Comment Re:Screw Skype.. (Score 2, Interesting) 108
Because there's no alternative to videocalls between OS X / Linux / Windows.
Because there's no alternative to videocalls between OS X / Linux / Windows.
Not only have autopilots worked incredibly well in the past, with a high success rate, but the idea is to keep Pilots awake by letting them exercise their mind while in flight.
They've also caused accidents, but hey, who cares about facts, eh?
When was the last time we had an airliner NOT get people safely to its destination based solely on a Pilot being distracted?
Do you honestly want examples?
1994: Aeroflot Flight 593
1987: Northwest Airlines Flight 255
There are plenty more, but the Northwest Flight 255 is a nice example. They were already way too distracted before take-off that they completely fucked it up and killed 156 people. 154 of 156 passengers on board and 2 on ground were killed.
They're getting paid to be responsible, alert and to fly the plane, not play minesweeper.
I have a MSI board which requires a floppy with DOS on it. Unfortunately I don't have a functioning floppy drive (I have an internal usb card-reader/floppy combo, but only the card-reader works).
In order to flash the BIOS though all that's needed is a CD with FreeDOS and a usb-stick with the new BIOS.
I've made two of those pencil holders.
They're pretty awesome.
This has to do with errors in the broadcast you don't notice when watching.
To fix it you have to first clean the stream.
1. projectx to clean it. It's a nice little java program. Just start the GUI, open your file and choose quickstart. You can use the CLI as well
2. mplex -f 8 -o output.mpeg2 input.m2v input.mp2
3. manipulate output.mpeg2 with avidemux.
I've recorded hundreds of documentaries and shows (DVB-S mpeg2-ts), never had sync issues after doing this.
Okay let me give you an example.
A small PC shop starts to offer PCs with Ubuntu pre installed. Ubuntu makes the source available but that doesn't seem good enough. So the small shop has to offer the source as well?
Yes, or a written offer valid for at least 3 years to provide the source used.
They can charge for that, but not more than the actual physical distribution costs.
Let me give you an example.
I have a Kathrein Twin-DVB-S receiver.
It uses Linux, Busybox and a few other GPLed and LGPLed programs.
They don't ship it with the source and they don't host it on their site, but in order to comply with the GPL there's a written offer, valid for 3 years after the last unit sold, to provide the source on a physical medium (probably a CD).
They also state that they'll charge for the medium+time+shipping. This is in accordance with section 3b) of the GPL v2.
They must take the time to keep the latest source available? Sure nobody will probably ever ask them but they would have the legal requirement to do so.
No, not the latest source. Just the source that was used.
If I give somebody a PC with Ubuntu on it to help them out I am now distributing LINUX and must provide them with info on how I will give it to them?
Or a User group handing out Fedora CDs?
Yes, though I think section 3c) of the GPL v2 applies, which states:
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
What you see as so clear from a business point of view is full of peril.
I was thinking of offering a disk of Good FOSS to our customers free of charge but now it looks as if I would have to host source repositories to keep it legal.
No, you wouldn't have to host source repositories.
You could. But you could also just give them a piece of paper stating that you'll provide the source used for three years if requested.
Though with the cost of dvd-r's these days, I'd think that it'd be easier to just put a source directory on the dvd and put the tarballs in there.
If the source for the GPL software is unmodified and freely available from other sources why should the vendor have to duplicate it's availability?
You might as well ask why someone else should provide the source (and pay for its availability) if you distribute something.
What if the original source provider doesn't exist anymore?
It's really simple, if you use GPLed code, you provide the source.
It doesn't even cost you anything since you can charge for it.
From the GPL FAQ:
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
It looks to me that I can charge $1,000,000 for my GPL software and charge another $1,000,000 for the source.
Not exactly. The FAQ answer isn't as specific as the GPL(v2) itself, which states under section 3 b)
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
which means to me that while you can charge a million for the software you can hardly charge that much for the source distribution.
Of course IANAL.
Sadly, there isn't one currently.
Ekiga, Gizmo5 and so on do not support VOIP+webcam on Windows, Linux and Mac.
I know I'm late to the game, but, uh, you're an idiot.
I don't care to google all that much, but here are a couple names you might want to check up on:
Renne Richards
Balian Buschbaum
Michelle Dumaresq
Parinya Charoenphol
a 2.7 GPA is barely passing. How the hell can you get modded up? Who gives a shit how much she spent? Should have worked harder then.
Willing to work? Well, work for McDonalds then, you bloody cunt.
"Content creators and providers need to control their content and get paid for it. File sharers need faster downloads and better quality,"
So instead of a filesharing site, it's probably going to be a new web shop under a familiar name. Which reminds me: how is Napster doing these days?"
"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman