Then it could be constantly refueled on the ground, or filled up just before takeoff. This isn't a problem actually, since they are filled up by a tanker after takeoff anyway.
The bird apparently can't stay on the tarmac too long before takeoff, as it leaks fuel when the plane is "cold".
I read somewhere that this isn't really a problem, assuming that you have a way to collect the leaking fuel, as the fuel has a very high flash point, and thus does not present a fire hazard.
You and I may get the result of one of those guys having access to this. so, even though my own project plans won't be influenced by the availablity, I do expect that you and I will be effected by it indirectly.
Which, incidentally, also applies to open source software. Many people sneer at open source software, saying that they and 99% of all people wouldn't know what to do with it anyway, so why should they care. You just wrote a nice explanation for those people.
OpenSolaris is also under the CDDL, which is not GPL-compatible.
Isn't it also released under the GPLv3? Anyway, I'm pretty certain that they chose both CDDL and GPLv3 expressly to be incompatible with the Linux kernel, which could otherwise have all their nice features (like ZFS) leaving OpenSolaris with no advantage over Linux.
except the right to manage the music they create, own, or both, in the ways they and their duly authorized agents see fit
Why should this apply just to music, movies and software? Why shouldn't a painter be able to control who looks at or uses a house he painted, or a plumber be able to demand a license fee for using the toilet he installed? Why should music producers (etc) get a special treatment?
I don't actually know what you are talking about, but I imagine that manually sharing via massive hard drives would do it, as would borrowing (and ripping) CDs from the library. Usenet also fits your criteria.
No, it is none of the above. I'm just saving the bits received from the web radio to disk instead of throwing them in the bit bucket (/dev/null). In addition, the song metadata is used to nicely split up the saved data into individual song files, which are automatically named accordingly.
I won't do that. File sharing is just too risky these days. There are lawsuits flying left and right with fines in the several thousand dollar range (no, I don't live in the USA). Instead, I use a safe alternative to file sharing, one that is undetectable to the RIAA (or rather IFPI, since RIAA does not operate here), and probably not even illegal (no copyright is being infringed, AFAIK). The RIAA/IFPI et al wouldn't like it though, but that's their problem. After all, they don't like that I transfer my CD collection to my iPod (instead of buying it again on iTMS) either, so why should I care about what they think? What matters is the law, nothing else.
What it is? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.:)
Actually, he has a point. The RIAA (and similar organizations) have the ears of many politicians, and they take RIAA propaganda as truths. Thus, when the RIAA cries foul about the increasing levels of "piracy" (the only reason their profits could go down, right?), these politicians will gladly propose and work to pass even more draconian laws. The RIAA surely has no direct power to impose legislation, but they just as certainly has indirect power to do so.
hey, who does the RIAA contribute to, politically, anyway?
I'd guess that they contribute to every significant politician. They want to ensure that all politicians with any power are pro-RIAA and pro-draconian-copyright-laws, and thus probably contributes to all of them to make sure they are.
Some people are addicted to their music, and can't live without their occasional fix. Thus, they'll buy music from the RIAA regardless of how much they hate them. To such people, getting a fix is much more important than making a point about the RIAA.
and some good software practices that makes it more open (maybe not open source, but at least more transparent)
That won't happen as long as the number one priority of Microsoft is to integrate digital restrictions management at all levels of the operating system. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with openness.
How about encoding? I faintly recall reading somewhere that H.264 encoding is less resource-intensive than e.g. DivX/XviD. Is that correct? It seems pretty backward with a codec where encoding is light but decoding is heavy in terms of processor resources, since a file will usually be played back more than once. At least I'd certainly favor a system with heavy encoding and light decoding rather than the reverse.
H.264 and AAC present less of a relative strain on both disk (or bandwidth) and processor
Oh? I've read that H.264 is actually quite processor-heavy on playback, and that HD content using this codec would be almost unplayable without hardware acceleration on even today's high-end systems. Are you saying that this is false?
Why are these even considered as possible patents anyways is the real question.
For the corporations: Because they can. Getting a patent means that barriers are raised against possible competitors and the patent holder can sell their products at a higher price because of the reduced competition. Alternatively, they can offer patent licenses to competitors and thus get a piece of their revenue streams.
For the patent office: For the money. Patent applications cost money, and at least where I live (Sweden), patents have a yearly maintenance cost (which actually rises for each year). Granting patents give the patent office more money, and who doesn't want more money?
I know it is meant for a compiler and so on, but if Verizon hasn't changed the source, could they be using this as the reasons for not giving the source?
If they could, I'm pretty certain that Verizon would have to include a note that the product contains code licensed under the GPL and that the user has a right to download the source from the original distributor.
I really don't think that this is the case, even though this often is the way it's done. But even if it would be possible to point requesters to the origin of the source, the distributor must inform the user that the product contains code licensed under the GPL and that they thus have a right to request the source code. Otherwise, how would the user know?
But why would you buy such a product in the first place?
I think that you misunderstood his post. His objection is exactly the reason why he does not buy DRM-protected content, or that's at least how I interpreted his post.
MPAA surely has a problem with piracy. They were hit with a DMCA takedown notice for their University Toolkit just the other day. The MPAA should stop infringing on other peoples' copyrights before complaining about how piracy hurts them.
What he meant is that Microsoft might deny Linux vendors from getting patent licenses at all, in order to give Windows an advantage, while the MP3 patent holders will sell a patent license to anyone that pays the license fees.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it could be constantly refueled on the ground, or filled up just before takeoff. This isn't a problem actually, since they are filled up by a tanker after takeoff anyway.
MSXML is an ActiveX control for dealing with XML stuff, such as AJAX. I suggest Microsoft Office XML (without the Open) instead.
I read somewhere that this isn't really a problem, assuming that you have a way to collect the leaking fuel, as the fuel has a very high flash point, and thus does not present a fire hazard.
Which, incidentally, also applies to open source software. Many people sneer at open source software, saying that they and 99% of all people wouldn't know what to do with it anyway, so why should they care. You just wrote a nice explanation for those people.
Isn't it also released under the GPLv3? Anyway, I'm pretty certain that they chose both CDDL and GPLv3 expressly to be incompatible with the Linux kernel, which could otherwise have all their nice features (like ZFS) leaving OpenSolaris with no advantage over Linux.
Why should this apply just to music, movies and software? Why shouldn't a painter be able to control who looks at or uses a house he painted, or a plumber be able to demand a license fee for using the toilet he installed? Why should music producers (etc) get a special treatment?
No, it is none of the above. I'm just saving the bits received from the web radio to disk instead of throwing them in the bit bucket (/dev/null). In addition, the song metadata is used to nicely split up the saved data into individual song files, which are automatically named accordingly.
I won't do that. File sharing is just too risky these days. There are lawsuits flying left and right with fines in the several thousand dollar range (no, I don't live in the USA). Instead, I use a safe alternative to file sharing, one that is undetectable to the RIAA (or rather IFPI, since RIAA does not operate here), and probably not even illegal (no copyright is being infringed, AFAIK). The RIAA/IFPI et al wouldn't like it though, but that's their problem. After all, they don't like that I transfer my CD collection to my iPod (instead of buying it again on iTMS) either, so why should I care about what they think? What matters is the law, nothing else.
What it is? I leave that as an exercise to the reader. :)
For him, it's probably almost the same thing. He sounds like one of the music addicts that I mentioned in my post above.
Actually, he has a point. The RIAA (and similar organizations) have the ears of many politicians, and they take RIAA propaganda as truths. Thus, when the RIAA cries foul about the increasing levels of "piracy" (the only reason their profits could go down, right?), these politicians will gladly propose and work to pass even more draconian laws. The RIAA surely has no direct power to impose legislation, but they just as certainly has indirect power to do so.
I'd guess that they contribute to every significant politician. They want to ensure that all politicians with any power are pro-RIAA and pro-draconian-copyright-laws, and thus probably contributes to all of them to make sure they are.
Then the label would sue the artist for copyright infringement, demanding $150,000 per song.
Some people are addicted to their music, and can't live without their occasional fix. Thus, they'll buy music from the RIAA regardless of how much they hate them. To such people, getting a fix is much more important than making a point about the RIAA.
That won't happen as long as the number one priority of Microsoft is to integrate digital restrictions management at all levels of the operating system. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with openness.
Okay, I see.
How about encoding? I faintly recall reading somewhere that H.264 encoding is less resource-intensive than e.g. DivX/XviD. Is that correct? It seems pretty backward with a codec where encoding is light but decoding is heavy in terms of processor resources, since a file will usually be played back more than once. At least I'd certainly favor a system with heavy encoding and light decoding rather than the reverse.
Oh? I've read that H.264 is actually quite processor-heavy on playback, and that HD content using this codec would be almost unplayable without hardware acceleration on even today's high-end systems. Are you saying that this is false?
For the corporations: Because they can. Getting a patent means that barriers are raised against possible competitors and the patent holder can sell their products at a higher price because of the reduced competition. Alternatively, they can offer patent licenses to competitors and thus get a piece of their revenue streams.
For the patent office: For the money. Patent applications cost money, and at least where I live (Sweden), patents have a yearly maintenance cost (which actually rises for each year). Granting patents give the patent office more money, and who doesn't want more money?
If they could, I'm pretty certain that Verizon would have to include a note that the product contains code licensed under the GPL and that the user has a right to download the source from the original distributor.
I really don't think that this is the case, even though this often is the way it's done. But even if it would be possible to point requesters to the origin of the source, the distributor must inform the user that the product contains code licensed under the GPL and that they thus have a right to request the source code. Otherwise, how would the user know?
IANAL though.
I think that you misunderstood his post. His objection is exactly the reason why he does not buy DRM-protected content, or that's at least how I interpreted his post.
MPAA surely has a problem with piracy. They were hit with a DMCA takedown notice for their University Toolkit just the other day. The MPAA should stop infringing on other peoples' copyrights before complaining about how piracy hurts them.
What he meant is that Microsoft might deny Linux vendors from getting patent licenses at all, in order to give Windows an advantage, while the MP3 patent holders will sell a patent license to anyone that pays the license fees.
Well, what do you think this part suggests?
Dr. Booble's colleague, Dr. D. Oxy RibonucleicArchaeologists do not excavate dinosaur remains, paleontologists do. Archaeologists only deal with ancient human remains.
I read that as ballmchair joke. :)