Coding is a communal and collaborative effort for the most part, as almost all people reach out for help and give it when asked.

That "legal licensing" would be treated any different than any other API by the tech community shouldn't be surprising, IMHO.

We are sick of Windows. I think there are still people (like us) who haven't yet moved over completely just because they can't afford it yet.

Apple's recent popularity leveled the software suite playing field, and with that there are plenty of reasons to abandon the crapware that is Windows.
I'll have windows as an afterthought at home now. I used to always say "People don't buy windows for windows, they use windows for Office or some other tool and because its the OS that came on their cheap PC."

Apple (w/ Jobs) so dominated the market that Microsoft has taken a dump on usability to try and be different. There's different like cool and hip different, then there's "microsoft" different which is more like "lock the car doors" different.

In my wife's words: "If people have to learn to use a new operating system, the pain of switching to a mac looks is less painful and all my tools are there now. Plus, it works with my ipad."

Me, I'll probably just virtualize Windows 7 until they stop patching it. By then, I'll be full Linux / OSX anyway.

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

People will sue - and this will go to federal courts... The question is will it make it to SCOTUS.

If you're interested, they open sourced their hardware a few years ago.

http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/

Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 for example.

If he wasn't joking: For venting smoke, the airbus manual says (or used to say) you have to reduce speed to below 200 knots. You should be at low altitude, of course.

Despite studies showing these it not much good in venting this way, crews still desire to do it.

I looked and Romney didn't say anything about " passengers rolling down the windows at 30,000 feet and at 500 knots."

That's just wild ass charicature circle jerking. What he said was that they (FAA? Manufacturer? Leasor?) should allow it. He might have been reflecting the crew's sentiments.

Venting air via an open window could be done using air rams to maintain pressure. The FAA doesn't like the planes slowing down and dropping altitude to do it for delayed landing, reduced cummonication, and analysis of In effectiveness.

Wide body jets are particularly bad aerodynamically to allow venting based on studies.

planes in the US May have their windows bolted shut, I don't know about that.

But I do know that even today there are planes evenin commercial service that have windows that can be opened in flight and older flight manuals gave instructions on how to do it in the event of smoke or fire. (btw, fire can be bad because the vacuum can pull it into other areas of the plane).

Anyway, I don't get Linus' reaction as I when I read the quote in the la times I immediately thought I understood what he was saying.

The planes are made with opening windows, but I don't know

I think Anonymous deserves an apology?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57510432-83/go-daddy-sorry-about-the-outage-and-no-it-wasnt-a-hack/

I wonder if this means that someday soon us passengers will be able to listen to music on our iphone / droid or read on our ipad / nook / fire during take off and landing?

So a bunch of non-profit groups I support are down thanks to these "activists".
SOPA opposition, "ends justify the means even if it means f*cking over everyone with our scorched earth actions", and the "if you were stupid enough to be supporting our enemy then you are just collateral damage because we are so right we're justified in harming you to make a point" aside, I don't think it will win them many fans.

So basically - you start with two photons next to each, entangle them, then put one on a ship and it sails away. Then, you can tweak the one photon you kept, and every time you do, the other reacts as if you were the one tweaking it? Is it instantaneous? As in, could you put 32 of them side by side and create a 32 bit bus that spans any distance and yet provides connectivity as if where simply plugged into a USB port? Does the reaction on the other end diminish over distance? If not, why not use this to talk to a mars or lunar rover? No line of site necessary?

This really is an incredible phenomenon. I've read about it before, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe, they don't record but use something like DSP analysis to trigger an event when an audio signature event is detected? Considering the audio is being "captured" and "analyzed" it does raise the question; is this equivalent to "recording?"

But why not have a buffer, I wonder? Say, 5 minutes worth? Then, when a gunshot is detected that 5 minutes of audio can be saved along with subsequent audio providing context around the shot. If no gunshot (or automobile backfire?) is detected, the start of the 5 minute memory buffer would simply disappear.

Anonymous has a core of really skilled leaders - since this guy was flipped by the FBI, I wonder if they "have eyes" on some of Anonymous' more influential / adept members.

I think the act of reaching out the Democrats in and of itself is a non-issue.
If the message was "hey, I'm wanting to reach out to you because..." it'd be one thing. A "vote for me" message.
However, the message of the call is "Let's send Mitt Romney a MESSAGE!" A "vote against him" message.

IMHO, this is not quite the scandal everyone seems to be whipping it up to be, it's just "in your face" negative campaigning.
Can we talk about what candidates would do about Syria, now? Or maybe African genocide? How about finance reform? Hungry for real issues.

Trolling so hard... it's full of stars!

Because citizens tend to react differently when the nightly news says congress is trying to pass a bill called "Stop Online Piracy Act" instead of "Rights Aborted by Pushy Executives..."

Just offering up:

A person or a company pays for the "rights" to something (a song or a game) *in advance* of earnings because of that entity anticipates revenue in excess of the money they are risking up front. They are risking their current equity in the hopes of recouping revenue in excess of the equity as well as inflationary depreciation.

The content creator accepts this "risk equity" payment from the entity in lieu of sales. The content creator is thus ensured a livable wage which enables them to continue to create (assuming this content creator has good legal representation or exceptional negotiation skills). The reasons for accepting this are varied. Maybe the artist is unsure of the value of their product? Maybe the artist is poor? Maybe the artist doesn't want to be bothered with distribution?

(Which brings up why things like SOPA are so bad because IMHO they are the digital equivalent to empowering the buggy whip manufacturers to write our transportation laws and designing our roads / highways)

In the argument of the depreciation of the car- the point is that by duplicating the supply of the content you proportionality devalue it (aka supply and demand). This doesn't hold exactly true, but that sort of the argument. If I had a magic ray gun and could clone cars - I think GM, Ford, and other car companies would have a real problem with all their equity risk, investment, and knowledge is simply taken with no compensation to the content creator (or holder of rights to content created). And they'd get REALLY pissed off if was simply duplicating the cars on their showroom and giving them away for free.

(Granted, this goes into the whole who really pirates and why, etc. which is entirely moot - this is about why / what duplication of a product does to its market value)

So, if your job is creating content that does indeed have value even if you are deceased - yes. Your job still pays. Perhaps not you, but maybe your employer. Or your agent. If you are working to produce retail software that will be sold over and over again, you are compensated in the form of salary and benefits in lieu of any claims to revenue generated from each sale.

Some employees have uniquely valuable knowledge that affords them the ability to negotiate a royalty of each sale, or accept royalty in lieu of salary on especially risky ventures (common in the gaming community among start ups).

So - yes, if you die your job will still pay. Maybe not you, but maybe a spouse (if your company provides that as a benefit) or a person / company that has compensated you for future earnings.

This is just how I see it, but I'm easily the dumbest person on the Internet.. and some people think I'm giving myself too much credit in saying that.