> The failure of successive COPs to agree to get rid of fossil fuels means that this is going to become necessary
Nobody believes this anymore.
Global temperatures are cyclical and the current trend is very close to the normal periodic cycle. All the "models" have failed. Sure, 95% of "Climate Scientists" believe their funding should continue but the jig is up.
If they actually attempt to blot out the sun there is no limit to what normal thinking people will do to stop them.
Fortunately they are very unlikely to get any real support for this harebrained scheme.
Why is it more cost effective to build a new Capitol than to build a water pipeline?
> from a security, stability or usable prospective
You and me both but most people only score feature count. If they've grown accustomed to some oddball feature for a few months they feel they can never use anything else.
That they went their entire lives without it before isn't relevant.
From a market perspective, rushing more features to market makes more people with money happy than getting a good product to market.
It sounds like Nokia, once a great company, thought they would just pay up? But I read elsewhere that a patent troll called Avanci was behind the shakedowns?
If HP and Dell begin to make this more common and could encourage Lenovo and Apple to follow suit, then the "default H.anything" crowd might start to think seriously about moving to AV1 to drop the revenue of the trolls to zero over time. Hardware support for decode is mostly complete with more CPU's bringing encode online recently. I remember when Steve Jobs went to bat against the trolls for h.264 decode; Apple should do it in his memory.
Separately, Google seriously needs to flex against patent trolls when required. Heck, Lou Rossman is more aggressive than Google on defending the community against patent trolls.
Speaking of which USPTO intends to stop challenges to patent trolls and maybe you, dear reader, should spend five minutes to fire off an email to help EFF try to head this one off at the pass.
I used to have many magazine subscriptions.
They would each mail me a reminder to renew my subscription.
If I sent them a check my subscription would continue. If I didn't send them a check my subscription would end.
I didn't have auto- anything. I didn't have to call to cancel.
The same went for when I was a paperboy. You pay for your week or you stop getting papers. When you remember to pay you start getting papers again.
I think this is how subscriptions have worked for hundreds of years, with auto-renew on a payment card developing in the past couple decades.
Without a contractual definition the corpus of caselaw would very likely date to throughout the history of the country.
If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields