Microsoft, and the other patent holders, have a solid lock on the patents in H.264, therefore they have complete control over the codec and the users of that codec.
Microsoft doesn't own the patents on H.264.
Apple is also using H.264 because that was probably part of the deal Apple made with the RIAA/MPAA to get their content on iTunes
That's extremely unlikely. Jobs' artificially-imposed user restrictions on apple products exist because he makes tons of money off of them.
This is just like when he decided to put DRM on itunes tracks and refused to license fairplay in order to create vendor lock-in between itunes and the ipod.
Then, after everyone had already bought an ipod because it was the only way to play Jobs' DRM-encumbered music, he removed the DRM that he himself chose to implement. Yay steve! What a pioneer!
Of course, he later came out and claimed that the big, mean, record companies made him do it, but only stupid, gullible douchebags believed that.
"reach for my bluetooth headset, try to get it on my head and adjusted right, make sure it pairs properly with the phone, then answer the call."
Wow, you are seriously doing it wrong.
The idea that "they're trying to force this on tv and radio" is another lie telecoms are paying neoconservative radicals to spread.
Seriously, stop believing everything you hear. It makes you look like an absolute fool.
there is a fear that the govt will go beyond network management policy here...and delve into rule of content on the internet.
You need not have that fear. It will not happen. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. It's simply a lie perpetrated by fearmongering radical right-wing neoconservatives to protect that which they value most: the corporations that give them money to lie on the air.
Now that that's cleared up, do you have any realistic concerns?
How could they make the keyboard a part of the touch interface, and still provide users with a real, physical keyboard that provides substantial haptic feedback that can be used without looking at it?
Keep in mind that's what the vast majority of users want: a real, physical keyboard that provides substantial haptic feedback that can be used without looking at it.
Maybe because that would be utter shit? Good keyboards require real haptic feedback. Hardly anybody would like or use a full-sized touch-screen keyboard as a replacement for a real one.
Apple opted to use DRM not because the music companies forced them to, but because it was beneficial to Apple. The only "evidence" behind what you're saying is what Steve Jobs himself claims. "Oh, help us, help us, we're a poor multi-billion dollar company, the music companies are having their way with us and there's nothing we can do about it!" It's a huge load of bullshit.
Any company opposed to DRM would refuse to do business with any labels that forced it upon them. Apple only pretended to be opposed to DRM so they could play the victim to their fans while simultaneously making millions off them through vendor lock-in. Once they had the lock-in they needed, with millions of people having already bought ipods, made itunes accounts, and gotten used to the music pipeline between the two, Apple started offering limited DRM-less tracks in a format obscure to most mp3 players that weren't made by themselves, and later on released all their music in the same, rarely-seen-on-mp3-players format.
Hooray, the assholes who were punching us in the face to begin with, are now only punching us in the stomach! What heroes! Industry pioneers!
If they're ballsy enough to launch a physical attack on another country, annex territory, and dare the international community to do something about it, they're ballsy enough to sponsor some hackers.
About the only thing you'd have to worry about would be a tsunami.
Tsunamis have wavelengths of hundreds of kilometers and wave heights of only a few feet in open ocean. That means the rig would lift a foot or two, and then go back down once 200 or 300 km of the wave has passed. You would never know it unless somebody told you.
Now a hurricane, on the other hand - you've got massive winds there.
It's more capitalist than you think - Lockheed Martin, the U.S. Defense contractor, makes, owns, and operates 80% of all the red light cameras in the country. Cities don't buy them, they rent them from Lockheed, and Lockheed Martin receives a share of the ticket money.
This isn't a free speech issue. This is a confronting liars
Lying is speech, and so it is covered under free speech. Now if you want to get into the issues of slander or defamation, we already have laws against that. If talk radio slanders somebody, then they would be sued, so the fact that they aren't being sued is proof that they aren't slandering anybody.
If you want to talk about lies, then you can simply set up your own radio station and refute the lies, and hope that nobody wants to silence you just as you want to silence them, or you could just be a sensible person and change the station. Lying alone isn't against the law.
Free speech applies to me as well, buddy, so don't try to silence my view
Stop being dumb. Nobody is trying to silence you, so stop trying to be the martyr instead of the persecutor that you are. I am simply explaining why you should not silence somebody else just because you disagree with what they say.
Besides, either you believe in free speech or you don't believe in free speech. You cannot believe in your own free speech and not believe in somebody else's free speech.
The fact of the matter is you were called out on your anti-free-speech bullshit and now you're getting defensive about it. You may not like people who hold different views from you, you may even be disgusted if you think they lie about something, but the founding principle of America is freedom, and you cannot simultaneously advocate freedom and condemn free speech without contradicting yourself.
Moreover, you should consider the possibility that by the very virtue of some talk show hosts being syndicated by large corporations, they are espousing views that many other people agree with. You are not just advocating silencing the hosts themselves, but all their listeners as well. But I guess everybody is wrong except you, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's the UK filling the Gulf with FAIL
Microsoft, and the other patent holders, have a solid lock on the patents in H.264, therefore they have complete control over the codec and the users of that codec.
Microsoft doesn't own the patents on H.264. Apple is also using H.264 because that was probably part of the deal Apple made with the RIAA/MPAA to get their content on iTunes
That's extremely unlikely. Jobs' artificially-imposed user restrictions on apple products exist because he makes tons of money off of them.
This is just like when he decided to put DRM on itunes tracks and refused to license fairplay in order to create vendor lock-in between itunes and the ipod.
Then, after everyone had already bought an ipod because it was the only way to play Jobs' DRM-encumbered music, he removed the DRM that he himself chose to implement. Yay steve! What a pioneer!
Of course, he later came out and claimed that the big, mean, record companies made him do it, but only stupid, gullible douchebags believed that.
XSS is a web application vulnerability, first and foremost.
"reach for my bluetooth headset, try to get it on my head and adjusted right, make sure it pairs properly with the phone, then answer the call." Wow, you are seriously doing it wrong.
I wonder how the cops feel about getting their time wasted by some moron who keeps reporting something that isn't illegal.
You're confusing the NSA with the CIA. The NSA does SIGINT, the CIA does HUMINT and subversive operations.
Try "You can have this regular chocolate for 49 cents, or this 'fair trade' chocolate for 15 dollars".
Underwater subs?
My god, it's worse than I thought.
I must have missed the memo that said that 0.3 = 30.
The idea that "they're trying to force this on tv and radio" is another lie telecoms are paying neoconservative radicals to spread.
Seriously, stop believing everything you hear. It makes you look like an absolute fool.
You need not have that fear. It will not happen. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. It's simply a lie perpetrated by fearmongering radical right-wing neoconservatives to protect that which they value most: the corporations that give them money to lie on the air.
Now that that's cleared up, do you have any realistic concerns?
How could they make the keyboard a part of the touch interface, and still provide users with a real, physical keyboard that provides substantial haptic feedback that can be used without looking at it? Keep in mind that's what the vast majority of users want: a real, physical keyboard that provides substantial haptic feedback that can be used without looking at it.
Maybe because that would be utter shit? Good keyboards require real haptic feedback. Hardly anybody would like or use a full-sized touch-screen keyboard as a replacement for a real one.
Apple opted to use DRM not because the music companies forced them to, but because it was beneficial to Apple. The only "evidence" behind what you're saying is what Steve Jobs himself claims. "Oh, help us, help us, we're a poor multi-billion dollar company, the music companies are having their way with us and there's nothing we can do about it!" It's a huge load of bullshit. Any company opposed to DRM would refuse to do business with any labels that forced it upon them. Apple only pretended to be opposed to DRM so they could play the victim to their fans while simultaneously making millions off them through vendor lock-in. Once they had the lock-in they needed, with millions of people having already bought ipods, made itunes accounts, and gotten used to the music pipeline between the two, Apple started offering limited DRM-less tracks in a format obscure to most mp3 players that weren't made by themselves, and later on released all their music in the same, rarely-seen-on-mp3-players format. Hooray, the assholes who were punching us in the face to begin with, are now only punching us in the stomach! What heroes! Industry pioneers!
Atmospheric drag? It sure is going to be cool when they come out with a big balloon, covered in multi-inch thick ceramic tiles for heat dispersion.
If they're ballsy enough to launch a physical attack on another country, annex territory, and dare the international community to do something about it, they're ballsy enough to sponsor some hackers.
90% of cops make the other 10% look bad.
Or buy it, don't open it, and return it, to inflate their return numbers.
You must be new here. ;-)
About the only thing you'd have to worry about would be a tsunami.
Tsunamis have wavelengths of hundreds of kilometers and wave heights of only a few feet in open ocean. That means the rig would lift a foot or two, and then go back down once 200 or 300 km of the wave has passed. You would never know it unless somebody told you. Now a hurricane, on the other hand - you've got massive winds there.
It's more capitalist than you think - Lockheed Martin, the U.S. Defense contractor, makes, owns, and operates 80% of all the red light cameras in the country. Cities don't buy them, they rent them from Lockheed, and Lockheed Martin receives a share of the ticket money.
And it's so humble of him to post his joke anonymously so we can focus on the humor rather than the humorist.
That's okay, here's a copy of the article text:
You're thinking of Burma/Myanmar. China made sure to evict all journalists from Tibet before they started beating monks.
This isn't a free speech issue. This is a confronting liars
Lying is speech, and so it is covered under free speech. Now if you want to get into the issues of slander or defamation, we already have laws against that. If talk radio slanders somebody, then they would be sued, so the fact that they aren't being sued is proof that they aren't slandering anybody.
If you want to talk about lies, then you can simply set up your own radio station and refute the lies, and hope that nobody wants to silence you just as you want to silence them, or you could just be a sensible person and change the station. Lying alone isn't against the law.
Free speech applies to me as well, buddy, so don't try to silence my view
Stop being dumb. Nobody is trying to silence you, so stop trying to be the martyr instead of the persecutor that you are. I am simply explaining why you should not silence somebody else just because you disagree with what they say.
Besides, either you believe in free speech or you don't believe in free speech. You cannot believe in your own free speech and not believe in somebody else's free speech. The fact of the matter is you were called out on your anti-free-speech bullshit and now you're getting defensive about it. You may not like people who hold different views from you, you may even be disgusted if you think they lie about something, but the founding principle of America is freedom, and you cannot simultaneously advocate freedom and condemn free speech without contradicting yourself.
Moreover, you should consider the possibility that by the very virtue of some talk show hosts being syndicated by large corporations, they are espousing views that many other people agree with. You are not just advocating silencing the hosts themselves, but all their listeners as well. But I guess everybody is wrong except you, huh?