a piece of software to make money (which again, is fine, considering I make a living off of development), it's taking a previously free piece of software and forcing ads down the throats of people who want the new version. IMHO, that's not fine, and I'm not going to stay with them if they do that.
Before I read it, I was going to tag this article 'whoopdedoo' because who really gives a shit if Madden is ported to another system, but this actually looks kinda interesting. Obvious, given the controller's capabilities, but interesting nonetheless. Kudos to EA for actually thinking of a sports game idea I might actually want to play. Now, whether it actually pans out to a playable game or not, that's a different story.
Slashdot Mirror
If I can get a lossless picture for double the size of a lossy format like JPEG, you're damn right I'll use it. PNG is great for a lot of things (web images for one), JPEG is great for others (larger photos or images where space is an issue).
I agree with the first comment of this thread: Why? There's simply no need for another image format when there are more than enough right now to cover one's needs without being patent-encumbered by a company that will likely want to take advantage of their portfolio in the future.
Stranger things have happened; I found my girlfriend on Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates.
...you gave them permission to distribute... ...as long as certain requirements are met. If those requirements cannot be met, you cannot distribute the software.
Period.
That's why you go for the payment of $7.50. As I said, almost not worth it, but it adds up if enough people choose the cash option.
Yeah.
Cause clearly a filing clerk working at a completely unrelated division of Sony should be punished for this.
</sarcasm>
Here's the claim filing website for the Sony BMG settlement, since I didn't see a link to it in the article.
The solutions given almost don't seem worth it, but I'll probably opt-in anyway just so that little bit of money gets drained from Sony so they don't do this again.
Well, previously I haven't been blocking Google's ads because they were just text. I guess that will change now.
I'm sure as hell not wasting my bandwidth downloading a VIDEO every time I visit a page.
I am confused here. You're saying it's "low" to countersue you if you (theoretically, as is this entire discussion) get parts of the GPL invalidated.
Luckily, the GPL has a section suited directly for this legal quandary:
In effect, you'd either have to get that specific section invalidated as well (good luck), or get the entire GPL ruled unconscionable (in which case the agreement with you and all others for distribution is null and void as a whole, and you'd have to negotiate a new agreement with the copyright holder to continue to be able to distribute).
A judge simply isn't going to "substitute in" a different license if the GPL is invalidated.
I believe you would be looking for the Hymn project.
And just for shits and giggles, you could use FreeMe or DRM2WMV for Windows Media 10 DRM'd files.
Trust me, cracking 11 is just a matter of time.
a) I do use the xml+xhtml MIME type. View Uberm00 in a browser that supports it (i.e. not IE, Firefox definitely) and check the Content-type sent. If your browser tells my server it supports it, it sends that type.
b) XHTML is fine to use in non-XML content-types. That's why it's XHTML and not XML. There are certain circumstances with oddness (script tags always need an ending tag, for example), but all validate if done correctly. You'll note that the W3C Validator doesn't really care about the Content-type sent from the server, it all validates the same.
c) XHTML is fine to use in the middle of HTML, generally. Using a
won't hurt anything, and using a self-closing script tag (as mentioned by a sibling post) isn't good XHTML practice in the first place.
As styles they are, as tags they aren't in XHTML.
</standards-nazi>
(Yes, I know that's not a tag.)
I'm a paid web developer / PHP coder. What is it about standards that you find so difficult?
Gah, sorry about that, forgot about using Extrans. Sleight.
It's just not that difficult! How hard is it to not use IE-specific code, avoid things like tags, and self-close tags that need it? All my personal works are XHTML 1.1 / CSS 2, and I even usually write HTML in XHTML 1.1 out of habit anyway. There are even ways to get around IE restrictions on what you can do, such as Sl eight</a> for PNG translucency, that don't break standards-compatibility.
Actually, its first use was in Baltimore, Maryland.
Anyway, I hope it reaches other cities like mine soon as it seems like a good idea.
This functionality (or a version thereof) will be standard, as a new version of the discussion system is currently being tested by subscribers. You're able to hide an entire thread by clicking its title, if I remember correctly.
I knew it, I think I hit day 900 at one point.
I was able to get to Google China without difficulty, in Firefox. It may be that you don't have the appropriate language pack for your browser. However, AFAIK the censorship only works if Google detects that you are indeed in China, so you can't test it from outside.
As posted above, the bitrate is garbage so you can't really even record it, which IMHO would be the only good use for this service.
Indeed, I just found this out. No point to this at all. ...Of course, if they DID have free hi-fi tracks, I'd be the first to download them, strip out the DRM, and listen forever. But that's no reason not to do it! ;^)
...(at least in the USA anyway!)
This is key. Innovation will simply come from countries that don't have as restrictive laws, who will then be able to capitalize on their inventions. There are many brilliant people in the world; the patent system of the United States is going to be their scientific and innovative downfall.
I don't blame Google either, considering that the ads aren't placed on the typo-squatting sites BY Google, they're placed by the typo-squatters themselves! What is Google supposed to do, weed out any advertisers that seem like they might be using the ads in a non-standard way?
I'll be the first to say it: I'm a cynic. Nothing's wrong with wanting to make a little cash. However, something is wrong with taking a free project and making it, essentially, a non-free project. I'm not saying Azureus is necessarily going to do this (and according to a sibling post it may be open source anyway, so it might not matter), but so many times in the past (e.g. Napster, Kazaa, Suprnova) I've seen a great P2P project corrupted by greed into something much worse than the original. That's not simply making a piece of software to make money (which again, is fine, considering I make a living off of development), it's taking a previously free piece of software and forcing ads down the throats of people who want the new version. IMHO, that's not fine, and I'm not going to stay with them if they do that.
Yeah, and just watch their usage plummet like a stone once they actually release the adware-bundled version.
They're getting greedy, that's all.
Before I read it, I was going to tag this article 'whoopdedoo' because who really gives a shit if Madden is ported to another system, but this actually looks kinda interesting. Obvious, given the controller's capabilities, but interesting nonetheless. Kudos to EA for actually thinking of a sports game idea I might actually want to play. Now, whether it actually pans out to a playable game or not, that's a different story.