You can run Oracle's products on Mac hardware already. That's not the issue.
The article is speculating that Oracle, who bought MySQL, may sue Apple if they start including MySQL as a packaged and preinstalled part of their OS X server distribution. Silly, you say, because there's still an open-source branch of MySQL free to download and distribute. Apple certainly hasn't stated that they are worried about the possibility, it's just speculation in this article. However stupid it may seem, keep in mind that Oracle is suing Google over using Java technology in Android - OpenJDK being open-source and Oracle explicitly receiving an OK to do so from Sun before Oracle bought them, Google is still suing. Perhaps it's not stupid.
That said, PostgreSQL has a lot going for it and it's probably a much better suited default database for the most part. The only thing that PostgreSQL really has against it is that it doesn't have as much mindshare. There's all sorts of GUI front-ends and toolkits that talk to MySQL but fewer that talk to PostgreSQL.
I note that Retreveo never actually published their survey question. The wording of the question is important, since Apple has long referred to their hardware by "generations", so the first model in a series is referred to as 1G, the next 2G, etc. By Apple's own accounting, the iPhone 4 is "iPhone3,1" for the GSM version and "iPhone3,3" for the Verizon version -- but it's the 4th model released to market, so some consider it the 4th generation (4G) model of the iPhone.
If the question was simply, "is your phone a 4G phone?" then it's an imprecise question. If they asked "does your phone support 4G mobile?", then you may get a different response. Since we don't know the question, we can't guess to the meaning of the response.
Provider's are dropping unlimited access left and right. It's simply indefensible to propose a technology that would quietly consume bandwidth based on a presumed future request for information.
I fear I shall purchase such a device. My annual bonus shall be distributed soon and the peer pressure is great. We are working with iPads in the office, and I have a fantasy of using such a device as a gaming (board/tabletop RPG) aid (I recognize I will need to do some of my own development)... Oh, the gadget-goodness, it burns...
Of course, my employer will probably provide me with one, in which case, I can save some money...
If they want to promote the format, a browser plugin is a poor choice. The non-WebM browsers differ from the OSS browsers in that they leverage the host operating systems' media frameworks for video playback.
For OS X, they should provide a QuickTime codec plugin, and for Windows, a MediaPlayer codec plugin.
This will not only enable the browser to playback WebM content, but also permit all the software for either of those platforms to transcode to and from the WebM format. If they only provide a browser plugin, they are drastically short-changing the format itself. It's ignorant to believe that people are only using video in their browser.
To be fair, the patents covering h.264 expire after 20 years after they were granted, and the technology existed when the MPEG4 standard (of which h.264 is a subsection) was ratified in 1998. So h.264 will be free and clear at least by 2018, but I believe major pieces of it expire in 2014 (hence the termination date for the license).
Also, h.264 refers to a section of the MPEG4 standard. There's already and h.265, and it's the next chapter in the standard. A new format would carry the designation MPEG5.
Apple does not prohibit you from installing software that isn't from the app store. In fact, they have an officially endorsed mechanism to do so -- though it's impractical for anything but a business to do. You aren't violating any license by jail-breaking your phone either. Sure, Apple won't support it or warranty it with a jailbreak, but that's different.
Even if it were true, though, the GPL only covers the requirement that the source be available and that you don't charge more than a nominal fee for redistribution.
Apple pulled the app because one of the app developers was making legal threats about the app being submitted to the store. Why would anyone deal with that sort of thing? I wouldn't sell the app either if one of the developers told me he'd force me to lawyer up over it.
I'm not sure that the question really makes sense. It's highly unlikely either will eliminate the other, and truthfully "winning" for a consumer is merely getting what they want for the price they want to pay. Ultimately, the cost of the data plan and not the phone will decide the price. The quality of the experience does depend somewhat on the OS, and to a point, the hardware, but it's really the data service and compatibility with external services and standards (like HTML5) that define the experience.
If you are asking which platform will be the most robustly profitable, iOS will take the cake. Android will sell more units because it's supported by more vendors, encompasses more models, and is sold by more carriers. However, the Android menagerie means slimmer margins all around. Every phone has overhead in engineering, manufacturing, and support -- Apple pays for one, HTC pays that cost 5 times over, as does Motorola. For the carriers, each model of phone has an overhead, and in the case of Android phones, the carriers are taking upon themselves the role as tester and gateway for OS upgrades, and even pre-configuring apps and things on the phones -- again, a cut into the margins.
If Apple and Android vendor X sell phones for exactly the same price, Apple will still net twice the profit. For the carrier, the net on the phone itself will be higher from Apple, but it's still a pittance compared to what they make off data service -- which is phone-independent (more or less; if one phone made sales of expensive data plans increase, it might matter, but in practice Android and iOS are a draw there). However, the carriers still make out a little better on iPhone because the carrier bears no responsibility for the platform -- no customization, no OS pre-testing / roll-out, even warranty support is out-sourced to Apple.
I love both platforms, truth be told, but the iOS model is very stable and profitable. It's not going to sink without a catastrophic event. Likewise, Android's openness assures that it will have footing for a very long time, but the model for that platform is going to continue to be slim margins. Ultimately, the only way to increase margins for Android is going to have to move to a streamlined iOS platform, or to build extremely high-end phones where the cost compensates for the low margins. I suspect you'll see Android split into segments like computers: low-end corners-cut models for consumers, boring-but-silly-expensive models aimed at business, and hipster models that target consumers that want something without frills but without cutting corners.
What I do think is that they will trounce Windows Mobile 7 and RIM phones. WinMo7 and RIM don't have the openness of Android, the streamline of iOS, or the dynamic evolution of either (RIM's doing better, though). Both platforms suffer from the overhead of engineering multiple handsets, require a non-trivial carrier support model, etc. Basically, they are decent platforms that combine all the implementation negatives of Android and iOS with no compensating positives. They will ride out their company's investments in the platform, existing contracts, and platform familiarity, but they simply aren't competitive on their own merits (disregarding the UI and apps for the platforms).
I had the idea about 5 years ago for an implementation of downloadable sound packages for electric vehicles and speakers in the car's exterior to play them for just this very reason. They'd respond the the car's velocity and change in velocity so you could get the sounds of associated with changing gears, or switching from a trot to a gallop.
I toyed with the idea of patenting the whole thing, but decided that the risk was too high (risk that there'd not be enough electric vehicles before the patent expired, risk that you'd barely make back the investment in the patent process, etc.).
Still, I think it would be popular to wirelessly download a CruiseTone into your Nissan Leaf and make it sound just like a Porsche 911, or perhaps a stampeding elephant.
The hybrid of P. leo and P. tigris is called a Liger. It's the biggest of the big cats (up to 900kg).
In fact, there are a number of other well-known hybrid big cat varieties: tigon, and their hybrid offspring litigons and titigons. There's also pumapards. All have varying degrees of fertility. The liger and tiglons have been known to appear naturally.
Personally, I think they could milk it and just go with other wild cats like lynxes, ocelots, etc.
Hehe. We had one of those IT department brainstorming sessions once (I was in research at the time) and they were talking about this shiny new platform that they were going to roll out, I simply asked what the cost was. They threw out some figures about how they priced it an it would cost X dollars to implement over Y years. So, I asked "does that include the cost of decommission?" and got blank stares all around... The notion that you estimate the cost of getting out of abandoning / migrating away from a product never occurred to them! Products tend to not be all that flexible, they change over time, and business needs and processes often diverge from the product or a better product comes along -- we have fairly good ideas on what the platform turn-over is going to look like, how open various platforms are, etc. We can estimate the CoD with some accuracy. So why don't we? We're still buying into products that are readily identified as "dead-ends" and screwed when they are no longer supported, needs change, etc.
To the best of your ability, write in HTML5 and JavaScript, which is more or less 100% portable between the two platforms. Now, that's not going to get you all the capabilities of a native application, but for many things it's more than sufficient and cuts out a huge amount of grief.
Failing that, I'd say learn both, but pick one to start and don't go with the other until you've fully mastered the first.
Chance are that you probably already have Java skills and no particular familiarity with Objective C. In that case, Android (programmed in Java) is likely to be easier to pick up. The key to either platform are the libraries, and those, not the language, are where the learning curve is. You'll find that each platform removes tedium from one part only to put tedium somewhere else. If you are really comfortable with iOS and Objective-C, I'd say developing a quality native-feeling app for it is much faster and easier. Getting to that point, however, involves a huge investment of time.
Android buys you a much wider array of devices and platforms that look like they will probably surpass iOS is market (unless something drastic happens with iOS exclusivity). That variability does add a little extra effort on the developer's part - particularly because many versions of Android are in play at the same time (in part because vendors don't always make it possible to upgrade -- whereas iOS is a little better in that respect).
Anyway, I'd advise using the browser rather than native apps whenever possible. Failing that, learn both to hit the biggest audience, learn Android if you have no particular devotion to iOS, and learn iOS if you know that the demographic you target is more likely to purchase your app on iOS. I wouldn't say that Android or iOS development are particularly difficult to learn, but both take time, and the effort learning provides no help in learning the other. That said, we are so much better of today than we were before Android and iPhone hit the market.
DOS batch files were tolerable in the 80's and 90's. Today, you have far more heterogeneous environments (like it or not, about 1 in 5 computers sold is a Mac today, and there's lots of Linux in academic and corporate back offices). Your DOS batch files won't run on them. For that matter, there are now versions of Microsoft Windows that they will no longer run on.
The world is moving to platform independent options. There's dozens of cross-platform scripting languages that you could use, for example. Most are included with most operating systems, you'd generally only need to supply the interpreter for one platform: Windows.
The EASIEST way, however, is Java. You can distribute the application by embedding it in a web page. Users will never need to know of batch files or worry which computer they are using (and which OS). It's easy for them, though tricky for you. However, this is just the sort of domain where Java's promise of write once run anywhere has a ring of truth to it.
In my opinion, the GPL specifies that you need to make the source code provided so that an individual could compile it on his own. It doesn't really specify that you need to make it work with a particular device.
That is to say. If I compile software on my Linux system, I can run it from where I build it, or I could copy the executables into some directory where other user's system path will pick it up and effectively have it "installed" so that others can easily execute it. I could even FTP it to another similar machine so that someone could run it there. The GPL is satisfied once I get to the part of building the program so that it's executable. It doesn't require me to provide all the various means to transmit / copy that executable to different places.
In the case of something like a cell phone, building the software alone is probably enough to run it in a simulator or on a development device, if you are a developer in possession of such a thing. The fact that you, as a third-party, don't actually have the an item capable of receiving the software or the means of rendering it so seems immaterial to the word and spirit of the GPL.
In the case of makers of equipment that include software controlled radio transmitters, a vendor is legally prohibited from supplying end-users with the ability to modify code which might alter the software radio's functionality, unless the user provides proof that they've been duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory agency.
It's like saying, "Here's the source code. You can install it on your transmitter if the FCC says its OK, otherwise you're going to need to play with it in a VM or something." That seems perfectly valid to me.
The employer can only claim copyright over the portion of the work that was created under their employ. However, the sticky bit is that they licensed the original work under the GPL, so they must not distribute their additional code and, if they do, they must make it available under the GPL AND share copyright on the code with the original author.
Facebook transcodes nearly all video that people upload. They save it as h.264 video, and for typical users that's simply wrapped in Flash for delivery. In the case of the iPad, it is merely consuming the same video stream directly. They aren't re-encoding anything, they are just using the HTML5 video tag instead of embedding a Flash player (which displays the streamed video).
As far as Facebook is concerned, it's a no-brainer. They get video on the iPad with nothing more than a few lines of JavaScript.
At the time, they didn't realize it was pornography. They'd been accustomed to watching banks and investment firms do that to their customers; so, it just seemed like another training video.
Code can't be "owned" as it's not property. If you are in the USA, if you hire someone to write code for you, it would be considered a work-for-hire situation. In that case, the author and the payor would share a non-exclusive copyright on the code (unless they had a contract that specifically transferred the copyright explicitly to the payor). Strictly speaking, copyrighted works are effectively "owned" by the general public, who then offers you a limited exclusive right to making copies of, making derivative works of, or performing the work.
What makes Sprint/Nextel think all those requests come from law enforcement?
It was rumored that the FBI's "carnivore" monitoring system was predominantly utilized by unauthorized third-parties, and there's been considerable speculation that until recently remote wiretaps were being performed predominantly by individuals from overseas (from what I understood from a friend that was an engineer for AT&T, he felt that they were some combination of industrial spies and just plain miscellaneous hackers).
I don't know about untrue. It's de rigeur here in the USA. Here in the US, you just need file paperwork with your bribes, or exchange power/leverage in lieu of cash. But, generally speaking, as long as the bribes are declared and the proffer of it is registered, your public official is covered. Now, members of congress are also immune from prosecution for insider trading, so a good stock tip could get you legislation when you need it too.
More than a few people have suggested that we require US legislators to wear uniforms with their corporate sponsors on them, with logos sized proportionally to the amount of funding they receive -- like NASCAR. That way you could watch C-SPAN and say, "Hey, that fellow talking about extending copyright to 'protect the legacy of the common man' has got a really cool mickey-mouse patch covering the back of his overalls! I wonder where I can get one of those."
It's wouldn't affect current legitimate licensees. The licensees aren't copyright holders, they're licensees. Once you've been given license to use a copyrighted work, transfer of the copyright doesn't modify or invalidate your license.
This is why record companies don't transfer copyrights to shell corporations that require you to pay a charge on your existing CD collection. You know that if the record companies could do that, they would have started a long time ago.
Actually, the threat to MPAA-members is not that they are losing control of the works, but rather the parties gaining control of the works will likely disrupt the MPAA-member's business models even further by indulging in alternative distribution methods / channels, being more generous on licensing, or just being innovative on how they use / profit from the works. The can afford to lose the Eagles, they can't afford for the Eagles to show the world that they can do better than the label and -- *gasp* -- come up with something that resonates with the customers or other artists. That's what they fear.
There's a certain amount of liability in using non-freeware. Even if you purchased a license for the software, without proof you're in for a world of hurt if anyone makes an issue of it (and, Business Software Alliance members like Microsoft do periodically audit licensees and companies they reserve tips about). An audit is a pain in the butt, but the cost in responding if you don't have the information can be pretty rough. And, if it turns out they want to make a case of it, keep in mind there's a $200,000 fine and possible jail time for any willful violation (if it gets as far as court).
If you want to indemnify yourself, the first order of business is to write an e-mail to the senior management (and legal, if you have a legal department) simply stating that you are reviewing the software license compliance and find that the documentation is lacking. Point out that the licensors due reserve the right to audit the company, and there's ample precedence for them doing so to small and medium-sized businesses. Note that failure to document compliance properly is a potential liability.
Wait for a response. If they tell you not to worry about it, then you need to decide whether you need to report suspected piracy to the BSA or vendor, or whether you'll sit tight. Chances are pretty good that you won't get audited, but if you do, you're going to probably be partially responsible. If you report to BSA - they won't tell your company why they are knocking at the door, but your boss is likely to have his/her suspicions.
From the CEO's point of view, there's a cost/benefit to consider. Compliance comes at a cost. Non-compliance has a potential cost which could be much higher, but the probability of that cost occurring is low. If the cost of non-compliance times the probability of getting caught is lower than the cost of compliance, then non-compliance is a lower risk/cost. For a company that has a mandate to be profitable, compliance with laws and regulations only makes sense if the cost of compliance is cheaper than the cost of non-compliance.
Personally, I'd sell my company up the river if I thought the blood-letting would be reasonably contained to the management responsible. If I felt that it would kill the company and endanger innocent people's jobs, I'd look for a new place to work becuase I'd recognize that my job was only going to last until someone becomes disgruntled and reports the company out of spite (which is how BSA usually gets most small to medium-sized businesses).
The law isn't subject to copyright as it's merely a collection of facts (the laws themselves), not a creative work as understood by copyright law. That's aside and apart from the fact that text of the laws are legally public records. The town is not only obligated to produce them on demand, but can be compelled to provide a reproduction of them by FOIA request (unless they plan to go to court and claim that they can't comply on national security grounds). Granted, they can charge you their cost in reproducing anything beyond the first 50 pages you request, but they can't charge you more.
If it's on CD, that's great. The cost of a CD-R is less than $1 -- that sounds reasonable to me.
... to get up during the commercial break and got to the bathroom, get a snack, or feed the pets. My generation grew up with commercials that we couldn't skip over, so we've trained ourselves to take them as a cue for intermission. In fact, advertising has become so common an obtrusive that we've been trained to simply block them out altogether. More than half the people I know can sit through a commercial break staring at the screen and not be able to tell you what products were advertised in that break.
Slashdot Mirror
You can run Oracle's products on Mac hardware already. That's not the issue.
The article is speculating that Oracle, who bought MySQL, may sue Apple if they start including MySQL as a packaged and preinstalled part of their OS X server distribution. Silly, you say, because there's still an open-source branch of MySQL free to download and distribute. Apple certainly hasn't stated that they are worried about the possibility, it's just speculation in this article. However stupid it may seem, keep in mind that Oracle is suing Google over using Java technology in Android - OpenJDK being open-source and Oracle explicitly receiving an OK to do so from Sun before Oracle bought them, Google is still suing. Perhaps it's not stupid.
That said, PostgreSQL has a lot going for it and it's probably a much better suited default database for the most part. The only thing that PostgreSQL really has against it is that it doesn't have as much mindshare. There's all sorts of GUI front-ends and toolkits that talk to MySQL but fewer that talk to PostgreSQL.
I note that Retreveo never actually published their survey question. The wording of the question is important, since Apple has long referred to their hardware by "generations", so the first model in a series is referred to as 1G, the next 2G, etc. By Apple's own accounting, the iPhone 4 is "iPhone3,1" for the GSM version and "iPhone3,3" for the Verizon version -- but it's the 4th model released to market, so some consider it the 4th generation (4G) model of the iPhone.
If the question was simply, "is your phone a 4G phone?" then it's an imprecise question. If they asked "does your phone support 4G mobile?", then you may get a different response. Since we don't know the question, we can't guess to the meaning of the response.
Provider's are dropping unlimited access left and right. It's simply indefensible to propose a technology that would quietly consume bandwidth based on a presumed future request for information.
I fear I shall purchase such a device. My annual bonus shall be distributed soon and the peer pressure is great. We are working with iPads in the office, and I have a fantasy of using such a device as a gaming (board/tabletop RPG) aid (I recognize I will need to do some of my own development)... Oh, the gadget-goodness, it burns...
Of course, my employer will probably provide me with one, in which case, I can save some money...
If they want to promote the format, a browser plugin is a poor choice. The non-WebM browsers differ from the OSS browsers in that they leverage the host operating systems' media frameworks for video playback.
For OS X, they should provide a QuickTime codec plugin, and for Windows, a MediaPlayer codec plugin.
This will not only enable the browser to playback WebM content, but also permit all the software for either of those platforms to transcode to and from the WebM format. If they only provide a browser plugin, they are drastically short-changing the format itself. It's ignorant to believe that people are only using video in their browser.
To be fair, the patents covering h.264 expire after 20 years after they were granted, and the technology existed when the MPEG4 standard (of which h.264 is a subsection) was ratified in 1998. So h.264 will be free and clear at least by 2018, but I believe major pieces of it expire in 2014 (hence the termination date for the license).
Also, h.264 refers to a section of the MPEG4 standard. There's already and h.265, and it's the next chapter in the standard. A new format would carry the designation MPEG5.
Apple does not prohibit you from installing software that isn't from the app store. In fact, they have an officially endorsed mechanism to do so -- though it's impractical for anything but a business to do. You aren't violating any license by jail-breaking your phone either. Sure, Apple won't support it or warranty it with a jailbreak, but that's different.
Even if it were true, though, the GPL only covers the requirement that the source be available and that you don't charge more than a nominal fee for redistribution.
Apple pulled the app because one of the app developers was making legal threats about the app being submitted to the store. Why would anyone deal with that sort of thing? I wouldn't sell the app either if one of the developers told me he'd force me to lawyer up over it.
I'm not sure that the question really makes sense. It's highly unlikely either will eliminate the other, and truthfully "winning" for a consumer is merely getting what they want for the price they want to pay. Ultimately, the cost of the data plan and not the phone will decide the price. The quality of the experience does depend somewhat on the OS, and to a point, the hardware, but it's really the data service and compatibility with external services and standards (like HTML5) that define the experience.
If you are asking which platform will be the most robustly profitable, iOS will take the cake. Android will sell more units because it's supported by more vendors, encompasses more models, and is sold by more carriers. However, the Android menagerie means slimmer margins all around. Every phone has overhead in engineering, manufacturing, and support -- Apple pays for one, HTC pays that cost 5 times over, as does Motorola. For the carriers, each model of phone has an overhead, and in the case of Android phones, the carriers are taking upon themselves the role as tester and gateway for OS upgrades, and even pre-configuring apps and things on the phones -- again, a cut into the margins.
If Apple and Android vendor X sell phones for exactly the same price, Apple will still net twice the profit. For the carrier, the net on the phone itself will be higher from Apple, but it's still a pittance compared to what they make off data service -- which is phone-independent (more or less; if one phone made sales of expensive data plans increase, it might matter, but in practice Android and iOS are a draw there). However, the carriers still make out a little better on iPhone because the carrier bears no responsibility for the platform -- no customization, no OS pre-testing / roll-out, even warranty support is out-sourced to Apple.
I love both platforms, truth be told, but the iOS model is very stable and profitable. It's not going to sink without a catastrophic event. Likewise, Android's openness assures that it will have footing for a very long time, but the model for that platform is going to continue to be slim margins. Ultimately, the only way to increase margins for Android is going to have to move to a streamlined iOS platform, or to build extremely high-end phones where the cost compensates for the low margins. I suspect you'll see Android split into segments like computers: low-end corners-cut models for consumers, boring-but-silly-expensive models aimed at business, and hipster models that target consumers that want something without frills but without cutting corners.
What I do think is that they will trounce Windows Mobile 7 and RIM phones. WinMo7 and RIM don't have the openness of Android, the streamline of iOS, or the dynamic evolution of either (RIM's doing better, though). Both platforms suffer from the overhead of engineering multiple handsets, require a non-trivial carrier support model, etc. Basically, they are decent platforms that combine all the implementation negatives of Android and iOS with no compensating positives. They will ride out their company's investments in the platform, existing contracts, and platform familiarity, but they simply aren't competitive on their own merits (disregarding the UI and apps for the platforms).
I had the idea about 5 years ago for an implementation of downloadable sound packages for electric vehicles and speakers in the car's exterior to play them for just this very reason. They'd respond the the car's velocity and change in velocity so you could get the sounds of associated with changing gears, or switching from a trot to a gallop.
I toyed with the idea of patenting the whole thing, but decided that the risk was too high (risk that there'd not be enough electric vehicles before the patent expired, risk that you'd barely make back the investment in the patent process, etc.).
Still, I think it would be popular to wirelessly download a CruiseTone into your Nissan Leaf and make it sound just like a Porsche 911, or perhaps a stampeding elephant.
In this case, it's not relevant, however, since it's not a recipe in question, but rather an article on the origins of Apple Pie.
Recipes are, as you say, not copyrightable.
The hybrid of P. leo and P. tigris is called a Liger. It's the biggest of the big cats (up to 900kg).
In fact, there are a number of other well-known hybrid big cat varieties: tigon, and their hybrid offspring litigons and titigons. There's also pumapards. All have varying degrees of fertility. The liger and tiglons have been known to appear naturally.
Personally, I think they could milk it and just go with other wild cats like lynxes, ocelots, etc.
Hehe. We had one of those IT department brainstorming sessions once (I was in research at the time) and they were talking about this shiny new platform that they were going to roll out, I simply asked what the cost was. They threw out some figures about how they priced it an it would cost X dollars to implement over Y years. So, I asked "does that include the cost of decommission?" and got blank stares all around... The notion that you estimate the cost of getting out of abandoning / migrating away from a product never occurred to them! Products tend to not be all that flexible, they change over time, and business needs and processes often diverge from the product or a better product comes along -- we have fairly good ideas on what the platform turn-over is going to look like, how open various platforms are, etc. We can estimate the CoD with some accuracy. So why don't we? We're still buying into products that are readily identified as "dead-ends" and screwed when they are no longer supported, needs change, etc.
To the best of your ability, write in HTML5 and JavaScript, which is more or less 100% portable between the two platforms. Now, that's not going to get you all the capabilities of a native application, but for many things it's more than sufficient and cuts out a huge amount of grief.
Failing that, I'd say learn both, but pick one to start and don't go with the other until you've fully mastered the first.
Chance are that you probably already have Java skills and no particular familiarity with Objective C. In that case, Android (programmed in Java) is likely to be easier to pick up. The key to either platform are the libraries, and those, not the language, are where the learning curve is. You'll find that each platform removes tedium from one part only to put tedium somewhere else. If you are really comfortable with iOS and Objective-C, I'd say developing a quality native-feeling app for it is much faster and easier. Getting to that point, however, involves a huge investment of time.
Android buys you a much wider array of devices and platforms that look like they will probably surpass iOS is market (unless something drastic happens with iOS exclusivity). That variability does add a little extra effort on the developer's part - particularly because many versions of Android are in play at the same time (in part because vendors don't always make it possible to upgrade -- whereas iOS is a little better in that respect).
Anyway, I'd advise using the browser rather than native apps whenever possible. Failing that, learn both to hit the biggest audience, learn Android if you have no particular devotion to iOS, and learn iOS if you know that the demographic you target is more likely to purchase your app on iOS. I wouldn't say that Android or iOS development are particularly difficult to learn, but both take time, and the effort learning provides no help in learning the other. That said, we are so much better of today than we were before Android and iPhone hit the market.
DOS batch files were tolerable in the 80's and 90's. Today, you have far more heterogeneous environments (like it or not, about 1 in 5 computers sold is a Mac today, and there's lots of Linux in academic and corporate back offices). Your DOS batch files won't run on them. For that matter, there are now versions of Microsoft Windows that they will no longer run on.
The world is moving to platform independent options. There's dozens of cross-platform scripting languages that you could use, for example. Most are included with most operating systems, you'd generally only need to supply the interpreter for one platform: Windows.
The EASIEST way, however, is Java. You can distribute the application by embedding it in a web page. Users will never need to know of batch files or worry which computer they are using (and which OS). It's easy for them, though tricky for you. However, this is just the sort of domain where Java's promise of write once run anywhere has a ring of truth to it.
In my opinion, the GPL specifies that you need to make the source code provided so that an individual could compile it on his own. It doesn't really specify that you need to make it work with a particular device.
That is to say. If I compile software on my Linux system, I can run it from where I build it, or I could copy the executables into some directory where other user's system path will pick it up and effectively have it "installed" so that others can easily execute it. I could even FTP it to another similar machine so that someone could run it there. The GPL is satisfied once I get to the part of building the program so that it's executable. It doesn't require me to provide all the various means to transmit / copy that executable to different places.
In the case of something like a cell phone, building the software alone is probably enough to run it in a simulator or on a development device, if you are a developer in possession of such a thing. The fact that you, as a third-party, don't actually have the an item capable of receiving the software or the means of rendering it so seems immaterial to the word and spirit of the GPL.
In the case of makers of equipment that include software controlled radio transmitters, a vendor is legally prohibited from supplying end-users with the ability to modify code which might alter the software radio's functionality, unless the user provides proof that they've been duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory agency.
It's like saying, "Here's the source code. You can install it on your transmitter if the FCC says its OK, otherwise you're going to need to play with it in a VM or something." That seems perfectly valid to me.
The employer can only claim copyright over the portion of the work that was created under their employ. However, the sticky bit is that they licensed the original work under the GPL, so they must not distribute their additional code and, if they do, they must make it available under the GPL AND share copyright on the code with the original author.
Facebook transcodes nearly all video that people upload. They save it as h.264 video, and for typical users that's simply wrapped in Flash for delivery. In the case of the iPad, it is merely consuming the same video stream directly. They aren't re-encoding anything, they are just using the HTML5 video tag instead of embedding a Flash player (which displays the streamed video).
As far as Facebook is concerned, it's a no-brainer. They get video on the iPad with nothing more than a few lines of JavaScript.
At the time, they didn't realize it was pornography. They'd been accustomed to watching banks and investment firms do that to their customers; so, it just seemed like another training video.
Code can't be "owned" as it's not property. If you are in the USA, if you hire someone to write code for you, it would be considered a work-for-hire situation. In that case, the author and the payor would share a non-exclusive copyright on the code (unless they had a contract that specifically transferred the copyright explicitly to the payor). Strictly speaking, copyrighted works are effectively "owned" by the general public, who then offers you a limited exclusive right to making copies of, making derivative works of, or performing the work.
What makes Sprint/Nextel think all those requests come from law enforcement?
It was rumored that the FBI's "carnivore" monitoring system was predominantly utilized by unauthorized third-parties, and there's been considerable speculation that until recently remote wiretaps were being performed predominantly by individuals from overseas (from what I understood from a friend that was an engineer for AT&T, he felt that they were some combination of industrial spies and just plain miscellaneous hackers).
I don't know about untrue. It's de rigeur here in the USA. Here in the US, you just need file paperwork with your bribes, or exchange power/leverage in lieu of cash. But, generally speaking, as long as the bribes are declared and the proffer of it is registered, your public official is covered. Now, members of congress are also immune from prosecution for insider trading, so a good stock tip could get you legislation when you need it too.
More than a few people have suggested that we require US legislators to wear uniforms with their corporate sponsors on them, with logos sized proportionally to the amount of funding they receive -- like NASCAR. That way you could watch C-SPAN and say, "Hey, that fellow talking about extending copyright to 'protect the legacy of the common man' has got a really cool mickey-mouse patch covering the back of his overalls! I wonder where I can get one of those."
It's wouldn't affect current legitimate licensees. The licensees aren't copyright holders, they're licensees. Once you've been given license to use a copyrighted work, transfer of the copyright doesn't modify or invalidate your license.
This is why record companies don't transfer copyrights to shell corporations that require you to pay a charge on your existing CD collection. You know that if the record companies could do that, they would have started a long time ago.
Actually, the threat to MPAA-members is not that they are losing control of the works, but rather the parties gaining control of the works will likely disrupt the MPAA-member's business models even further by indulging in alternative distribution methods / channels, being more generous on licensing, or just being innovative on how they use / profit from the works. The can afford to lose the Eagles, they can't afford for the Eagles to show the world that they can do better than the label and -- *gasp* -- come up with something that resonates with the customers or other artists. That's what they fear.
There's a certain amount of liability in using non-freeware. Even if you purchased a license for the software, without proof you're in for a world of hurt if anyone makes an issue of it (and, Business Software Alliance members like Microsoft do periodically audit licensees and companies they reserve tips about). An audit is a pain in the butt, but the cost in responding if you don't have the information can be pretty rough. And, if it turns out they want to make a case of it, keep in mind there's a $200,000 fine and possible jail time for any willful violation (if it gets as far as court).
If you want to indemnify yourself, the first order of business is to write an e-mail to the senior management (and legal, if you have a legal department) simply stating that you are reviewing the software license compliance and find that the documentation is lacking. Point out that the licensors due reserve the right to audit the company, and there's ample precedence for them doing so to small and medium-sized businesses. Note that failure to document compliance properly is a potential liability.
Wait for a response. If they tell you not to worry about it, then you need to decide whether you need to report suspected piracy to the BSA or vendor, or whether you'll sit tight. Chances are pretty good that you won't get audited, but if you do, you're going to probably be partially responsible. If you report to BSA - they won't tell your company why they are knocking at the door, but your boss is likely to have his/her suspicions.
From the CEO's point of view, there's a cost/benefit to consider. Compliance comes at a cost. Non-compliance has a potential cost which could be much higher, but the probability of that cost occurring is low. If the cost of non-compliance times the probability of getting caught is lower than the cost of compliance, then non-compliance is a lower risk/cost. For a company that has a mandate to be profitable, compliance with laws and regulations only makes sense if the cost of compliance is cheaper than the cost of non-compliance.
Personally, I'd sell my company up the river if I thought the blood-letting would be reasonably contained to the management responsible. If I felt that it would kill the company and endanger innocent people's jobs, I'd look for a new place to work becuase I'd recognize that my job was only going to last until someone becomes disgruntled and reports the company out of spite (which is how BSA usually gets most small to medium-sized businesses).
The law isn't subject to copyright as it's merely a collection of facts (the laws themselves), not a creative work as understood by copyright law. That's aside and apart from the fact that text of the laws are legally public records. The town is not only obligated to produce them on demand, but can be compelled to provide a reproduction of them by FOIA request (unless they plan to go to court and claim that they can't comply on national security grounds). Granted, they can charge you their cost in reproducing anything beyond the first 50 pages you request, but they can't charge you more.
If it's on CD, that's great. The cost of a CD-R is less than $1 -- that sounds reasonable to me.
... to get up during the commercial break and got to the bathroom, get a snack, or feed the pets. My generation grew up with commercials that we couldn't skip over, so we've trained ourselves to take them as a cue for intermission. In fact, advertising has become so common an obtrusive that we've been trained to simply block them out altogether. More than half the people I know can sit through a commercial break staring at the screen and not be able to tell you what products were advertised in that break.