now deploy it to web users so that it can run on a wide audience with no dependencies, true "write once run everywhere", and runs in an actually functional sandbox (as opposed to the nightmares of java or activeX).
Of course Chromes NACL does that as well-- apparenly you can now get NACL games in the chrome app store.
The Luddites were right all along. We never should have allowed power looms, the cotton gin, or the mechanical adding machine to take off. Think of all the lost jobs!
Whether you understand it or not is irrelevant. The fact is, no video tag will take off unless it supports DRM. Thats reality, and you can either continue not understanding it or you can accept it and deal with practicalities like standardizing a DRM system.
Gee, I wonder if we could solve that by baking DRM capability into HTML5, thus allowing other OSes to natively access the content!
No wait that steals our freedom. Like the freedom to have to use IE11 and a "premium extension". Gosh I love backwards logic: Freedom that leaves me more restricted than before!
Its almost like the discussion about having DRM support in HTML 5 was for real-world practical reasons, rather than just killing puppies and taking your freedom.
Its better than flash and silverlight because this could become standard if everyone takes their head out of the sand and accepts that HTML5 video needs DRM support to be attractive to the people making video.
Its possible for a fanatic with no perspective to make good points. Hes still living in his own little world where all software should be created by publicly supported, roaming gypsy programmers.
FOSS can be valuable, useful, and desirable without it being necessary (or even desirable) that it be the only option.
and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13)
I like the naieve implication that the NSA is somehow incompetent. Recall that the original AES spec was amended with a recommendation from the NSA which was determined, around 10 years later, to have substantially strengthened it against just-now-being-discovered cryptographic attacks. Recall that the NSA is largely responsible for SELinux.
Im sure there are other examples of their competence which escape it, but needless to say they arent exactly bumbling; theres every indication that some of the best security folks in the industry work @ the NSA.
Right, but I think taking someone's property off of their body and smashing it is also considered harassment, so perhaps they were right for recording you.
Is that how the logic goes?
Fact is, if youre in a public place, you dont have an expectation of privacy. Property laws (ie, it being illegal for you to take and smash my stuff), however, still apply.
Yea, noone on NPR has EVER provided any insight. Radio sucks, rite?
(for the record, Im a republican, but the only right-wing radio I've heard is pretty obnoxious. NPR can be obnoxious and has its own issues, but at least they dont yell)
Saying that all Cisco gear has backdoors for the USG in it is a pretty bold claim, and one that Ive not heard before. Youre supposing that noone has noticed this "backdoor" traffic on their cisco gear (or thru any of the network devices that traffic traverses), AND that the USG is comfortable knowing that 90% of the infrastructure out there is already compromised?
Oh baloney. I personally had someone ask about fixing an apple device, which I eventually turned down because neither of us wanted to deal with the hassle of buying a bit that I would never again use, on the off chance that I could fix the problem.
Im sure that many people are not dissuaded. Im quite sure that there are at least as many who decided not to bother with a self-upgrade / fix of an apple device because they felt like they were getting in over their head.
If the pentalobe's characteristics were really that compelling (because we all know cellphones require high-torque screws, right?), they would be used by more than one vendor. There's a reason that the pentalobe is categorized as a security screw; its because the whole intention is to make it a general PITA to work on devices using it.
Whether or not its effective isnt even relevant, its still obnoxious that they even thought to do it. It was obnoxious when I had to buy a tri-wing screwdriver to repair nintendo equipment in the 90's / 2000's, and its still obnoxious today.
Perhaps I wasnt clear enough. When you request data from a website's server, the response often includes pointers to data not hosted on that server. Sometimes it is images, sometimes JS (ie, google analytics, or discus, or SSO). Sometimes those pointers pull in ad data. But all of it was done with the explicit approval of the site owner, who you requested data from; and unless you are using DNT, your request was explicitly that that website give you everything that it had published, 3rd-party data and all.
That is true of EVERY site that has a Fecebook "like" button, or Reddit link, or AddThis or Google+ button, or ad from DoubleClick, and on and on and on, ad nauseum. Every one of them.
Yes, and ALL of those are on sites which gave their explicit OK. You are visiting a site which has explicitly included 3rd party data. The solution? Either block it on your end, or stop requesting "everything published" from that website-- ie, dont visit that site.
For the record, the first option is unbelievably easy in Chrome and Firefox, with Ghostery and Adblock.
The website owners and advertises screwed things up for themselves by setting up a system that made it virtually impossible for people browsing the web to opt out
Some clarification is necessary, for folks who dont really get how websites work.
You are going to www.somesite.com and saying "please, server, send me whatever data you have published". That site may be publishing a website with content from a bunch of advertising networks, so thats what your request gets. Theres nothing inherently evil about this, as a lot of the time those ads generate the revenue which pays the server bills. DNT is your browser saying "please send me whatever youre publishing, but try not to send the advertising stuff". Whether the server complies with (or even understands) that request is going to be up to the site operator.
Of course, as the end user, you have ALWAYS had the freedom to strip out or modify whatever content you receive; or even modify the server's response such that third-party data is never pulled in at all. This appears to be what Firefox will now do by default, and there is again nothing wrong with this except that it will change the dynamic of how ad-supported sites serve data to firefox customers; they may decide to respond by blocking browsers which block ad data.
The biggest mistake people make is thinking that site operators HAVE to cater to you, and thus that we can force them to give us their site, sans the ads. They can very well decide that you dont actually make them any money, and that you therefore wont be getting the ads OR the site. Remember that old saying, be careful what you wish for-- you want no ads, you may end up with no content either.
Heres the difference, and its really not so complicated.
IE announced that it was going to turn on the "please dont track me" flag which requests a website not track the browser. Such a setting only has an effect if the website in question honors it. Websites might honor that request if it was clear that the user intentionally turned it on, indicating that they perhaps cared enough to not visit said site or use an adblocker if it was not honored. By making it the default setting, it is not farfetched to think that most sites will now NOT honor the flag, since it doesnt indicate much of anything except that the user is on the newest browser. Theres also the question of whether that was exactly MS's plan.
Mozilla here is announcing what amounts to the inclusion of Ghostery lite or something similar in Firefox. This isnt something a website can say "no" to. There are other issues that this can cause, certainly, but theyre not "ruining" anything for everyone else the way IE is; any issues this causes would be on the end-user side (rendering, broken pages, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Remind me again whose content makes up 90% of the netflix catalogue (aka the stuff netflix customers care about)?
Oh ok.
This has been discussed before. The idea is to provide extensions to allow DRM to be implemented without plugins. See:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/05/drm-in-html5-is-a-victory-for-the-open-web-not-a-defeat/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-encrypted-media-20130510/
now deploy it to web users so that it can run on a wide audience with no dependencies, true "write once run everywhere", and runs in an actually functional sandbox (as opposed to the nightmares of java or activeX).
Of course Chromes NACL does that as well-- apparenly you can now get NACL games in the chrome app store.
The Luddites were right all along. We never should have allowed power looms, the cotton gin, or the mechanical adding machine to take off. Think of all the lost jobs!
Whether you understand it or not is irrelevant. The fact is, no video tag will take off unless it supports DRM. Thats reality, and you can either continue not understanding it or you can accept it and deal with practicalities like standardizing a DRM system.
Gee, I wonder if we could solve that by baking DRM capability into HTML5, thus allowing other OSes to natively access the content!
No wait that steals our freedom. Like the freedom to have to use IE11 and a "premium extension". Gosh I love backwards logic: Freedom that leaves me more restricted than before!
Its almost like the discussion about having DRM support in HTML 5 was for real-world practical reasons, rather than just killing puppies and taking your freedom.
Its better than flash and silverlight because this could become standard if everyone takes their head out of the sand and accepts that HTML5 video needs DRM support to be attractive to the people making video.
Its possible for a fanatic with no perspective to make good points. Hes still living in his own little world where all software should be created by publicly supported, roaming gypsy programmers.
FOSS can be valuable, useful, and desirable without it being necessary (or even desirable) that it be the only option.
and our privacy would be safe if we used anything more complex than ROT13)
I like the naieve implication that the NSA is somehow incompetent. Recall that the original AES spec was amended with a recommendation from the NSA which was determined, around 10 years later, to have substantially strengthened it against just-now-being-discovered cryptographic attacks. Recall that the NSA is largely responsible for SELinux.
Im sure there are other examples of their competence which escape it, but needless to say they arent exactly bumbling; theres every indication that some of the best security folks in the industry work @ the NSA.
This just seems like a relevant question.
Why, exactly, was marriage given benefits and incentives in the first place?
which can be considered harassment.
Right, but I think taking someone's property off of their body and smashing it is also considered harassment, so perhaps they were right for recording you.
Is that how the logic goes?
Fact is, if youre in a public place, you dont have an expectation of privacy. Property laws (ie, it being illegal for you to take and smash my stuff), however, still apply.
What is a rural city?
We're somehow supposed to believe there's thousands of alien souls occupying us?
They can be detected if you wave a network toner around your body. That staticy noise is the alien ghosts.
Seriously, does anyone know if you could use an E-meter as a network toner in a pinch?
CSPAN is actually pretty decent; it avoids most of the issues that NPR has (ie, being pretty blatantly biased).
Enforcing patents (whether we consider them valid or not) isnt an antitrust issue, its a requirement for keeping your patent.
Yea, noone on NPR has EVER provided any insight. Radio sucks, rite?
(for the record, Im a republican, but the only right-wing radio I've heard is pretty obnoxious. NPR can be obnoxious and has its own issues, but at least they dont yell)
Saying that all Cisco gear has backdoors for the USG in it is a pretty bold claim, and one that Ive not heard before. Youre supposing that noone has noticed this "backdoor" traffic on their cisco gear (or thru any of the network devices that traffic traverses), AND that the USG is comfortable knowing that 90% of the infrastructure out there is already compromised?
Provide sources, please.
It was also buggy and crashed a lot.
And really, it wasnt the browser but the web that was "fast and lean".
THe incentive is for the guy thinking about revolutionizing an industry, not to lower prices.
Put another way, patents arent there to create cheaper ideas, but newer ideas.
Oh baloney. I personally had someone ask about fixing an apple device, which I eventually turned down because neither of us wanted to deal with the hassle of buying a bit that I would never again use, on the off chance that I could fix the problem.
Im sure that many people are not dissuaded. Im quite sure that there are at least as many who decided not to bother with a self-upgrade / fix of an apple device because they felt like they were getting in over their head.
If the pentalobe's characteristics were really that compelling (because we all know cellphones require high-torque screws, right?), they would be used by more than one vendor. There's a reason that the pentalobe is categorized as a security screw; its because the whole intention is to make it a general PITA to work on devices using it.
Whether or not its effective isnt even relevant, its still obnoxious that they even thought to do it. It was obnoxious when I had to buy a tri-wing screwdriver to repair nintendo equipment in the 90's / 2000's, and its still obnoxious today.
every dammable river
Ok ok, relax man. No need to start swearing.
Why would you want a wii that does routing protocols?
Perhaps I wasnt clear enough. When you request data from a website's server, the response often includes pointers to data not hosted on that server. Sometimes it is images, sometimes JS (ie, google analytics, or discus, or SSO). Sometimes those pointers pull in ad data. But all of it was done with the explicit approval of the site owner, who you requested data from; and unless you are using DNT, your request was explicitly that that website give you everything that it had published, 3rd-party data and all.
That is true of EVERY site that has a Fecebook "like" button, or Reddit link, or AddThis or Google+ button, or ad from DoubleClick, and on and on and on, ad nauseum. Every one of them.
Yes, and ALL of those are on sites which gave their explicit OK. You are visiting a site which has explicitly included 3rd party data. The solution? Either block it on your end, or stop requesting "everything published" from that website-- ie, dont visit that site.
For the record, the first option is unbelievably easy in Chrome and Firefox, with Ghostery and Adblock.
The website owners and advertises screwed things up for themselves by setting up a system that made it virtually impossible for people browsing the web to opt out
Some clarification is necessary, for folks who dont really get how websites work.
You are going to www.somesite.com and saying "please, server, send me whatever data you have published". That site may be publishing a website with content from a bunch of advertising networks, so thats what your request gets. Theres nothing inherently evil about this, as a lot of the time those ads generate the revenue which pays the server bills. DNT is your browser saying "please send me whatever youre publishing, but try not to send the advertising stuff". Whether the server complies with (or even understands) that request is going to be up to the site operator.
Of course, as the end user, you have ALWAYS had the freedom to strip out or modify whatever content you receive; or even modify the server's response such that third-party data is never pulled in at all. This appears to be what Firefox will now do by default, and there is again nothing wrong with this except that it will change the dynamic of how ad-supported sites serve data to firefox customers; they may decide to respond by blocking browsers which block ad data.
The biggest mistake people make is thinking that site operators HAVE to cater to you, and thus that we can force them to give us their site, sans the ads. They can very well decide that you dont actually make them any money, and that you therefore wont be getting the ads OR the site. Remember that old saying, be careful what you wish for-- you want no ads, you may end up with no content either.
Heres the difference, and its really not so complicated.
IE announced that it was going to turn on the "please dont track me" flag which requests a website not track the browser. Such a setting only has an effect if the website in question honors it. Websites might honor that request if it was clear that the user intentionally turned it on, indicating that they perhaps cared enough to not visit said site or use an adblocker if it was not honored. By making it the default setting, it is not farfetched to think that most sites will now NOT honor the flag, since it doesnt indicate much of anything except that the user is on the newest browser. Theres also the question of whether that was exactly MS's plan.
Mozilla here is announcing what amounts to the inclusion of Ghostery lite or something similar in Firefox. This isnt something a website can say "no" to. There are other issues that this can cause, certainly, but theyre not "ruining" anything for everyone else the way IE is; any issues this causes would be on the end-user side (rendering, broken pages, etc).