How much does it cost to take a license from all patent pools that control at least one essential HEVC patent? If your codec license budget is zero, then a royalty-free codec such as VP9 is superior to HEVC.
If your codec licensing budget is zero, then you better get the hell out of that business.
In fact, I'm not exactly sure why anyone would want something like this. I really don't want something in my home that's always listening and potentially sending my speech out to computers that I don't control.
It's not always listening. It's only listening when you address it with "Hey Siri". And one thing about Apple is that they make their profit by selling you expensive hardware, not by spying on you.
The defendent agreed to the contract by stating publically on their website they licenced the code under the GPL. They could argue that they were lying when they said that and they were merely wilfully infringing copyright but I doubt that would end well for them.
In Germany, some laws are a bit different from the USA, and as a result the GPL has always been a contract. Except one side didn't care whether you agreed to the contract or not. In court, you had the choice to either claim that you agreed to the contract (and therefore were bound by it) or didn't agree to the contract (and therefore committed copyright infringement). This didn't quite consider a dual license case.
This story is about the courts setting precedent which strengthens GPL. I think you need to crush a little more tinfoil on your antenna there, sport.
Exactly that. The GPL is a license and is still a license. This court has said that it is also a contract.
I would have said that if someone has a free choice to use software under the GPL license for free, or to pay for a different license to use the software with fewer obligations, and his actions are contrary to the GPL license, then this means that he has accepted the contract for the commercial license.
Also, the defense here is really weak anyway because GPL is still a license, and by using the software while not following its restrictions, you commit copyright infringement.
Its as simple as this. The court cannot make a judgement on the contents of your brain. If you say you forgot your passcode, by the 5th Amendment, the court is absolutely bound to accept that as the end of it. They dont have to believe you, it doesnt matter, the law forbids them from punishing you for it. The express intent of the 5th is to prevent the court from pretending to be mind readers and then acting on it.
There is one obvious fault with your argument: Reality doesn't agree with it. One guy was convicted. Obviously your credentials as slashdot reader and general "bloke on the internet" make it obvious that your knowledge of law is better than that of the judge. Or maybe it doesn't? And I mean seriously, you are saying that a court is absolutely bound to believe whatever you say? That's nonsense.
And this is why we need new encryption
The kind where you give them the wrong code, the phone explodes
Ooops
Sorry, no evidence of any crime
Don't try it. It's destruction of evidence, a crime in itself. And judge and jury will draw conclusions from the fact that you destroyed the evidence. It's beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence was there and you destroyed it.
As we know from the San Bernardino case, it is not an "unbreakable lock". The government just finds it cheaper to throw a man in jail than pay someone to open the iphone.
An old iPhone 5c with a four digit passcode apparently doesn't have an "unbreakable lock". Newer iPhones can't be cracked that way, and a ten digit passcode can absolutely not be cracked in your life time.
These judges should go back to law school and read about the 5th, and why it exists.
And you should go to law school in the first place. Giving up a password is not testifying against yourself. The password is not evidence. The password is a means to access evidence that you have no right to hide.
(There is a tiny minority of cases where giving the password _would_ be testifying yourself; that is in cases where it is not sure that you are the owner of the device and giving the password clearly proves that you are. )
Apple deducts VAT; in the USA sales tax is added to what the customer pays. That money goes straight to various tax offices in the world. The rest goes to the companies. And Apple verifies you have a company. The companies book it as income, deduct their expenses, and pay their taxes. What did you think how this works?
Anybody from the EU never bothered applying for any visa, because it wasn't needed. I'm not even sure if you could get any visa. But everyone who won't have permanent residence in 2019 and for some reason wants to help keep this shit heap of a country afloat (and we all know the Brits can't do it, they rather claim benefits than work), will have to apply for some kind of visa.
Fortunately UKIP seems to have started its own "LEAVE" campaign. Last local council elections, none of over 140 UKIP councillors kept their seat (and no new ones either).
A while ago they showed on TV a bunch of UKIP MEPs celebrating that the UK decided to leave to EU, and I swear they didn't look like normal human beings. To me, they looked like the result of generations of incest.
But often the pilot is dead, so the blame-game doesn't actually get you very far.
That's when you have a culture that needs to put blame on someone to punish them.
What you should use blame for: To find out who will have to pay for the damage, but in case of an airplane crash it's more important to find the cause so you can make changes in your operations to avoid the same thing or similar things from happening again.
The fact seems to be: The pilot plugged an iPhone into a socket in his plane that looked like a USB socket but wasn't one. There seems to be no more information, so the rest is speculation. For example, we don't know if plugging in any other device with a USB cable would have caused the same problem, or if just plugging in a USB cable would.
Right now we don't even know if this action damaged the iPhone which in turn caused trouble, or if this damaged something in the plane which in turn caused trouble. A good phone shouldn't be damaged by being plugged in into something that provides voltage and current close to what is expected (if you make a 220 Volt outlet that looks like USB you can't blame any device maker if it fries and explodes the device).
Of course, if your repo is 300GB, you've done something wrong.
Maybe what you've done wrong is being one of the most successful software companies for the last forty years, and writing massive amounts of software. Well, maybe there has been one or the other video file check in at some point. That's actually a very good point for this: If some idiot checked a 2 Gigabyte video into your git repository, everyone doing a "git clone" has to download that video! And it can be really hard to remove it. With this file system, you wouldn't care (much).
So Windows is so much more complex than Linux, that it cannot be handled by vanilla Git like the other OS? I was thinking the opposite, unlike Windows Linux includes code for almost all the existing hardware platforms out there, and all the hardware drivers already in the kernel, just to name something.
Total misunderstanding what Microsoft is doing. They have a repository of 300 GB. You know what happens if you have a 300 GB repository and type in "git clone"? A 300 GB download starts. It doesn't matter what operating system, a 300 GB download takes time.
While git can handle this all without problems, it takes time. What Microsoft has done is added a virtual file system on top. When you clone the repository with that virtual file system, all that gets copied is the directory structure and the hashes (at the time you cloned). When you open a file, that's when it gets copied.
This will be useful for anyone with truly large repositories. Say starting with a few Gigabyte. Especially those with repositories with 20 years history, that nobody cares about much, but that you really don't want to destroy.
Another Uber hate story brought to you by the fine people at Lyft and their corporate partner, GM. Give it up Lyft. No one is using you.
Nice reaction. It seems this is not a "hate story", but just a case of Uber badly miscalculating what they should pay drivers according to their contracts (and according to common sense). It seems that Uber paid drivers a percentage of payment minus taxes, so the drivers then had to pay most of those taxes, while Uber kept the money in their pocket.
The word "sports" serves very well as an indicator of someone who is paid to write an advert, giving up any pretence of speaking or writing like a normal human being. Or maybe it's just camouflage for someone who has no talent for copywriting.
It is painfully obvious that the charges in Sweden against Assange were only brought because someone in the Swedish government wanted to curry favor with the US. This type of sex charge is almost never used in Sweden; it is extremely rare.
That's probably because Swedish men know how the system work and don't do that kind of shit. It's painfully obvious that Assange did badly misbehave, in a way that would find him guilty of rape, if proven according to the standards required in Sweden. And a UK court agreed with that. It's also painfully obvious that he jumped bail in the UK, and that's a crime that he ought to go to court for in the UK.
For instance, Germany censors media heavily when it contains Nazi imagery......does that mean it is now legal for you to access it in Germany if you acquired the access somewhere else in the EU?
What makes you think that? The stuff isn't just censored, it's also illegal. (And saying 'Heil Hitler' in a pub in Germany means you will be thrown out, with your teeth following you a few seconds later).
Since nothing prevents subscribing to a service from Western Europe in Eastern Europe, the prices have to be the same across the whole region. Major games on Steam are already too expensive for the poorer half of Europe.
You are misunderstanding that completely. The principle that this rule is derived from is that EU citizens are allowed to move freely within the EU. That implies that they can bring their property from one country to another. That implies that they can bring their Netflix with them. If you paid while you were an EU citizen in Latvia, and then you move to the UK, you can use Netflix in the UK (until March 2019). If you are a US citizen living in Latvia then you have no such right. If you are a Latvian citizen living in the UK and not having Netflix, then you have no right to buy Latvian netflix.
This rule only applies to EU citizens moving to another country.
This is exactly how markets are supposed to work. If there is a temporary shortage, the price should go up so that people with an urgent need can get what they want, while people (like you) that are willing to wait get lower prices.
I will give you a nice example how I saw the market working. A dozen years ago, the drivers driving petrol trucks in Britain went on strike. Huge queues at all petrol stations. One owner of a petrol station decided to take advantage of the situation and doubled his prices. People had to pay, he made a mint.
Then the strike was over. His petrol station was absolutely empty. It took six weeks until he was bankrupt. And that's how it should work. Gouge me and there will retribution.
Uber's profit margin is none of the driver's business. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Uber. I think they're scumbags and you shouldn't work for them. And if you don't think Uber is paying you enough, then that's another good reason to not work for them.
It absolutely is the drivers' and the passengers' business. It's the drivers' business because Uber proposed a deal where each party gets a certain percentage of the pay. It's my business because it means my money doesn't go towards paying for the service, but towards financing the greedy parasites.
In addition, any system that wants to charge me more than someone else for the exact same service pisses me off in a major way. To the extent where I say "shove it up your ****" and use a different service, even if it is more expensive, as long as there is no unfair pricing.
But we can see the reality here: Uber isn't effiient or cheap as some people imagine. Their prices are low because they pay the drivers little, and finance their expensive and inefficient service with investors' money. Now the investors' money seems to run out, they want to pass the cost of their expensive and inefficient service on to customers.
Some problems with that. First, Apple didn't just go in, they paid Xerox money for having a look around at their place and looking at everything Xerox was doing. Adele Goldberg, inventor of Smalltalk, called her bosses idiots (well, that's what she wanted to do, probably put it into a more polite way), but they didn't listen to her. Everything Apple took from Xerox they paid for exactly what was negotiated between the companies.
Second, Apple got less than you might think. For example, one Apple engineer saw overlapping windows at Xerox and implemented them. It turned out the overlapping windows on Xerox machines only existed in his imagination, and the Xerox guys were totally astonished that this was possible.
And a few years later, Microsoft ripped off Apple equally legal because someone at Apple had signed a rather stupid license agreement. Things happen.
Slashdot Mirror
How much does it cost to take a license from all patent pools that control at least one essential HEVC patent? If your codec license budget is zero, then a royalty-free codec such as VP9 is superior to HEVC.
If your codec licensing budget is zero, then you better get the hell out of that business.
In fact, I'm not exactly sure why anyone would want something like this. I really don't want something in my home that's always listening and potentially sending my speech out to computers that I don't control.
It's not always listening. It's only listening when you address it with "Hey Siri". And one thing about Apple is that they make their profit by selling you expensive hardware, not by spying on you.
The defendent agreed to the contract by stating publically on their website they licenced the code under the GPL. They could argue that they were lying when they said that and they were merely wilfully infringing copyright but I doubt that would end well for them.
In Germany, some laws are a bit different from the USA, and as a result the GPL has always been a contract. Except one side didn't care whether you agreed to the contract or not. In court, you had the choice to either claim that you agreed to the contract (and therefore were bound by it) or didn't agree to the contract (and therefore committed copyright infringement). This didn't quite consider a dual license case.
This story is about the courts setting precedent which strengthens GPL. I think you need to crush a little more tinfoil on your antenna there, sport.
Exactly that. The GPL is a license and is still a license. This court has said that it is also a contract.
I would have said that if someone has a free choice to use software under the GPL license for free, or to pay for a different license to use the software with fewer obligations, and his actions are contrary to the GPL license, then this means that he has accepted the contract for the commercial license.
Also, the defense here is really weak anyway because GPL is still a license, and by using the software while not following its restrictions, you commit copyright infringement.
Its as simple as this. The court cannot make a judgement on the contents of your brain. If you say you forgot your passcode, by the 5th Amendment, the court is absolutely bound to accept that as the end of it. They dont have to believe you, it doesnt matter, the law forbids them from punishing you for it. The express intent of the 5th is to prevent the court from pretending to be mind readers and then acting on it.
There is one obvious fault with your argument: Reality doesn't agree with it. One guy was convicted. Obviously your credentials as slashdot reader and general "bloke on the internet" make it obvious that your knowledge of law is better than that of the judge. Or maybe it doesn't? And I mean seriously, you are saying that a court is absolutely bound to believe whatever you say? That's nonsense.
And this is why we need new encryption
The kind where you give them the wrong code, the phone explodes
Ooops
Sorry, no evidence of any crime
Don't try it. It's destruction of evidence, a crime in itself. And judge and jury will draw conclusions from the fact that you destroyed the evidence. It's beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence was there and you destroyed it.
As we know from the San Bernardino case, it is not an "unbreakable lock". The government just finds it cheaper to throw a man in jail than pay someone to open the iphone.
An old iPhone 5c with a four digit passcode apparently doesn't have an "unbreakable lock". Newer iPhones can't be cracked that way, and a ten digit passcode can absolutely not be cracked in your life time.
These judges should go back to law school and read about the 5th, and why it exists.
And you should go to law school in the first place. Giving up a password is not testifying against yourself. The password is not evidence. The password is a means to access evidence that you have no right to hide.
(There is a tiny minority of cases where giving the password _would_ be testifying yourself; that is in cases where it is not sure that you are the owner of the device and giving the password clearly proves that you are. )
Apple deducts VAT; in the USA sales tax is added to what the customer pays. That money goes straight to various tax offices in the world. The rest goes to the companies. And Apple verifies you have a company. The companies book it as income, deduct their expenses, and pay their taxes. What did you think how this works?
Then, the Uber-PHB said "It's not because we shipped all our jobs to the lowest bidder, and It's Not My Fault".
What has Uber to do with this? And if they are involved in any way, we can be sure it's not just their fault, they did it intentionally.
Anybody from the EU never bothered applying for any visa, because it wasn't needed. I'm not even sure if you could get any visa. But everyone who won't have permanent residence in 2019 and for some reason wants to help keep this shit heap of a country afloat (and we all know the Brits can't do it, they rather claim benefits than work), will have to apply for some kind of visa.
Fortunately UKIP seems to have started its own "LEAVE" campaign. Last local council elections, none of over 140 UKIP councillors kept their seat (and no new ones either).
A while ago they showed on TV a bunch of UKIP MEPs celebrating that the UK decided to leave to EU, and I swear they didn't look like normal human beings. To me, they looked like the result of generations of incest.
But often the pilot is dead, so the blame-game doesn't actually get you very far.
That's when you have a culture that needs to put blame on someone to punish them.
What you should use blame for: To find out who will have to pay for the damage, but in case of an airplane crash it's more important to find the cause so you can make changes in your operations to avoid the same thing or similar things from happening again.
The fact seems to be: The pilot plugged an iPhone into a socket in his plane that looked like a USB socket but wasn't one. There seems to be no more information, so the rest is speculation. For example, we don't know if plugging in any other device with a USB cable would have caused the same problem, or if just plugging in a USB cable would.
Right now we don't even know if this action damaged the iPhone which in turn caused trouble, or if this damaged something in the plane which in turn caused trouble. A good phone shouldn't be damaged by being plugged in into something that provides voltage and current close to what is expected (if you make a 220 Volt outlet that looks like USB you can't blame any device maker if it fries and explodes the device).
This is by Eric Raymond. C99 _is_ modern. Not to you, not to me, but to some people.
Of course, if your repo is 300GB, you've done something wrong.
Maybe what you've done wrong is being one of the most successful software companies for the last forty years, and writing massive amounts of software. Well, maybe there has been one or the other video file check in at some point. That's actually a very good point for this: If some idiot checked a 2 Gigabyte video into your git repository, everyone doing a "git clone" has to download that video! And it can be really hard to remove it. With this file system, you wouldn't care (much).
So Windows is so much more complex than Linux, that it cannot be handled by vanilla Git like the other OS? I was thinking the opposite, unlike Windows Linux includes code for almost all the existing hardware platforms out there, and all the hardware drivers already in the kernel, just to name something.
Total misunderstanding what Microsoft is doing. They have a repository of 300 GB. You know what happens if you have a 300 GB repository and type in "git clone"? A 300 GB download starts. It doesn't matter what operating system, a 300 GB download takes time.
While git can handle this all without problems, it takes time. What Microsoft has done is added a virtual file system on top. When you clone the repository with that virtual file system, all that gets copied is the directory structure and the hashes (at the time you cloned). When you open a file, that's when it gets copied.
This will be useful for anyone with truly large repositories. Say starting with a few Gigabyte. Especially those with repositories with 20 years history, that nobody cares about much, but that you really don't want to destroy.
Another Uber hate story brought to you by the fine people at Lyft and their corporate partner, GM. Give it up Lyft. No one is using you.
Nice reaction. It seems this is not a "hate story", but just a case of Uber badly miscalculating what they should pay drivers according to their contracts (and according to common sense). It seems that Uber paid drivers a percentage of payment minus taxes, so the drivers then had to pay most of those taxes, while Uber kept the money in their pocket.
The word "sports" serves very well as an indicator of someone who is paid to write an advert, giving up any pretence of speaking or writing like a normal human being. Or maybe it's just camouflage for someone who has no talent for copywriting.
It is painfully obvious that the charges in Sweden against Assange were only brought because someone in the Swedish government wanted to curry favor with the US. This type of sex charge is almost never used in Sweden; it is extremely rare.
That's probably because Swedish men know how the system work and don't do that kind of shit. It's painfully obvious that Assange did badly misbehave, in a way that would find him guilty of rape, if proven according to the standards required in Sweden. And a UK court agreed with that. It's also painfully obvious that he jumped bail in the UK, and that's a crime that he ought to go to court for in the UK.
For instance, Germany censors media heavily when it contains Nazi imagery... ...does that mean it is now legal for you to access it in Germany if you acquired the access somewhere else in the EU?
What makes you think that? The stuff isn't just censored, it's also illegal. (And saying 'Heil Hitler' in a pub in Germany means you will be thrown out, with your teeth following you a few seconds later).
Since nothing prevents subscribing to a service from Western Europe in Eastern Europe, the prices have to be the same across the whole region. Major games on Steam are already too expensive for the poorer half of Europe.
You are misunderstanding that completely. The principle that this rule is derived from is that EU citizens are allowed to move freely within the EU. That implies that they can bring their property from one country to another. That implies that they can bring their Netflix with them. If you paid while you were an EU citizen in Latvia, and then you move to the UK, you can use Netflix in the UK (until March 2019). If you are a US citizen living in Latvia then you have no such right. If you are a Latvian citizen living in the UK and not having Netflix, then you have no right to buy Latvian netflix.
This rule only applies to EU citizens moving to another country.
This is exactly how markets are supposed to work. If there is a temporary shortage, the price should go up so that people with an urgent need can get what they want, while people (like you) that are willing to wait get lower prices.
I will give you a nice example how I saw the market working. A dozen years ago, the drivers driving petrol trucks in Britain went on strike. Huge queues at all petrol stations. One owner of a petrol station decided to take advantage of the situation and doubled his prices. People had to pay, he made a mint.
Then the strike was over. His petrol station was absolutely empty. It took six weeks until he was bankrupt. And that's how it should work. Gouge me and there will retribution.
Someday, even flea markets and third world village produce stalls will start negotiating prices based on what they think you are willing to pay.
Where do you see that Uber lets you negotiate?
Uber's profit margin is none of the driver's business. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Uber. I think they're scumbags and you shouldn't work for them. And if you don't think Uber is paying you enough, then that's another good reason to not work for them.
It absolutely is the drivers' and the passengers' business. It's the drivers' business because Uber proposed a deal where each party gets a certain percentage of the pay. It's my business because it means my money doesn't go towards paying for the service, but towards financing the greedy parasites.
In addition, any system that wants to charge me more than someone else for the exact same service pisses me off in a major way. To the extent where I say "shove it up your ****" and use a different service, even if it is more expensive, as long as there is no unfair pricing.
But we can see the reality here: Uber isn't effiient or cheap as some people imagine. Their prices are low because they pay the drivers little, and finance their expensive and inefficient service with investors' money. Now the investors' money seems to run out, they want to pass the cost of their expensive and inefficient service on to customers.
Some problems with that. First, Apple didn't just go in, they paid Xerox money for having a look around at their place and looking at everything Xerox was doing. Adele Goldberg, inventor of Smalltalk, called her bosses idiots (well, that's what she wanted to do, probably put it into a more polite way), but they didn't listen to her. Everything Apple took from Xerox they paid for exactly what was negotiated between the companies.
Second, Apple got less than you might think. For example, one Apple engineer saw overlapping windows at Xerox and implemented them. It turned out the overlapping windows on Xerox machines only existed in his imagination, and the Xerox guys were totally astonished that this was possible.
And a few years later, Microsoft ripped off Apple equally legal because someone at Apple had signed a rather stupid license agreement. Things happen.