Wii U was indeed a very stupid mis-step, as it sounded too much like the Wii. This isn't the same thing though, as the Xbox One X is an upgraded Xbox One, not a compatibility-breaking whole new console.
I don't think MS are really targeting it the way you suggest - the price-point makes it clear it's not 'for everyone', it's for people into high-end tech. Their marketing has reinforced this explicitly.
Apple would probably gain by Open Sourcing it too.
I doubt it. The hardware lock-in is central to their revenue.
There's also the way that Apple gets full control over what hardware they need to support. This wouldn't necessarily change if they open sourced macOS, though - use on other hardware could remain officially unsupported.
DRM refers to technical measures to prevent unauthorised duplication and use. Removing watermarking isn't enabling the copyrighted work to be copied or used.
"Channel" means application, right? The same way Amazon Echo uses the word "skill" rather than "application".
"App" seems fine to me. A reasonable abbreviation of a technical term, and used roughly correctly. Do we have to entertain each and every company's push to invent a new word to pretend that they're doing something new?
It's far closer to theft than to those other offences, though. You are depriving an entity of revenue to which it is entitled. Unless you want to argue that copyright is totally illegitimate (which requires accepting that entities like HBO will no longer exist), it seems to me your hands are tied as to the morality of copyright infringement.
Very often on Slashdot, someone will point out copyright infringement isn't the same thing as theft, as if that's enough to put to rest the idea that it isn't ok. These tend to be the sorts of people who waste our time with you shouldn't call it piracy.
The possibility of account sharing doesn't mean there's less transparency when using pseudonyms...
Anyway, transparency wasn't my point. I said just what I meant: ACs reliably post stupid nonsense.
I figure that much of the time, AC idiocy could well be submitted by someone with an account, who knows that what they're writing is stupid, and so post as AC out of shame. Guess I'll never know, though.
FF is the only main stream browser apart from Safari that doesn't send your browsing data to its maker to sell it for money.
I agree that Firefox being independent FOSS is a big plus, but just how bad are Chrome and IE/Edge really? I've never seen a serious analysis showing that Chrome is sending a worrying amount of personal data to Google.
the IQs of Republicans are still far higher than those of Democrats
Citation needed.
I'd expect the brain-drain which draws intelligent people to cities (where people tend to be more liberal) to skew things in the opposite direction. But intelligent, wealthy people might be more right-wing just in terms of self-interest. Would be interesting to see some actual numbers.
Fair point. It's not 'for nought' though - it would prohibit some things which are currently legal. Research, say. (Whether academic research, or market research.)
But I also don't care if it's there, so long as the browser still meets my needs.
I'd suggest being slightly against it, then. You still pay the price in bloat - possible performance degradation, increased attack-surface, and more code to go wrong stability-wise.
WebGL was (totally predictably) a security nightmare, for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
Wii U was indeed a very stupid mis-step, as it sounded too much like the Wii. This isn't the same thing though, as the Xbox One X is an upgraded Xbox One, not a compatibility-breaking whole new console.
I don't think MS are really targeting it the way you suggest - the price-point makes it clear it's not 'for everyone', it's for people into high-end tech. Their marketing has reinforced this explicitly.
You're really going to try to deny the existence of totalitarian regimes, rather than concede the point? Classy.
That's an interesting interpretation. Would be fun to see it in court.
Apple would probably gain by Open Sourcing it too.
I doubt it. The hardware lock-in is central to their revenue.
There's also the way that Apple gets full control over what hardware they need to support. This wouldn't necessarily change if they open sourced macOS, though - use on other hardware could remain officially unsupported.
It's not DRM, it's attribution.
DRM refers to technical measures to prevent unauthorised duplication and use. Removing watermarking isn't enabling the copyrighted work to be copied or used.
This must spoil the show though, no? Do jokes and emotional moments still work when the timing has been artificially changed?
A fine effort to instantly derail the thread.
Here in the UK we've had quite enough of that already.
"Channel" means application, right? The same way Amazon Echo uses the word "skill" rather than "application".
"App" seems fine to me. A reasonable abbreviation of a technical term, and used roughly correctly. Do we have to entertain each and every company's push to invent a new word to pretend that they're doing something new?
It's far closer to theft than to those other offences, though. You are depriving an entity of revenue to which it is entitled. Unless you want to argue that copyright is totally illegitimate (which requires accepting that entities like HBO will no longer exist), it seems to me your hands are tied as to the morality of copyright infringement.
Very often on Slashdot, someone will point out copyright infringement isn't the same thing as theft, as if that's enough to put to rest the idea that it isn't ok. These tend to be the sorts of people who waste our time with you shouldn't call it piracy.
The possibility of account sharing doesn't mean there's less transparency when using pseudonyms...
Anyway, transparency wasn't my point. I said just what I meant: ACs reliably post stupid nonsense.
I figure that much of the time, AC idiocy could well be submitted by someone with an account, who knows that what they're writing is stupid, and so post as AC out of shame. Guess I'll never know, though.
For one million or more.
Because that's how much you feel you'd be entitled to, huh?
Are you not aware that this isn't how the law works?
Again the heuristic holds true: ACs generally only post idiocy, and idiocy is generally only posted by ACs.
How is it possible for three consecutive comments all to all be wrong in different ways?
The current-day corporation is called HP Inc.
The historical corporation was known as Hewlett-Packard, hyphenated, two 't's, no 'i's.
FF is the only main stream browser apart from Safari that doesn't send your browsing data to its maker to sell it for money.
I agree that Firefox being independent FOSS is a big plus, but just how bad are Chrome and IE/Edge really? I've never seen a serious analysis showing that Chrome is sending a worrying amount of personal data to Google.
the IQs of Republicans are still far higher than those of Democrats
Citation needed.
I'd expect the brain-drain which draws intelligent people to cities (where people tend to be more liberal) to skew things in the opposite direction. But intelligent, wealthy people might be more right-wing just in terms of self-interest. Would be interesting to see some actual numbers.
For the second time: no, I didn't assert that they're the same.
And no, piracy isn't morally ok just because it isn't the same thing as theft.
Which indeed translate to revenue... provided people aren't pirating.
No, I don't assert that they're the same, I made an analogy.
Fair point. It's not 'for nought' though - it would prohibit some things which are currently legal. Research, say. (Whether academic research, or market research.)
Where is the harm when someone is de-anonymized?
Depends on the data. Could be blackmail, for instance, or an increase in insurance premiums.
That's a particularly stupid strawman, and you know it.
You might as well try to argue it's fine to steal from retailers.
Sigh come on then, let's have it. Explain to us all how refusal to pay is what puts coin in their coffers.
Ah, the old I don't like the pricepoint, so I'll just not pay.
You'd come across as far more righteous if you just refused to watch GoT.
But I also don't care if it's there, so long as the browser still meets my needs.
I'd suggest being slightly against it, then. You still pay the price in bloat - possible performance degradation, increased attack-surface, and more code to go wrong stability-wise.
WebGL was (totally predictably) a security nightmare, for instance.
The developers are lazy. The linking model isn't the problem. You can duplicate native code with dynamic linking or with static linking.
Or are you suggesting moving more functionality into the platform's standard library?
My thought too. If a function is never used, it should be elided from the final linked binary.