The third images from the preview indicates that there is only dampening by 14 dB. This doesn't seem like much.

If this works by reflection, is it even possible to stack more of these in several layers to achieve higher dampening (because the layers would themselves reflect the sound)?

They used the AGPL for the server, but also told their users that it would not affect client code (the applications the users write). As a result, it was rather unclear whether you would even have to distribute modified server sources if you offered a public database service using the software.

Furthermore, the AGPL is only a deterrent against competition if the competition needs to modify the source code and does not want to share the modifications (assuming the the source code disclosure obligation actually kicks in at all). Neither of the cited organizations is vehemently opposed to sharing source code, so I do not think the AGPL (even applied as intended, which the original authors of the database software did not do) actually deters commercial competition here. It probably would not have prevented revenue seeping towards third parties offering services related to the software, either.

Right. People will adapt, and that's why it's unclear if there's going to be a change in revenue at all.

HTML 5 video has many mechanisms to restrict media access based on client properties. For example, there is a robustness parameter which implementations are expected to evaluate according to their perceived ability to prevent user-controlled access to content.

I suspect that Widevine (the DRM plugin used by Firefox) did not provide a robustness level on Linux which Netflix was comfortable with. To a degree, this is still ongoing. I think the maximum resolution you can get on Linux still is 720p, while Windows will go to at 1080p at least.

because I do. you can personally try and take any of those from me, but you will pay with your life. which is why you cowards group together and have government do all your dirty work for you and think it's ok, "because democracy".

we are a nation of laws, and Apple is doing nothing illegal or immoral. productivity taxes are evil and wrong. no one is obligated to pay the maximum taxes possible. avoidance is not the same as evasion.

they pay more taxes than you and I ever will. stop your irrational hatred of the productive and those who produce. just because you hate your station in life, doesn't grant you special rights to others hard work.

wow. and just who the hell do you think you are, you little spoiled, entitled, nasty little totalitarian? why is anyone entitled to anything others produce? your words betray your true ugliness. MAKE them?

disgusting.

the mennonite around here do exactly that.

lazy? i missed the part where they are obligated to risk life and limb to stop an active shooter. when you are actively murdering people(shooter did not surrender as far as I know), don't complain when victims brothers in arms get pissed and come to stop you. and by stop, i mean, shoot you in your head(or blow it off with a bomb). deadly force is met with as much disproportional violence as possible. this ends threats quicker and tends to make others think twice before attempting anything like it again.

one does not actively start a fight with a well trained militia. last i heard, we have not had one go on a shooting spree and thus did not need to be put down.

competition is good. apple is not obligated to provide their platform to anyone. they don't owe spotify anything.

she wants all the consolidation and concentration going to government. so her posturing against companies that use government to shut the door behind them to keep competition out are a bit disingenuous.

what ever happened to people who want individual liberty?

not the US government's responsibility. The Constitution is very clear on this. It's government's responsibility to protect our rights, not hinder business and interfere with private property.

it is none of the government's business or anyone else's what I do with, or on my property as long as it's between consenting adults and is not doing harm to other property owners.

this nanny state over regulation has to stop.

get government out of the control business.

I purchased two AR's last week and the dealer was doing a pretty good job of "vetting" me for his own reasons while we waited for the NICS to come back. someone without my training probably wouldn't have noticed. I'm pretty sure that had I not respond to his liking, he'd have denied the sale. nothing beats common sense of the person doing the selling.

also, what's wrong with buying ammo in bulk? what's wrong with buying body armor?

so many millions of people died last century for want of a rifle... maybe they don't want to offend those who are still unable to obtain one?

like showing a man dying of thirst an ice cold glass of water.