We cannot comment on specific patents, not now, not ever. Red Hat has determined that it is now acceptable for Fedora to include MP3 decoding functionality (not specific to any implementation, or binding by any unseen agreement). Encoding functionality is not permitted at this time.
It appears Red Hat has entered into some sort of double secret licensing agreement with Fraunhofer that they can't disclose the details on.
The MP3 format is closed and proprietary - owned by Fraunhoffer, if I recall correctly. It hasn't been legal without some sort of licensing agreement in place, and the community won't pay to license.
I see it. I just used it. It's in parentheses right after the title.
They've had lots of innovation!
They figured out:
* data caps
* Double charging for the same service
* Outsourced customer service to lowest bidder
* Customer "retention"
Came here for the Planetes references. Was not disappointed.
When I was there, it was definitely not easy to circumvent. I tried multiple VPNs, dns tricks, all kinds of things, but my internet coverage was spotty at best. If I tried to go to any western news site for any reason, I'd find my phone either throttled to nothing or completely offline for hours or days.
They seemed to be cracking down on VPN usage via deep packet inspection and/or whack-a-mole with overseas endpoints.
I was there in November of 2014, so I can't imagine things have gotten much better.
They charged me an extra ~$100 one month and ~$50 another. Just charged my card and left me wondering wtf happened until I called them.
Never ever EVER give a company your credit card number for automated billing. NEVER EVER EVER give them your bank account information for automated billing.
You asked for this problem when you signed up.
And no other jobs come to fill their places?
By your logic, we'd be at 75% unemployment (figure pulled out of my ass, admittedly, but just making a point here...) right now with all the technological advances since the 1970s. What do you think happened to our economy to achieve our current 5% unemployment rate? Are all those file clerks and bookkeepers still out of work or did they find something else to do?
People made the same arguments you're making for every technological leap forward. The net result has always been people thrown out of low wage, miserable jobs have found higher wage, less miserable jobs, given enough time.
It's called Structural Unemployment. It is a problem for workers who are too old to retrain - think people in their upper 50's trying to sprint to retirement - but for the vast majority of the workforce, it's a net benefit in the long run at the cost of a little short term pain.
This entire thread is based on a false idea that if people are thrown out of minimum wage jobs that they'll be unemployed forever.
This has been proven countless times since the 1700's to be absolutely false.
Once a technological innovation disrupts employment - the loom, the cotton gin, the computer, the combine planter/harvester, the robot - those who were displaced from employment find new jobs in higher paying sectors, at least in the aggregate. How many file clerks do you know? Know anybody picking corn, wheat, or soybeans by hand? Yet unemployment is around 5%.
The people slinging burgers will find new work. They'll have to. New employment opportunities will open up; they always have.
What's disingenuous is not including Social Security receipts in federal tax income figures.
False dichotomy. There are lots of options that don't involve any of those things --
How about making it cheaper for employers to hire people by cutting the payroll tax?
How about creating a climate of entrepreneurship which creates jobs?
How about reducing the cost of living by eliminating expensive regulation?
How about making it attractive to the private sector to start projects such as construction or the like that result in more and more jobs being created?
There are lots of ways to get people out of poverty that don't involve giving people money.
"In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade." --Milton Friedman
Actually, I've seen answers to all of those questions.
> If I own a self driving car, is my insurance insuring the AI as the driver?
Yes. Google has stated they will assume liability. Other companies pursuing this say the same.
> Is the driving record of that AI individual to my car, or to AI's of that software version ?
This one is actually easier. The insurance industry will have much better figures on the probability of having a claim to pay for the AI drivers, since all those drivers will drive the 'same'. They will be able to say that cars of model X get into
> Can I sue the AI, or am I suing the AI manufacturer. Is the AI the car, or separate from the car?
The manufacturer gets sued. The manufacturer would keep insurance and lawyers for these lawsuits.
> am I suing Google or Ford ?
You sue whoever sold you the car. One throat to choke.
Well, letting them walk to work might be a bit tough to defend for an 8 year old.
But wouldn't it be "veterinary" and not "medical"? Technically, "medical" can only apply to humans, no?
Nobody said computers were going to be polite.