That is all well and good, but, the fact stands that it is impossible to legally create an open source H.264 enabled browser
Nonsense. There are many Open Source licenses. Not all of them are Free Software. It would be perfectly possible to do so.
To clarify that point: Even if Google or Mozilla paid MPEG-LA royalties for their own browsers, the browsers would not be freely redistributable, which violates a fundamental principle of free and open source software.
No, it's not. The principle of Open Source is about having the source code available. It has nothing to do with not charging money for the software. Even the GPL allows you to charge money for software.
It's amazing how many people here pontificate about FOSS, without even understand the most basic principles. It's not about free beer at all.
Already has made it illegal to distribute in GPL form - because "free for noncommercial use" is still incompatible with the GPL, because GPL makes (and can make) no distinction between "commercial" and "noncommercial" users
How does this make it incompatible with the GPL? Commercial users would pay the fee, non-commercial users wouldn't. The GPL doesn't have to distinguish between users for this to apply.
Really, I'm surprised that there aren't more people on Slashdot who believe that kids are a burden and an expense. I don't know why that's hard to believe.
What? I never argued that kids weren't burdensome and expensive. Of course they are.
I argued that your decision to have them was not selfless, as it involved considerations of your self and your ego.
Geez, look for the anti-trust enforcement against IBM and Microsoft.
Yes, there was anti-trust action against IBM and Microsoft. Neither of which had anything to do with Apple's creation as a company. Heck, the anti-trust cases against Microsoft came a couple of decades after Apple's incorporation, and the IBM cases were about a decade before.
Either way, none of the anti-trust actions had any significant effects on either the market at large or Apple specifically. You have some very strange notions of computing industry history.
Google can distribute Flash without paying a license fee. Adobe wont change that in the near future as it keeps copies of CS selling.
In other words, Google doesn't care about the principles of Open Source, only about getting something for free?
Geee, I wonder why people accuse them of hypocrisy. They do this kind of thing all the time - "Oh, we're all about openness and freedom, except for when we did this deal to run proprietary software for our benefit."
Sorry, I just don't believe your "it's totally selfless" argument. Unless you're insane, consideration of the self always plays at some level, whether you are conscious of it or willing to admit it or not.
How is it easier to orchestrate a DDoS attack after a hard day's work than write a letter to your congressperson, or to a newspaper, or something? At least those options would be more effective.
Before the iPod existed, Apple promoted iTunes with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign. If Apple was so gung-ho about DRM, why did iTunes rip to DRM-free files? If you actually remember this, at the time, Apple was under heavy attack from the record companies for promoting "piracy."
How is it "suggestive, when it was months before Amazon's store opened?
... any earlier revelations about Apples unwillingness to use DRM?
Yes. From Steve Jobs' memo on DRM:
"When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices. Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time..."
That pretty clearly indicates that Apple never wanted it in the first place. Why would they? It's just an additional complexity, another headache to program that would cost them money to develop and maintain.
So, do you have evidence that Apple and Amazon were in cahoots and telling each other their plans? I prefer to base my reasoning on facts and evidence rather than wild conspiracy theories and speculation.
So most smart phones have a 1ghz chip (just a guess) and windows XP ran well on a1ghz chip, why invent a new crappy W OS like 7?
Because Windows desktop versions only run on power-hungry Intel chips, rather than the ARM chips that they use in mobile devices to save power? Also because desktop Operating Systems aren't well suited to small touch-screen devices?
I have a windows mobile phone from the generation before. I tell everyone I'm able: it really is the worst product that I've ever seen actually released. I have NO idea how it was put on the market, because it is so fundamentally nonfunctional in so many primary features...
Apple only had a market to sell to because anti-trust enforcement created the market.
Are you aware that nothing you are saying is true? Can you please cite which specific anti-trust law enforcement was the only reason Apple has "a market to sell to"?
Many apps are only available for iOS; it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid iOS.
How is it difficult? You just don't buy Apple products. More people have a problem finding the money to buy them. I'm sure they'd love to hear how difficult it is for them to avoid having the cash.
Which zolltron seems not to realize, since he referenced them in defense of "common day" philosophers.
I think your reading comprehension is lacking. The comment about "common day philosophers" was related to a completely different argument than that about the historical influence of philosophers on science. Just go back and re-read the post.
Because you give up a whole heck of a lot of fun, opportunity, and money to have kids.
But aren't kids worth more than money and all that? If they aren't, then you must admit that you are making your life more miserable by having kids. But I don't believe you really think that.
Unless you do believe that your children will cause less happiness, then you have to admit that you are doing it for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
That is all well and good, but, the fact stands that it is impossible to legally create an open source H.264 enabled browser
Nonsense. There are many Open Source licenses. Not all of them are Free Software. It would be perfectly possible to do so.
To clarify that point: Even if Google or Mozilla paid MPEG-LA royalties for their own browsers, the browsers would not be freely redistributable, which violates a fundamental principle of free and open source software.
No, it's not. The principle of Open Source is about having the source code available. It has nothing to do with not charging money for the software. Even the GPL allows you to charge money for software.
It's amazing how many people here pontificate about FOSS, without even understand the most basic principles. It's not about free beer at all.
And besides, if you want to start writing your own browser to compete with the big guys, do you want to pay $6.5 million?
Just call whatever library the OS uses to play H.264, let the OS vendor pay the licensing fees.
Already has made it illegal to distribute in GPL form - because "free for noncommercial use" is still incompatible with the GPL, because GPL makes (and can make) no distinction between "commercial" and "noncommercial" users
How does this make it incompatible with the GPL? Commercial users would pay the fee, non-commercial users wouldn't. The GPL doesn't have to distinguish between users for this to apply.
That's perfectly compatible with having a means of punishing actors who attempt to initiate force in some fashion.
Punishing actors requires force. So, how can laissez-faire capitalism exist when an actor is allowed to use force?
Really, I'm surprised that there aren't more people on Slashdot who believe that kids are a burden and an expense. I don't know why that's hard to believe.
What? I never argued that kids weren't burdensome and expensive. Of course they are.
I argued that your decision to have them was not selfless, as it involved considerations of your self and your ego.
Humans are wired for altruism. Doing something for other people is in fact being selfish since it fulfills your own desires (to help others).
Exactly. Altruism is not the same as being selfless, because the self is intricately involved.
I lived through that history; you're wrong.
So, you lived through it, but you can't provide any actual examples?
Geez, look for the anti-trust enforcement against IBM and Microsoft.
Yes, there was anti-trust action against IBM and Microsoft. Neither of which had anything to do with Apple's creation as a company. Heck, the anti-trust cases against Microsoft came a couple of decades after Apple's incorporation, and the IBM cases were about a decade before.
Either way, none of the anti-trust actions had any significant effects on either the market at large or Apple specifically. You have some very strange notions of computing industry history.
1) Be Generic (ie. Kleenex)
How is "Kleenex" generic? Because you use it to kleen your ex? Or do you use it to klee your nex?
Google can distribute Flash without paying a license fee. Adobe wont change that in the near future as it keeps copies of CS selling.
In other words, Google doesn't care about the principles of Open Source, only about getting something for free?
Geee, I wonder why people accuse them of hypocrisy. They do this kind of thing all the time - "Oh, we're all about openness and freedom, except for when we did this deal to run proprietary software for our benefit."
Sorry, I just don't believe your "it's totally selfless" argument. Unless you're insane, consideration of the self always plays at some level, whether you are conscious of it or willing to admit it or not.
How is it easier to orchestrate a DDoS attack after a hard day's work than write a letter to your congressperson, or to a newspaper, or something? At least those options would be more effective.
T-Mobile is a German company, owned by Deutsche Telecom, I believe. They have customers all over Europe, as well as in the US.
No shit, but T-Mobile Germany or USA is not going to provide you with service in the UK.
the problem is. there is nowhere to migrate that's substantially better (in the united states).
If you live n the UK, why would you be looking for a US carrier?
P.S:
Before the iPod existed, Apple promoted iTunes with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign. If Apple was so gung-ho about DRM, why did iTunes rip to DRM-free files? If you actually remember this, at the time, Apple was under heavy attack from the record companies for promoting "piracy."
The timing is suggestive...
How is it "suggestive, when it was months before Amazon's store opened?
... any earlier revelations about Apples unwillingness to use DRM?
Yes. From Steve Jobs' memo on DRM:
"When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices. Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time..."
That pretty clearly indicates that Apple never wanted it in the first place. Why would they? It's just an additional complexity, another headache to program that would cost them money to develop and maintain.
And yet WSJ and FoxNews have the same parent corporation. Funny how that works out.
Not really. Parent companies often pay little attention to their offspring, just like human parents.
Copyrights and patents are fine examples of government regulation that encourages innovation.
Only moments later, mozumber was introduced to slashdot. The results were not good.
Secret to the general public.
So, do you have evidence that Apple and Amazon were in cahoots and telling each other their plans? I prefer to base my reasoning on facts and evidence rather than wild conspiracy theories and speculation.
So most smart phones have a 1ghz chip (just a guess) and windows XP ran well on a1ghz chip, why invent a new crappy W OS like 7?
Because Windows desktop versions only run on power-hungry Intel chips, rather than the ARM chips that they use in mobile devices to save power? Also because desktop Operating Systems aren't well suited to small touch-screen devices?
Everyone I've talked to who works at both MS and Apple know what they are doing
I would imagine that the number of people who work at both Apple and Microsoft is very low.
I have a windows mobile phone from the generation before. I tell everyone I'm able: it really is the worst product that I've ever seen actually released. I have NO idea how it was put on the market, because it is so fundamentally nonfunctional in so many primary features...
So, why did you buy it in the first place?
Apple only had a market to sell to because anti-trust enforcement created the market.
Are you aware that nothing you are saying is true? Can you please cite which specific anti-trust law enforcement was the only reason Apple has "a market to sell to"?
Many apps are only available for iOS; it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid iOS.
How is it difficult? You just don't buy Apple products. More people have a problem finding the money to buy them. I'm sure they'd love to hear how difficult it is for them to avoid having the cash.
Which zolltron seems not to realize, since he referenced them in defense of "common day" philosophers.
I think your reading comprehension is lacking. The comment about "common day philosophers" was related to a completely different argument than that about the historical influence of philosophers on science. Just go back and re-read the post.
Because you give up a whole heck of a lot of fun, opportunity, and money to have kids.
But aren't kids worth more than money and all that? If they aren't, then you must admit that you are making your life more miserable by having kids. But I don't believe you really think that.
Unless you do believe that your children will cause less happiness, then you have to admit that you are doing it for yourself.