Can a person apply a license to code they don't have the copyright to? The answer is no. This code is either infected with a mishmash of copyright from its original sources, or it's not copyrightable at all, and courts haven't decided which but they are both bad.

It has basically functional mass transit, but last time I lived there my commute was 15 minutes by car or 1 hour and 15 minutes by two buses linked by subway. I could probably have walked faster. Now I would dread parking in either neighborhood but then it was feasible.

This is an incredibly short sighted argument for someone calling someone else short sighted. Someone might need updates while evacuating, and their car's radio will have better reception than the portable they are using inside of the car. AM radios work OK inside of cars, but still not as well as a car stereo using the external antenna. It's easier to use and hear while driving. It's a small addition to the cost. Yes, people should have a portable radio for emergencies. Having the car stereo pick up the AM broadcasts is still also useful in emergencies.

MW Propagation is a lot of fun. You can get stations that are thousands of miles away. Too bad younger generations haven't bothered to experience it.

It's a huge PITA for AM stations. Many AM stations actually have licenses that say they can broadcast from sunrise to sunset and must shut down for the night. Others have "reduced power operations" where they must reduce their transmit power overnight.

And others are lucky to have the full license that lets them go 24/7 at full power. The regulatory bodies have to consider propagation when dealing with AM radio licenses. When an AM radio station goes off the air it presents more headaches because the other stations nearby might have to juggle their power settings.

But AM radio being in the HF radio band means you only need a few stations to cover an entire country. In an emergency, you cannot tell how many transmitters you have available so the AM network means you still have a way to communicate even if stations so down. And some AM stations do not operate at full power as full power operation is reserved for emergencies.

In a scenario where a major city is impacted, nearby AM radio stations can often have coverage into that major city despite being far away (and thus not experience the issues) making it the ideal communications medium.

Plus, it also means the EV makers can't cheap out on radio shielding. ICE vehicles have huge issues as well with EMI causing radio issues, but they have had years to shield the radio from interference caused by the engine. ("Alternator whine" is a common one). The only reason EVs want to ditch AM radio is because their electronics interfere with AM reception and they want to save the $5 of metal to shield components.

In a real emergency, it is usually worthless, unless maybe it has an FM radio receiver. FM isn't worthless in an incident, it's just not as useful as AM.

AM is good for sending out information during a disaster which includes power outage, when the cellular network will crater whether it's affected by the outages or not. And it will be, because some sites' generators won't work, or they don't have much fuel to begin with. Everyone can have solar and hand crank generators for their phones and still have them be worthless.

Gone With The Wind made all that money with $6 tickets, adjusted for inflation. Average ticket prices in 2019 were $9. And there were a third as many people in the US at that time.

Not really. When GWTW came out, movies were basically the only entertainment option out there as we would recognize it. TV was still experimental and radio was the only thing you would do at home. Beyond that you have books and hobbies.

Spending a Saturday at the movie theatre (the "nickelodeon" because it was 5 cents for entry) was a popular pastime - you'd get a few cartoons, a newsreel, then a couple of movies. This was popular as it was a way to catch up on the news and watch the latest movies that came into town.

Gone With The Wind was extremely popular because it was a good movie for the time so it would often be a feature that showed week after week because people kept demanding it.

You also have to realize the "new movies" were whatever pulp Hollywood came out with because they knew they were just going for the nickle movies.

These days, we have far more entertainment options so getting a dollar at the movie is actually much harder. After all, you can watch a movie in the privacy of your own home nowadays, something you couldn't with GWTW. If you wanted to see it again, you had to pay for another viewing.

EDK is the EFI Developer Kit. There was one released by Intel which wasn't open-source, but there have been several EDKs that are open-source. But they are for developing UEFI applications that run in the UEFI environment. You don't use the EDK as a replacement for UEFI.

LIbreBoot/CoreBoot and now GNU Boot are a BIOS/UEFI replacement. And they're actually all derived from from CoreBoot (which started as LinuxBoot). It basically is a BIOS/UEFI replacement that booted into Linux and served as the boot environment.

CoreBoot evolved from it but it has binary blobs, which is why the GNU folks created LibreBoot. Not surprisingly the compatibility list of LibreBoot is far smaller than CoreBoot, and CoreBoot is pretty small already. Remember this has to initialize the hardware the provide the tables so the OS can perform certain operations like sleep and suspend by telling the OS what registers it needs to access.

LibreBoot has a sordid history because earlier this year or last year, the developer of CoreBoot got fed up with LibreBoot being years out of date, so the CoreBoot dev basically pushed an updated version of LibreBoot (minus the binary blobs). Apparently the LibreBoot dev didn't like that, which is why it's GNU Boot. It was a pretty messy thing because the CoreBoot devs wanted to update what was a completely outdated fork.

Classic Slopdot, I got modded down for my comment while he's using Claude to "write" the code.

Teslas, BMW's, Rivian, and Mercedes have cameras all around the vehicle that are always on, and if a security incident is detected they will save the video from a few minutes before the incident to right after the incident.

A quick search shows that Tesla theft (by example) is 90% to 99% lower than the national average, and I assume the other types are similar.

People do not steal cars because of *flock* cameras, they are always on, and the data is available to law enforcement with no oversight.

Personal vehicles save video locally, and it's only used when an actual crime is committed.

I'm in favor of public surveillance that's kept local to whichever user, in the manner of a ring doorbell video (if that were kept local, which it is not). It prevents crime without violating rights - the burglar shouldn't have been on the property to begin with.

This leads to an interesting thought. Flock is a company that keeps videos across the country and tracks vehicles, and soon to include facial recognition. Flock cameras would be entirely acceptable if the video were "owned" by someone local to the actual camera, so that police would have to query the owner to get a video.

I'm not sure who the "owner" would be in this case, but hypothetically if the camera were on the telephone pole outside of a house, if we consider the video owned by the property owner then the possibility of a rights violation would go down precipitously.

Just a thought, and an under-developed one.

We need new ideas to help solve new problems, here is one to chew on.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

The GP is correct, and you're misinterpreting the financial filing.

The industry widely acknowledges that SpaceX's economics are lucrative. Their marginal cost is an est. $15-25m/flight, vs. a typical commercial contract price of ~$65M and a NASA contract price of ~$100-150M. The small (as a percentage) GAAP operating loss on the launch segment is driven by two factors:

1) Starship development. That falls under the launch segment. Starship development is draining an insane amount of money (~$3B/yr), while earning zero revenue.

2) Internal launches. 3/4ths of Falcon launches are to launch Starlink. This books zero revenue for SpaceX launch services.

The fact that the loss is only ~$1/2B despite these massive leaches on profitability is specifically because Falcon launches are so profitable.

As for your claim that Starlink is "only making money due to free launches", no. Starlink generated $11,4B with $4,4B GAAP in 2025. Merely sum the Starlink GAAP profit and the launch GAAP loss and you'll see nearly $4B in GAAP profit, and that's including the huge drain caused by Starship development costing $3B/yr. Without Starship, the two combined would be turning nearly $7B GAAP profit.

The main leach in corporate profitability has nothing to do with space: it's xAI. They had an operating loss of $6,36B in 2025.

To be clear, it needs to get safely to orbit to be seen as reliable for launches. It doesn't need to make it back safely.

I'll take Things That Never Happened for $1000, Ken.

Meanwhile in reality:

1) It was not a case of "WorldVu approached SpaceX looking to purchase rocket launches". Musk and Wyler had been working through all of 2014 on a joint venture. They explored building a joint satellite manufacturing facility and were scouting locations in Florida and Colorado. The talks broke down (Wyler thought Musk's Starlink plan was too ambitious, Musk thought Wyler's wasn't ambitious enough (too expensive satellites, too primitive/conservative tech, too small in number); SpaceX also thought Wyler wanted too much equity ) and each went their own way - SpaceX in-house, WorldVu partnering with Virgin Group and Qualcomm. The former succeeded massively.

2) NEITHER SpaceX nor WorldVu came up with the idea; it was well known in the space industry for decades. It had already had startups try, starting with Teledesic (backed by Gates) in the 1990s. Other smaller LEO constellations like Iridium and Globalstar were already operational. The main scale and price limitations were launch costs, which weren't resolved until the Falcon in the 2010s.

3) SpaceX was already eyeing satellite communications before the JV with WorldVu.. As early as 2004, they hired Larry Williams (of Teledesic) and bought a 10% stake in Surrey Satellite Technology, specifically to explore space-based internet concepts. What WorldVu brought to the table wasn't "the idea of satellite constellations" at all: they owned priority spectrum rights. *That* is what SpaceX wanted from the JV. Not "OMG, this customer has a brilliant idea for a satellite constellation that we never thought of!!!" Wyler had bought Ku-band spectrum from the ITU that was originally allocated to a different defunct 1990s venture, SkyBridge.