First off, "one button mouse" no longer applies to Macs, and hasn't for a decade.
Second, one button is measurably superior for some people, especially during the time when that was the case with Macs.
Last, your assertion that "a mouse is supposed to have three buttons one for context one for selection and one for execution. Any mouse which requires double clicking is fail" is complete and utter bullshit. It's one way to do it, but most certainly not the best way.
You've got this completely backwards. G4's were notably slower than the CoreDuos that Apple went with. In terms of apparent speed to the user, it was night-and-day. The dual G5's remained similar in performance (both benchmarks and apparent responsiveness) for quite some time. A dual 2.xGHz G4 system would have been trounced by a 1.8GHz Core2Duo.
forces UI designers to make their products single-button navigable.
No, because Command+Click pops up a contextual menu, just as right-click does in several other GUIs. Yes, they say "Always ensure that contextual menu items are also available as menu commands. A contextual menu is hidden by default and a user might not know it exists, so it should never be the only way to access a command. In particular, you should not use a contextual menu as the only way to access an advanced or power-user feature."
You completely missed his point, and simply reiterated it.
[GNOME and MS with similar HIG's]
The difference is by having only one button, and instead only offering control-click, it provides further pressure for the developer to make sure nothing is only in a contextual menu, because it's much more difficult to discover control-click than it is to discover right-click. Most Mac users don't even know there *is* such as thing as control-click, but everyone can see the right mouse button.
The evidence for this is that there are so many things in Windows itself (let alone third-party apps, some of which actually *require* two or more button mice) that you know how to do with with a right-click, but probably aren't even sure how to find with just using the left mouse button (although it's probably *somewhere*, in the Control Panel, or somewhere deep in the Start menu). GNOME is in a better position in terms of the GNOME desktop environment itself, but apps are in an even worse position than Windows, since GNOME runs any X app, of which there are a *lot* that are essentially unusable without three mouse buttons, since they all assume three button mice (xterm is a perfect example).
MS, GNOME, and Apple has similar *guidelines*, but only Apple's guidelines had the added motivation of users having only a one-button mouse. Windows developers could always assume a two-button mouse, and X developers could assume three (even when it was ported to PCs which only had two buttons, X had an option for "click both buttons to emulate the middle button").
And that explains the pathological hatred of buttons? Simplifying is good, but there's a reason why Apple is the only company to use a 1 button mouse, and why the early mouses all had 3 buttons. Single button mouses suck.
At the time, single button mice were far superior for normal people (Apple did extensive studies on this. And, anecdotally, how many times (even nowadays) do you hear someone ask "left or right" when you ask someone over 50 to click on something?), and multi-button mice were better for professionals and enthusiasts. Apple has supported multi-button mice for well over a decade now, and shipped multi-button mice for over five years.
I can't believe in this day and age there are still "one button mice" Apple trolls.
So how do you explain the NeXT's failure to deliver a popular product?
iOS and Mac OS X. The reason they failed until Apple bought them is their computers cost *way* too much. They were truly desirable at the time, just too expensive for most people outside of workstation applications, like scientific research and finance. The WWW was created on NeXT hardware.
Jobs is lucky and Jonathan Ives is the real genius behind Apple, or some lucky combination of the two.
Jobs ia a genius, as are Woz and Ives. Each in their own way. Woz is a low level technological/hardware hacker genius. Ives is a design genius, and Jobs is a high level "technology for people" genius. Ives was at Apple before Jobs' return, but it was only when the two combined that they truly shined, just like before it was only when Jobs and Woz worked together that Apple was initially successful (and later Jobs and Raskin, among others, with the Mac).
Make a 7"-12" tablet priced at about $250, able to last an 8 hr workday on a single charge, able to run proprietary in-house apps (i.e. not locked to an app store), capable of real I/O (e.g. printing, able to accommodate things like a barcode scanner), and I predict sales in the tens if not hundreds of millions.
iPad is all those things, except for $250, including already in the "tens of millions" in sales.
That's quite a roundabout way of saying "there is serious malware for Android, and not for iOS, and this is directly related to the closed App Store model compared with the open Android model."
That's the dishonesty of most Android fans. They play up the openness (which is valid) without being honest about the downsides. Sure, a vigilant geek can traverse these dangers while simultaneously taking advantage of Android's openness, but the average person can't. Why should they take risks they can avoid for benefits they can't really utilize?
So, why not be honest? Why not own up to Android's strengths *and* it's weaknesses? iOS's strengths are primarily consumer-centric, and its weaknesses primarily geek-centric, and with Android it's the other way round. Why it so difficult for some people to accept this?
Say what you will about Apple's "walled garden" but I don't hear of such things on their AppStore.
Which doesn't mean it isn't happening. At least with Android, when you install an application from Market, AppsLib, or APK, it tells you what privileges the application wants.
Actually, it does mean exactly this, that it isn't happening. iOS apps *can't* secretly force you into conference calls. Also, are you saying this app asked for "permission to secretly initiate conference calls"?
The fact is, we *know* about these things happening on Android. They seem to crop up more than once a month. It's technically *possible* there's something similar happening on iOS, but it's irrational to assume this, because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of anything like this happening at all. You're trying to equate something that actually exists with something that might be possible, but is entirely non-indicated.
Firstly, the OP made the comment that something was "never going to happen". That's only a valid statement if everything is done and dusted and desktop Linux has died a death.
That's just wordplay. As it stands now, Linux on the desktop is never going to happen, is a valid statement. Things can change, but the only sliver of "well, it *might* happen" requires significant changes that are not historically justified.
As a proportion, it is small. But as a community of people necessary to keep Linux on the desktop alive and healthy, it is huge.
This is the crux of the discussion. 1% may be "huge" if you gathered all these people together in one room, but in the wide world they are wholly insignificant. That's why Linux doesn't have much in the way of commercial software or direct hardware support, which is what is meant by "Linux on the desktop".
It's vibrant as a niche platform, but it's not a major player in terms of driving innovation or any aspect whatsoever of the consumer/desktop market, which pretty well backs up SocietyoftheFist's post.
Evidence of what? I don't see any non-personal claims in SocietyoftheFist's post other than "desktop Linux was never going to happen" (which so far is quite correct).
I don't see it. There is no equity, let alone disparity in favor of rape, between rape and DRM.
DRM doesn't cause people to lose five years of their life. If it did, as a matter of course, I'd consider it worse than rape in general. I've used plenty of DRM, and it hasn't caused any loss of my life nor lead to fear of incarceration.
On the other hand, if one wants to claim that the punishment for circumventing DRM *can* be worse than the punishment for raping someone or worse than being a rape victim, that's quite a different (and strange) discussion. However, that's not a discussion about DRM itself.
You've still yet to address the initial issue: your claim that DRM equates to some third party taking control over a person's computer.
All you are saying it "I don't want to have to watch the FBI warning". I agree, neither do I. No one does. But I do because it's worth it to watch a movie. If it's *not* worth it, I don't watch the movie. I have 100% control over whether I watch a movie.
What *you* want, and what puts you in prima-donna status, is to watch a movie without any concern or obligation to those that created the movie and made it available to you.
Certainly, no one specifically wants to watch the FBI warning, but they voluntarily accept it as a requirement dictated by those that are offering the video they want to see. This is exactly the same as nobody specifically wants to pay $10 (or whatever) for a DVD, but they willingly pay it as the studios require it in exchange for the ability to watch the movie.
It's called "commerce", and is a normal part of being human. If you can't accept the terms, don't fucking expect to have the right to watch the film. Do you work for free? Do you not have requirements for which you will be willing to work under? Why are filmmakers any different? They want you to watch a bullshit 10 second video. You accept it and watch it, or cheat them and use a player that skips any mandatory tracks, or you just do without. But don't act like a little prima-donna who deserves the labor of others.
To the topic at hand, DRM does *NOT* take control over your computer. You voluntarily accept it in exchange for the right to benefit from the labors of others. If you don't agree, you either steal from them, or you do without. In no way does this involve *ANYONE* taking over your computer, which is the initial claim that started this nonsensical thread.
I already told you what it was several times what the reasons are for it to NOT exist.
You are being dishonest by omission. You specifically stated "ethical or technological", not simply "reasons".
The only thing anyone is commanding their DVD player to do when the push the play or skip buttons is for the player to simply *play the movie* or *skip the scene*.
No, they are commanding the program to do whatever it does when you press that button. What they *want* is simply to play the movie, and they are doing it with the restrictions that the movie studios have requested. This is entirely voluntary. The studios do not take control over your computer.
When I push use the print function in a computer program it does exactly what I want it to do.
No it doesn't. You do not specifically want a particular window layout to come up, you accept the window that comes up. Sometimes you are given the option of limited customization of the window that is presented. Some printer drivers show annoying ink level displays, and others even show ads for buying replacement ink. In neither case did the user specifically want that to come up, but that's what happens.
The fact remains, the user voluntarily pressed the play button. It's the user that initiated the set of dominoes that is the steps the computer program goes through. If the user does not wish to have one of those dominoes be "play this FBI warning in its entirety", they are free to not press play.
The studios are not taking control over your computer any more than HP takes control over your computer when you use their printers, or than the FSF takes control over your computer when you compile a program. And just like with your printer or your free c compiler, if you do not agree with the terms under which the software and/or data is presented with, you are 100% free to avoid it.
What?? Now you're just talking in circles. "The DVD player must do what it does becaues it does what it does"...
It's not circles, it's stating the way things are.
There is no ethical or technological reason for that sort of DVD to player to exist. The DVD player should not and need not do anything other than what the person that owns it commands it to do.
Your first sentence here is correct, but pointless. There's no ethical or technological reason for that sort of DVD to *not* exist, either. Your second sentence, however, is completely unrelated to the first. If you use that player, when you command it to play, you are commanding it to do what it does when it plays (this should be obvious, and not confused for circular reasoning). This is just like every other program on your computer. When you press "print", you are commanding it to do what it does when you press that button. There's no technical or ethical reason it must bring up the print dialog box that it does. That does not mean you do not have control over your computer.
You are right that Windows contains unavoidable DRM (although it's in the form of the activation system (actually, it's not quite correct to call it "unavoidable", due to the fact that many hackers avoid it with little effort), and not the DRM that is built-in for components like WMP). The ultimate flaw with your logic is with the idea that DRM equates to no longer having control over your computer.
It has been deemed acceptable by significantly more people than have deemed it unacceptable.
This has never been a valid justification for anything.
Actually, it's one of the few valid ways to justify anything subjective.
Not too long ago, significantly more people deemed human slavery more acceptable than unacceptable. Is human slavery justified?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
It's absurd to use slavery as an example why DRM is bad, or why it's wrong for people to find it acceptable.
I disagree. In this case, I think the grandparent comes out looking insightful and clearheaded. He cut through the bullshit and got to the underlying issue: control.
Yes, among the mad, madness often appears sane. DRM is not about "ultimate control over your computer", it's about some control over some of the media you voluntarily put on your computer.
On the other hand, your misunderstandings of this issue make you appear ignorant regarding the matter at hand. You don't seem to understand that the introduction of DRM to the computing ecosystem affects the ecosystem as a whole, not just the parts it has infected.
On the contrary, I understand that the DRM in my DVD player has absolutely no impact on my computer as a whole (aside from trivial technicalities, like the disk space it takes up, and the fact that the icon for the program will show up when I look at my applications, and similar insignificant forms of "impact") if I never play a DVD. And even if I do play a DVD, the DRM doesn't somehow creep into the rest of the system. The actual impact of this DRM is extremely minimal.
As a result, I question your technical knowledge of DRM implementations and your critical thinking skills.
Please explain a single technical aspect of DRM that I have got wrong, or where my critical thinking has gone awry. Simply having a different opinion from you is not compelling evidence. I've encountered DRM all over the place, from DVDs to iTunes purchases, to Steam games, to name a few. I know the practical impacts each of these have, the legal implications, and the technical details of how they work under the hood. And what it all boils down to is that I have found the trade-offs involved to be quite acceptable. And given the popularity of DRM'd content, I can tell you that I am not alone. Your point of view is the outlier here.
I'm not the one that said that, but H.264 already is the de facto standard for HTML5. You can verify this by going around the web and loading sites that offer their video with an HTML5 player. The vast majority of them use H.264.
A more apt FTFY would be "H.264 MIGHT NOT BECOME THE OFFICIAL standard for HTML5 video because it is not royalty-free."
No, it illustrates that your post wasn't all that funny, except for the last line which I did find droll. The rest of it was ad hominem and entirely lacking in reason, facts, or any redeeming content as a form of discussion whatsoever.
I don't know what "mutually exclusively incompatible" means, but we clearly don't have un-copyable TV broadcasts...
Good thing not a single person in this thread has claimed that there are un-copyable TV broadcasts. The claim that I was refuting was that it's impossible (that's what "mutually exclusively incompatible", as awkward as that phrasing was, means) to broadcast something with DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
You're trolling.
First off, "one button mouse" no longer applies to Macs, and hasn't for a decade.
Second, one button is measurably superior for some people, especially during the time when that was the case with Macs.
Last, your assertion that "a mouse is supposed to have three buttons one for context one for selection and one for execution. Any mouse which requires double clicking is fail" is complete and utter bullshit. It's one way to do it, but most certainly not the best way.
You've got this completely backwards. G4's were notably slower than the CoreDuos that Apple went with. In terms of apparent speed to the user, it was night-and-day. The dual G5's remained similar in performance (both benchmarks and apparent responsiveness) for quite some time. A dual 2.xGHz G4 system would have been trounced by a 1.8GHz Core2Duo.
forces UI designers to make their products single-button navigable.
No, because Command+Click pops up a contextual menu, just as right-click does in several other GUIs. Yes, they say "Always ensure that contextual menu items are also available as menu commands. A contextual menu is hidden by default and a user might not know it exists, so it should never be the only way to access a command. In particular, you should not use a contextual menu as the only way to access an advanced or power-user feature."
You completely missed his point, and simply reiterated it.
[GNOME and MS with similar HIG's]
The difference is by having only one button, and instead only offering control-click, it provides further pressure for the developer to make sure nothing is only in a contextual menu, because it's much more difficult to discover control-click than it is to discover right-click. Most Mac users don't even know there *is* such as thing as control-click, but everyone can see the right mouse button.
The evidence for this is that there are so many things in Windows itself (let alone third-party apps, some of which actually *require* two or more button mice) that you know how to do with with a right-click, but probably aren't even sure how to find with just using the left mouse button (although it's probably *somewhere*, in the Control Panel, or somewhere deep in the Start menu). GNOME is in a better position in terms of the GNOME desktop environment itself, but apps are in an even worse position than Windows, since GNOME runs any X app, of which there are a *lot* that are essentially unusable without three mouse buttons, since they all assume three button mice (xterm is a perfect example).
MS, GNOME, and Apple has similar *guidelines*, but only Apple's guidelines had the added motivation of users having only a one-button mouse. Windows developers could always assume a two-button mouse, and X developers could assume three (even when it was ported to PCs which only had two buttons, X had an option for "click both buttons to emulate the middle button").
And that explains the pathological hatred of buttons? Simplifying is good, but there's a reason why Apple is the only company to use a 1 button mouse, and why the early mouses all had 3 buttons. Single button mouses suck.
At the time, single button mice were far superior for normal people (Apple did extensive studies on this. And, anecdotally, how many times (even nowadays) do you hear someone ask "left or right" when you ask someone over 50 to click on something?), and multi-button mice were better for professionals and enthusiasts. Apple has supported multi-button mice for well over a decade now, and shipped multi-button mice for over five years.
I can't believe in this day and age there are still "one button mice" Apple trolls.
So how do you explain the NeXT's failure to deliver a popular product?
iOS and Mac OS X. The reason they failed until Apple bought them is their computers cost *way* too much. They were truly desirable at the time, just too expensive for most people outside of workstation applications, like scientific research and finance. The WWW was created on NeXT hardware.
Jobs is lucky and Jonathan Ives is the real genius behind Apple, or some lucky combination of the two.
Jobs ia a genius, as are Woz and Ives. Each in their own way. Woz is a low level technological/hardware hacker genius. Ives is a design genius, and Jobs is a high level "technology for people" genius. Ives was at Apple before Jobs' return, but it was only when the two combined that they truly shined, just like before it was only when Jobs and Woz worked together that Apple was initially successful (and later Jobs and Raskin, among others, with the Mac).
Make a 7"-12" tablet priced at about $250, able to last an 8 hr workday on a single charge, able to run proprietary in-house apps (i.e. not locked to an app store), capable of real I/O (e.g. printing, able to accommodate things like a barcode scanner), and I predict sales in the tens if not hundreds of millions.
iPad is all those things, except for $250, including already in the "tens of millions" in sales.
In other words: "It goes to eleven^w 24!"
That's quite a roundabout way of saying "there is serious malware for Android, and not for iOS, and this is directly related to the closed App Store model compared with the open Android model."
That's the dishonesty of most Android fans. They play up the openness (which is valid) without being honest about the downsides. Sure, a vigilant geek can traverse these dangers while simultaneously taking advantage of Android's openness, but the average person can't. Why should they take risks they can avoid for benefits they can't really utilize?
So, why not be honest? Why not own up to Android's strengths *and* it's weaknesses? iOS's strengths are primarily consumer-centric, and its weaknesses primarily geek-centric, and with Android it's the other way round. Why it so difficult for some people to accept this?
I'm totally fascinated by this logic:
1. Yay, Android has alternative markets, iOS doesn't!
2. [virus on alternative markets]
3. iOS doesn't have alternative markets, yay for Android!
???
That's like saying Firefox sucks because it doesn't have ActiveX.
Say what you will about Apple's "walled garden" but I don't hear of such things on their AppStore.
Which doesn't mean it isn't happening. At least with Android, when you install an application from Market, AppsLib, or APK, it tells you what privileges the application wants.
Actually, it does mean exactly this, that it isn't happening. iOS apps *can't* secretly force you into conference calls. Also, are you saying this app asked for "permission to secretly initiate conference calls"?
The fact is, we *know* about these things happening on Android. They seem to crop up more than once a month. It's technically *possible* there's something similar happening on iOS, but it's irrational to assume this, because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of anything like this happening at all. You're trying to equate something that actually exists with something that might be possible, but is entirely non-indicated.
Light Peak *is* only copper, right now. Light Peak over fiber is still at least a year off.
Apple has only one display, and that display has only a Mini DisplayPort connector.
Well, two if you count the 27" iMac, which can be used as a display, and that too has only MDP.
Firstly, the OP made the comment that something was "never going to happen". That's only a valid statement if everything is done and dusted and desktop Linux has died a death.
That's just wordplay. As it stands now, Linux on the desktop is never going to happen, is a valid statement. Things can change, but the only sliver of "well, it *might* happen" requires significant changes that are not historically justified.
As a proportion, it is small. But as a community of people necessary to keep Linux on the desktop alive and healthy, it is huge.
This is the crux of the discussion. 1% may be "huge" if you gathered all these people together in one room, but in the wide world they are wholly insignificant. That's why Linux doesn't have much in the way of commercial software or direct hardware support, which is what is meant by "Linux on the desktop".
It's vibrant as a niche platform, but it's not a major player in terms of driving innovation or any aspect whatsoever of the consumer/desktop market, which pretty well backs up SocietyoftheFist's post.
Evidence of what? I don't see any non-personal claims in SocietyoftheFist's post other than "desktop Linux was never going to happen" (which so far is quite correct).
I don't see it. There is no equity, let alone disparity in favor of rape, between rape and DRM.
DRM doesn't cause people to lose five years of their life. If it did, as a matter of course, I'd consider it worse than rape in general. I've used plenty of DRM, and it hasn't caused any loss of my life nor lead to fear of incarceration.
On the other hand, if one wants to claim that the punishment for circumventing DRM *can* be worse than the punishment for raping someone or worse than being a rape victim, that's quite a different (and strange) discussion. However, that's not a discussion about DRM itself.
You've still yet to address the initial issue: your claim that DRM equates to some third party taking control over a person's computer.
All you are saying it "I don't want to have to watch the FBI warning". I agree, neither do I. No one does. But I do because it's worth it to watch a movie. If it's *not* worth it, I don't watch the movie. I have 100% control over whether I watch a movie.
What *you* want, and what puts you in prima-donna status, is to watch a movie without any concern or obligation to those that created the movie and made it available to you.
This is nothing like raping someone
No, it's arguably worse.
You are insane.
Certainly, no one specifically wants to watch the FBI warning, but they voluntarily accept it as a requirement dictated by those that are offering the video they want to see. This is exactly the same as nobody specifically wants to pay $10 (or whatever) for a DVD, but they willingly pay it as the studios require it in exchange for the ability to watch the movie.
It's called "commerce", and is a normal part of being human. If you can't accept the terms, don't fucking expect to have the right to watch the film. Do you work for free? Do you not have requirements for which you will be willing to work under? Why are filmmakers any different? They want you to watch a bullshit 10 second video. You accept it and watch it, or cheat them and use a player that skips any mandatory tracks, or you just do without. But don't act like a little prima-donna who deserves the labor of others.
To the topic at hand, DRM does *NOT* take control over your computer. You voluntarily accept it in exchange for the right to benefit from the labors of others. If you don't agree, you either steal from them, or you do without. In no way does this involve *ANYONE* taking over your computer, which is the initial claim that started this nonsensical thread.
I already told you what it was several times what the reasons are for it to NOT exist.
You are being dishonest by omission. You specifically stated "ethical or technological", not simply "reasons".
The only thing anyone is commanding their DVD player to do when the push the play or skip buttons is for the player to simply *play the movie* or *skip the scene*.
No, they are commanding the program to do whatever it does when you press that button. What they *want* is simply to play the movie, and they are doing it with the restrictions that the movie studios have requested. This is entirely voluntary. The studios do not take control over your computer.
When I push use the print function in a computer program it does exactly what I want it to do.
No it doesn't. You do not specifically want a particular window layout to come up, you accept the window that comes up. Sometimes you are given the option of limited customization of the window that is presented. Some printer drivers show annoying ink level displays, and others even show ads for buying replacement ink. In neither case did the user specifically want that to come up, but that's what happens.
The fact remains, the user voluntarily pressed the play button. It's the user that initiated the set of dominoes that is the steps the computer program goes through. If the user does not wish to have one of those dominoes be "play this FBI warning in its entirety", they are free to not press play.
The studios are not taking control over your computer any more than HP takes control over your computer when you use their printers, or than the FSF takes control over your computer when you compile a program. And just like with your printer or your free c compiler, if you do not agree with the terms under which the software and/or data is presented with, you are 100% free to avoid it.
What?? Now you're just talking in circles. "The DVD player must do what it does becaues it does what it does"...
It's not circles, it's stating the way things are.
There is no ethical or technological reason for that sort of DVD to player to exist. The DVD player should not and need not do anything other than what the person that owns it commands it to do.
Your first sentence here is correct, but pointless. There's no ethical or technological reason for that sort of DVD to *not* exist, either. Your second sentence, however, is completely unrelated to the first. If you use that player, when you command it to play, you are commanding it to do what it does when it plays (this should be obvious, and not confused for circular reasoning). This is just like every other program on your computer. When you press "print", you are commanding it to do what it does when you press that button. There's no technical or ethical reason it must bring up the print dialog box that it does. That does not mean you do not have control over your computer.
No. Playing an MPEG-2 video stream does not, in fact, entail preventing the user from skipping any part of it.
It does when that video stream is on a DVD, with a track marked as unskippable, when using a player that does what the flags indicate.
You are right that Windows contains unavoidable DRM (although it's in the form of the activation system (actually, it's not quite correct to call it "unavoidable", due to the fact that many hackers avoid it with little effort), and not the DRM that is built-in for components like WMP). The ultimate flaw with your logic is with the idea that DRM equates to no longer having control over your computer.
It has been deemed acceptable by significantly more people than have deemed it unacceptable.
This has never been a valid justification for anything.
Actually, it's one of the few valid ways to justify anything subjective.
Not too long ago, significantly more people deemed human slavery more acceptable than unacceptable. Is human slavery justified?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
It's absurd to use slavery as an example why DRM is bad, or why it's wrong for people to find it acceptable.
I disagree. In this case, I think the grandparent comes out looking insightful and clearheaded. He cut through the bullshit and got to the underlying issue: control.
Yes, among the mad, madness often appears sane. DRM is not about "ultimate control over your computer", it's about some control over some of the media you voluntarily put on your computer.
On the other hand, your misunderstandings of this issue make you appear ignorant regarding the matter at hand. You don't seem to understand that the introduction of DRM to the computing ecosystem affects the ecosystem as a whole, not just the parts it has infected.
On the contrary, I understand that the DRM in my DVD player has absolutely no impact on my computer as a whole (aside from trivial technicalities, like the disk space it takes up, and the fact that the icon for the program will show up when I look at my applications, and similar insignificant forms of "impact") if I never play a DVD. And even if I do play a DVD, the DRM doesn't somehow creep into the rest of the system. The actual impact of this DRM is extremely minimal.
As a result, I question your technical knowledge of DRM implementations and your critical thinking skills.
Please explain a single technical aspect of DRM that I have got wrong, or where my critical thinking has gone awry. Simply having a different opinion from you is not compelling evidence. I've encountered DRM all over the place, from DVDs to iTunes purchases, to Steam games, to name a few. I know the practical impacts each of these have, the legal implications, and the technical details of how they work under the hood. And what it all boils down to is that I have found the trade-offs involved to be quite acceptable. And given the popularity of DRM'd content, I can tell you that I am not alone. Your point of view is the outlier here.
I'm not the one that said that, but H.264 already is the de facto standard for HTML5. You can verify this by going around the web and loading sites that offer their video with an HTML5 player. The vast majority of them use H.264.
A more apt FTFY would be "H.264 MIGHT NOT BECOME THE OFFICIAL standard for HTML5 video because it is not royalty-free."
No, it illustrates that your post wasn't all that funny, except for the last line which I did find droll. The rest of it was ad hominem and entirely lacking in reason, facts, or any redeeming content as a form of discussion whatsoever.
I don't know what "mutually exclusively incompatible" means, but we clearly don't have un-copyable TV broadcasts...
Good thing not a single person in this thread has claimed that there are un-copyable TV broadcasts. The claim that I was refuting was that it's impossible (that's what "mutually exclusively incompatible", as awkward as that phrasing was, means) to broadcast something with DRM.