My understanding is that Apple have done the work to make it viable to use LLVM for certain levels of Javascript JITing so it is now feasible to use LLVM to compile long running dynamic code. Said code needs to be long running to a) build up information about the instructions being run b) offset the overhead of compilation.

A KLM flight I took from Schipol to Calgary earlier in the year had USB ports on all the seat-backs.

Just a shame the in-flight entertainment system was so damned unreliable - both the flight there and the return saw my screen crash, and the air crew said they couldn't do anything about it without resetting all the screens on the plane.

Airlines like passengers to be paying attention during takeoff/landing since, in an emergency, the crew might need to give instructions and don't want to have to go down the plane telling everyone to remove headphones, etc.

Yep, and all of those are *right in the video* which makes them annoying. Stick them outside of the content, like traditional Google text ads usually are and that would qualify as "not annoying".

And as the copyright holder, thats your right, just as its the copyright holder's right to impose pretty much any licence they choose on their code.

For small projects I'd do the same too, but for big projects (where there is a whole community using them), it seems fair for people who are profitting from them to give back to the community. I'm not demanding that they spend countless development hours improving software purely for the community, but I do think that if they are making those improvements *anyway* then the community should get to benefit.

What I don't get is the (quite common) perception that GPLed code is somehow worse than commercially licenced code - in both cases you have to adhere to the licence conditions and if you don't you get sued. Sure, people "accidentally" include random code they found on the web in commercial projects without bothering to check the licence, and when they are discovered they might have to pay damages and they certainly have to either stop using that code or start complying with the licence - they would have similar problems whether they ripped off GPLed code, or some proprietary stuff from Microsoft (for example). In fact, they're probably better off with GPLed code because at least they then get a "release all the source and you can carry on" option, which the likes of MS wouldn't give them.

From what I can tell, youtube doesn't seem to do non-annoying ads, so the channels have to choose between "annoying" and "none".

TBH I find the youtube ads so intrusive that I do block them. I don't feel particularly bad about this because I figure that if the channels are particularly hurting from the blockers they can go shift their channel to another website that has more sensible advertising policies.

(Really - I wouldn't mind seeing the youtube preroll ads if I was watching an hour video, but when I'm watching 20 separate 3 minute videos, seeing *the same* 30 second preroll ad every 3 minutes starts to grate a bit)

Well yes, I'd probably sign up too. However, I imagine this would work more like cable/satellite:

1. Look at all this great stuff you can get *with no ads*! All you have to do is pay a subscription fee!
2. I've got a great idea! We could make stacks of money if we put advertising on the subscription channels as well as charging a subscription fee!

No, the problem is certainly not solved - whilst the manufacturers have no exclusive rights over what they release, the point is that they aren't going to be releasing the source code. So sure, you can rip off the binary firmware from one device and put it on another(*), but if you want to modify the code you're going to be SOL unless you feel like hacking on raw binary blobs for the rest of your life. The point of GPL is that it gives the end users the right to use the things that they own in the way they see fit - it allows you to make some modifications to the firmware on your phone, recompile it and install your modified firmware, for example. Without copyright law it would be extremely hard to do this since you would have no access to the source code - although you would be able to "do what you like" with the binaries, it would be exactly that - an opaque binary blob that for practical purposes you can't really do much with at all.

(*) In reality, without any kind of copyright legislation, you would probably see encrypted firmwares - whilst legally you would be able to copy them, the copy wouldn't do you any good because you wouldn't be able to decrypt it.

Really, abolishing copyright would make things a lot worse for the Open Source scene...

Sure, but these cases are the exception rather than the norm.

As a software developer myself, I release code under the GPL because I am of the opinion that if someone wants to make use of my code at no cost, then they should contribute their improvements back to the project. Now I know that, strictly speaking, the GPL doesn't require them to make code available to the project, only to their customers; but in practice people don't tend to restrict the source to only their customers so the effect is the same.

I don't consider developers to be misguided if they want to prevent their competetors seeing the code, but in that case I'm not willing to give them a "freebee" - they are welcome to develop the whole thing themselves instead of using my code, or in some cases they are welcome to pay me, but I don't see why they should build a business upon my work at no cost to themselves without giving anything back.

I am, however, of the opinion that (except where the law demands unmodifyable code), end-users should be allowed to use their own devices how they see fit, so keeping code closed simply to stop the end-users doing this does indeed seem pretty misguided to me.

(For the record, my business uses Free software (some third party, some developed in-house) whilst also keeping some in-house code proprietary to prevent competetors from ripping it off. However, modifications we make to Free components are made available to the world, and usually explicitly committed back to the upstream project. And we do spend a considerable amount of our development resources enhancing/bugfixing the many third party Free components that we make use of, so I certainly don't see us as freeloading.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

GPL does far more than "route around copyright damage" - its aims are to give the _end user_ freedom, freedom which often wouldn't exist even without copyright.

Lets look at how things work with GPL'd code:

1. Developer A writes some code, releases it under the GPL.
2. Company B takes A's code, modifies it a bit, maybe integrates it into a product (mobile phone, TV, whatever), puts the finished product (i.e. including the binaries) up for sale.
3. End user C buys B's product, wants to modify it, so asks B for the source.
4. B gives C the source, since the GPL says they have to
5. C is happy since he can now modify the code.

(Ok, so it isn't alays plain sailing - B often has to be threatened before they will comply with the GPL; in the case of GPLv2 code, B's product may be Tivoised; frequently devices have a mix of GPL/proprietary code and its extremely difficult to integrate modifications into a device with only the GPL code, etc. but in theory at least this is how it should work).

Ok, so lets look at how this would work if there was no copyright law:

1. Developer A writes some code, releases it.
2. Company B takes A's code, modifies it a bit, maybe integrates it into a product (mobile phone, TV, whatever), puts the finished product (i.e. including the binaries) up for sale.
3. End user C buys B's product, wants to modify it, so asks B for the source.
4. B tells C to piss off because the source is a trade secret and B is under no obligation to release it.
5. C cries.

The GPL relies on copyright law to reach its goals of giving the end users the freedom to do as they wish with their own devices. Without copyright, the end users would be in a much worse position since manufacturers could use any freely released code in any way they see fit with no obligation to their end users at all.

I'm aware that the DRM can be trivially removed, but if I'm going to have to break copyright law in order to actually use what I've purchased, I'm left wondering why I wouldn't just break copyright law *instead* of purchasing it in the first place?

This is basically the reason I don't use ebooks - with a paper book, I can buy it and read it, then my wife can read it, I can lend it to friends/family, it can sit on book shelves for years and then my kids can read it, their kids can read it decades later, or I can sell it, etc. All this stuff is considered the "normal" way to use a book. Compare to an ebook: I buy it. Then my wife has to buy it(*). Them my friends/family have to buy it. Then my kids have to buy it. Their kids have to buy it. See the problem?

(*) The T&Cs of Google Play, at least, say that not only aren't you able to transfer your purchases to another Play account, but you're not even allowed to lend your tablet to a family member for them to read stuff you purchased.

So until the publishers see sense, I'll continue to read paper books.

Dyson spheres would glow in the infrared and therefore be pretty obvious. This is because they still have to radiate the heat produced by the star they enclose - otherwise their internal temperature would perpetually increase.

Yeah, removing due process could never result in abuses or miscarriages of justice so it's a pretty good idea.