One of the developers gave a talk (in a link I posted earlier) that said they would have Dolby support in iOS in just a few months, I think that's when the patents expire.

Hide the Decline

You can live in purposeful ignorance if you like; I choose not to, because I can understand better what will or may happen.

You track it down an fix it which still takes less time that writing the whole complex thing yourself from scratch (where you'd have even more bugs to track down). Then you can submit the fix back to them.

That said, if you start seeing more than a few bugs it's probably better to cut your losses and drop that third party framework. I've done that a few times.

Hopefully this link holds up:

Jean-Baptiste Kempf on VLC at FOSDEM

He's one of the developers that has been on VLC the longest, it was pretty interesting I thought.

And Siri only does offline voice recognition and never send sound clips to the Apple for data mining?

"It's not exactly true of all data"

I said that explicitly thinking of Siri. They absolutely send that raw voice data to Siri but in theory the server could only be doing processing, to convert the speech to text and then return you a result.

The question is what is remember from that transaction. Do they use that data to improve further conversions? I would image so. But what I DON'T think Apple does is remember that you personally asked Siri to look for Ice Cream stores at 7pm. All the processing being done on the server though, there's no way to say for sure, except to say that Apple does not benefit from keeping data like that since they don't sell it to anyone or use it themselves .

HealthKit is much more sure - all of the data is from local sensors, locally stored. You don't HAVE to back up anything to iCloud and I'm not even sure it does get backed up there anyway (in fact the more I think about it the more I am pretty sure that does not happen). You can easily monitor, if you wish, what data leaves your device for a while to be sure it's not transmitting anything.

Great point; ruins my joke but not the main point, which is that a "theoretical physicist" does in fact understand more of the components of climate (and the statistics needed to think about them properly) than do "climatologists".

No, it's several pages of regulations, and then hundreds of pages of "forebearances", describing how the ways the FCC is closing not to enforce some rules - at this time. That way if anyone gets uppity they can bring down the hammer.

Read the FCC commissioner interview for more information.

it's what the populace wants, what the corporations didn't

All sorts of corporations wanted this passed.

It's 300 pages. Does what *you* wanted take 300 pages to express? No? HMM.

Good luck with that, as the saying goes. I am really looking forward to you all finding out what has really happened today.

The fact that there is really no major entity working to keep our data safe for ourselves and ourselves alone

Apple does this. Look at HealthKit for example, all data is stored locally, Apple doesn't mine it. They allow you to control who has what access to specific parts of the data.

It's not exactly true of all data, but Apple tries to give you specific control of data where it can.

The reason why Apple does this and other companies do not is simple - Apple actually makes money selling hardware. Google and Facebook have no revenue except what they can extract from you data, so they have totally different motivations.

coupled with the option to subordinate reasoning to that preference upon occasion

I've always found it odd that people who dislike region cannot imagine who faith in something unknowable can live side by side with a rational mind... indeed, if you are truly rational than you have to admit, at least, you do not know if God is real or not.

I'm not really religious myself but I recognize that a large number of famous scientists through history has been, and do not look down on people who are religious, because in every other way they are just as intelligent and rational as anyone.

Dyson: "theoretical physicist" who understands the movement of air well enough to make a portable cyclone you can move about your house.

Climatologist: Understands the entire workings of the climate so well that they have been unable to form a single model that correctly predicts future behavior of the Earths climate in two decades of trying; constantly claims it's because of some new factor they seemed to have overlooked, claims they know everything THIS TIME.

In practice, Dyson is far less theoretical than any climatologist.

But you cannot take a situation where there is no consensus and fool everyone into believing that there is a 98% or 99% consensus.

Yes, that is what we have been trying to tell you

You and others are trying your damnedest to prove it is possible. I give you an 'A' for effort in that regard, but I'm afraid at this point the sample selection of people who are buying that fabrication is too low to be able to claim you can in fact fool everyone.

The old appeal to authority. Nice.

No different than your appealing to "climatologists" who can't get ANY predictions right over many decades of trying.

Why do you distrust a physicist / mathematician, who is far more apt at understanding statistics, chaotic systems, and the pure physics involved in atmospheric changes than a climatologist (with a much more shallow education in any of those areas) can possibly be?

That's the really puzzling aspect of people like you who believe deeply in people specializing in what is essentially a nascent filed; you are putting more stock in people who have less hard science training, and the results of their predictions based on what amounts to faith dressed up as science are telling.

This is purely an "ad hominem".

No different from Soon, where he is being attacked NOT because the current funding is from Koch, but because he had the audacity to EVER take money fro them. No different, except Soon is not groping women (if you want to rank offenses).

if he really wanted to just get laid, hard science is the worst place to do it.

Exactly, which is why he's in climate science, which at this point has more akin to astrology in terms of accuracy and actual "science". Just because his chicken bones come in the form of heavily doctored data does not make his prognosis any less Scienthy.

If we are questioning Soon because in the PAST he had funding from sources disliked by the left, why shouldn't we question all the original IPCC reports since the head of the IPCC (Rajendra Pachauri) was using his position of power as a sexual predator?

I mean, it could well be he didn't care about the environment, he was just there to gather power and hypnotize potential prey with his positions (a pretty well known technique to get laid in college is to proclaim you are an environmentalist regardless of your actual leanings).