Again, using your magnetic strip, your card number is captured in the clear and transmitted to the bank in the clear. With Apple Pay, that is not the case (it roughly the same as chip and pin with the additional requirement of having my fingerprint).
When you swipe that card, your card number is transmitted in the clear. When I use Apple Pay, it is not. That's why I use Apple Pay. Not because it is more convenient (its a wash), not because it is cool (although it is!), but because it is 100x more secure.
How is there no option for "I already use one and it is awesome!"? I use Apple Pay anywhere I can. In fact, I go out of my way to use it because it is just so cool to pay for things with my fingerprint (THE FUTURE IS NOW!")
Microbial life on Mars will hardly instill much fear but a lot of curiosity
The question asks about "intelligent" alien life. That implies a higher order than microbial life at least.
Per a link in that very article, Verizon made $1.83 billion profit on sales of $28.6 billion last quarter. That's not a 49% profit margin. That's a 6% profit margin. They had a "49.0 percent segment EBITDA margin on service revenues (non-GAAP)". I don't claim to know exactly what that means, but its not profit margin the way I (and I think most other people) understand profit margins.
Don't kill software patents just to use H.264 though. Kill software patents because it is ridiculous that an algorithm is patentable just because it executes on a computer.
I never understood this one. If anything, clever algorithms should be the ONLY software I am allowed to patent (one-click is not clever, GIF's compression was). These people worked hard to come up with a novel idea that they then want to make money from. What is wrong with that exactly? Why SHOULDN'T they be able to patent them? We let people patent novel ways of building a mousetrap. If my mousetrap is virtual, why is that any different?
They offered patent indemnification from patents that 'Google' holds. That's nice, but that doesn't protect you from the patents that anyone else holds. H.264 has been around long enough that it is unlikely their are anymore submarine patents out there (or if there are, it is likely they can brought into the patent pool). Also, Microsoft has agreed to indemnify any user using H.264 on their platform. Google refuses to do the same for WebM.
Software patents are evil, but they are also very painful if you are the one sued. Personally, I would rather deal with the devil I know than the devil I don't.
Did you read the article at all? The lack of indemnification is EXACTLY what MS is complaining about with respect to WebM.
Microsoft has said publicly that they pay 2x more into the patent pool for licenses then they get out for royalities.
WebM is probably encumbered as well. Just because Google says, "trust us, we've pretty sure you are safe" does not make you safe from getting sued. Sometimes its better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don't.
More like feathering ones own nest.
After all, Microsoft is a member of the H.264 Licensors. They stand to profit by the continued adoption of H.264.
Actually, I can't even see Google getting all fussed about this, because they will not have to pay a license fee in 2016 because its not part of Chrome proper. Microsoft may not need to pay either, since as members they may get a free pass (just speculation on my part there).
They don't profit. Microsoft is on record saying they pay more into the patent pool then they get paid. That's why the add-on only works on Windows. The OS already comes with a license for H.264, so you don't need another to run video in any particular application.
Very admirable. But somehow the high morals of everyone on slashdot doesn't mesh with what I see in the real world.
Let me be clear: I don't have a problem with breaking DRM because you want to listen/watch something on another device. That's fine (and mostly legal these days).
My problem is EVERYONE who pirates seems to say this same thing: I would never have paid for this! And yet they keep what they downloaded and keep listening/watching it. No one I know at least ever paid for any song once they had downloaded it for free. Sorry, but that is copyright infringement and morally wrong to me at least.
The only person you had to know for a source of tapes was BLOCKBUSTER.
It cost money to rent the videos and at least some of that money went to the movie studios. There were happy with that deal. With BT, I don't see how anyone gets paid.