Have you ever read the license terms of an HD camera
No, and neither have you, you have just read what somebody on the internet claims it means.
That license agreement is there to cover the manufacturer's ass. They have paid their license to produce a device that encodes and decodes h.264. However, they have not paid for a license for you to distribute that content. They couldn't, because the cost of that license depends on how much you distribute. Non-commercial distribution is free, which is why they put that in the license agreement.
You do not need a license to encode on a licensed encoder, commercial or not. You do need one to distribute. If you are a filmmaker, you likely pay this license when you have discs pressed. This is nothing new, it's been this way for a long time. MPEG-2 on DVDs is the exact same.
No. The person distributing the software you use should have paid for a license. You are not making an encoder, and you are not distributing encoded content, so you need no license.
There is no "license to create". There is a license to produce an encoder, paid by the makers of your camera, or your software. And there is the license for distributing, which was free for free video on the web, and is now free forever.
The reason your programs all work is that everybody is forced to live with the limitations and don't actually make the kind of programs that would have big problems with the different distros.
See, what you did is, you planted all these hooks in that post, where people can go "Hey! That's Object Permanence! I know about that, and therefore this is a chance to show the world my Superior Knowledge!"
And then they just adjusted their reading of your post in such a fashion as to allow them to show the world how clever they are. That is indeed the basics of trolling: If you just get something something wrong that the person reading is bound to know about, they will be forced to take you seriously and respond.
I did the exact same thing, and got the same result. However, I recalled hearing that the option has existed for some time already, and has just been very well hidden.
I looked it up, and the trick is to go to this address:
Actually, Apple chose Objective-C because the entire OS X API is implemented and exposed through Objective-C, and iOS is an offspring of OS X. And the reason OS X uses Objective-C is because NeXT used Objective-C.
Slashdot is equally full of Apple fanbois and apologists.
That's ridiculous. The Slashdot user base is heavily biased against Apple. The fact that you name a single name of someone who is supposedly an "apologist" is pretty telling.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever read the license terms of an HD camera
No, and neither have you, you have just read what somebody on the internet claims it means.
That license agreement is there to cover the manufacturer's ass. They have paid their license to produce a device that encodes and decodes h.264. However, they have not paid for a license for you to distribute that content. They couldn't, because the cost of that license depends on how much you distribute. Non-commercial distribution is free, which is why they put that in the license agreement.
You do not need a license to encode on a licensed encoder, commercial or not. You do need one to distribute. If you are a filmmaker, you likely pay this license when you have discs pressed. This is nothing new, it's been this way for a long time. MPEG-2 on DVDs is the exact same.
No, he got it right the first time. There is a license for distributing, not for encoding.
No. The person distributing the software you use should have paid for a license. You are not making an encoder, and you are not distributing encoded content, so you need no license.
The same FSF that has been warmly recommending Java as a "free" language.
There is no "license to create". There is a license to produce an encoder, paid by the makers of your camera, or your software. And there is the license for distributing, which was free for free video on the web, and is now free forever.
The reason your programs all work is that everybody is forced to live with the limitations and don't actually make the kind of programs that would have big problems with the different distros.
Like, for instance, closed-source modern games.
how are you supposed to use it as an antenna extender without using another longer-range wireless system to communicate with it?
Why "without"? You use a another longer-range wireless system to communicate with it, problem solved.
And if you count all the subatomic particles before and after a nuclear reaction, they are all still there as well.
Well, for the main fission reactions, sure. But there are a lot of secondary reactions that will create and destroy nucleons and electrons.
See, what you did is, you planted all these hooks in that post, where people can go "Hey! That's Object Permanence! I know about that, and therefore this is a chance to show the world my Superior Knowledge!"
And then they just adjusted their reading of your post in such a fashion as to allow them to show the world how clever they are. That is indeed the basics of trolling: If you just get something something wrong that the person reading is bound to know about, they will be forced to take you seriously and respond.
Do you have any idea how many times Microsoft has already launched a "tablet that is more like a PC"?
I've lost count. Probably five times at least, going back to the days of Windows 95 for Pen Computing.
Each and every time, it has failed miserably.
Then Apple make a tablet that is not "more like a PC". And they succeed wildly.
And then you claim that making a tablet like a PC is supposed to be an advantage.
There is nothing to confuse. The images are part of a commercial work, which is not allowed by the license.
What on earth is a "working juggernaut"?
I did the exact same thing, and got the same result. However, I recalled hearing that the option has existed for some time already, and has just been very well hidden.
I looked it up, and the trick is to go to this address:
http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account
It is different because the mod scene generally works on games that are good and that people care about.
The companies may not pay for it, but that does not mean there are not others who will pay.
Actually, Apple chose Objective-C because the entire OS X API is implemented and exposed through Objective-C, and iOS is an offspring of OS X. And the reason OS X uses Objective-C is because NeXT used Objective-C.
Ubuntu is not gay, it is bisexual.
Why bother naming names, when I can just open any story whatsoever about Apple, and get a face full of angry bashing?
Yes, there is ONE PERSON working on Firefox, and when he has to take the time out of the day to fix Facebook, nothing else gets done!
Slashdot is equally full of Apple fanbois and apologists.
That's ridiculous. The Slashdot user base is heavily biased against Apple. The fact that you name a single name of someone who is supposedly an "apologist" is pretty telling.
Pointing out that Slashdot is full of anti-Apple fanboys means your "braiin was washed in Apple juice"?
Firefox supports h.264 just fine.
As long as it is wrapped in Flash.
Free browsers will never be able to support H264
That is entirely incorrect. Most OSes provide APIs for playing h.264 video, which free browsers can easily use.
Mozilla is just choosing to not take advantage of this offer.
Nowhere in that quote does he say that the MPEG-LA developed those standards.
We are letting who do what now?