I can't state the law, but I can say that as being a federal contractor personally, at least at all the companies myself and my co-workers have worked for, it's true.
Of the 3 companies I have worked for where I was being "paid" by the federal government (i.e., my hours were billed to the government by the company), only one required me to take a drug test.
And, one of the companies that didn't test had a "no alcohol or drugs at any company function" that literally required us to do things like not wear company-logo'd swag if we had a beer in our hand. So, it's not like drugs and alcohol were accepted there...they just didn't test for them.
Except there won't be and most likely there is a good chance there will be more reckless drivers as they get frustrated at being caught behind cars driving the speed limit.
I'd have no problems riding at the speed limit in a autonomous vehicle because I would know that it would always be driving at the speed limit, since it wouldn't have to slow down for idiots doing stupid stuff.
When every vehicle was self-driving, the traffic would flow much better, since speed limits could be raised to what the road was designed to handle. The primary reason I drive above the speed limit on limited access highways is that it is artificially low...those roads were often designed with 75mph traffic in mind. Secondly, I drive faster to make up for the times when idiots cause me to have to slow down to 30mph below the speed limit.
There's an old saying about "if you have to hit your brakes on the interstate, somebody did something wrong".
Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true.
It absolutely is true.
No, it is not. The only thing that controls what you can do with the DVD you purchased is copyright law. Nothing written on the cover of the DVD can change that law. As an example, many DVDs have wording that say you can't rent them out to other people. This is a lie (in the US, at least). It is perfectly legal to purchase a DVD and then rent it to somebody else.
Please tell me where I can purchase a $60 million film for $18.
You are conflating purchasing a copy of copyright material with purchasing the copyright. Nobody in their right mind believes that buying a hardcover book for $20 gives them ownership of the copyright for that book. Movies on DVD are no different from books. When you purchase either, you don't own the copyright to the content, but you do own the content as it is embodied in that particular copy.
And, because you own it, you retain first-sale rights. Note that these rights are held by the purchaser, not the copyright owner. So, they really should be called "first purchase" rights. See the referenced Wikipedia page for more information on an attempt by a book publisher that who tried to claim limits on first sale rights in a very similar manner to wording on DVDs.
Also note that "first sale" is a misnomer in another way in that it really refers to the point at which the copyright holder lawfully transfers a copy of the copyrighted material to another entity. At that point, the object can then be passed on to any number of other people/businesses, all of whom have the same "first sale" rights in that they can sell, rent, etc., the object without requiring any permission from the copyright holder. So, this makes them "first purchase and beyond" rights.
This is something, which you can not legally do even with a DVD you purchased in a store — they are only licensed for private viewing.
Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true. If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.
The actual phrasing in 17 USC concerns "public performance". If these DVDs had been legally purchased (instead of definitely pirated), it's possible the prison performance would not be considered "public". After all, can you just walk in and watch movies with the prisoners? Remember that size of audience is unimportant for determining "private" or "public". A wedding with 500 guests where only people with invitations are allowed in is "private", while a bar with seating for 3 people is "public".
I've just started and my goal for this year to get a sub one minute solve.
It's been nearly 20 years since I even touched a cube, so I suspect my reactions aren't what they once were. I don't think I could get back to the consistent 1:30 I used to have, with many times under a minute.
But, it might be fun just to show people I know how to do it.
I believe he considers movies and similar art to be open enough by virtue of the fact that you can see them.
This is where his lack of understanding of reality reveals itself.
There is no difference between paying to be permitted into a movie theater or art museum and paying Netflix to watch House of Cards. The only difference is that the "DRM" at the movie theater is a guy who will toss you out on your ass if you try to get by him without a ticket.
Most people don't know the risks of DRM, a lot of people don't even know what DRM is. YOU might have been overwarned, but most people have never heard of The Right to Read, and don't understand why DRM could be problematic.
The thing is...we don't have "the right to read". If I write something, you don't get the right to read it. I might give you my permission to read it, but I don't have to.
In his story, RMS was conflating "first sale rights" into "I should be able to do anything with any book, any time I want, regardless of the author's wishes". Basically, he took his free software opinions and twisted them to apply to books as well. I do agree that DRM can remove some of your first sale rights, and that's a real pain. You should be able to loan, sell, rent, etc., a book that you purchased. But, if you merely rent a book/movie/car/whatever, then you don't get all those same rights, and the story RMS wrote was about rental of books, not sale.
And, yes, I do think it's OK for a company that rents you a physical book/movie/car/whatever to put in a provision that you can't loan it to anybody else. If you don't like that provision, then do business with some other company.
As such, it actually comes out a touch cheaper than the cost that DirecTV spent on their satellites in the first place, and AT&T gets to exploit the 16% profit margin on DirecTV's lines of service.
And, it basically kills off any chance for improvement of DirecTV technologies:
While its business has shown little growth in recent years, it generated about $8 billion in earnings last year. Much of that will go toward future investments in growth, AT&T said, including bidding at least $9 billion for wireless network capacity that the government plans to auction off soon.
Basically, AT&T is going to cannibalize DirecTV by taking all the money from DirecTV to use on cell phone spectrum. So, no money for new satellites, improved encoding hardware, more servers for download of on demand, etc.
I've been a DirecTV subscriber since 1999, and if this merger goes through, I'll have to start looking for some other provider. It might even make me cut the cord.
OnStar used to brag about the satellite technology they used, and Hughes was part of the initial development and provided "communications and satellite technology" (according to Wikipedia).
But you are correct that if they ever used it, they don't now, so my point is even more valid: every car with bluetooth is just as much able to help you in an accident as GMs with OnStar. It's just a matter of whether the car has the right programming.
It's why they have a list of kosher distributions, Debian doesn't make the list because it allows for the installation of non-free repositories.
Is there any Linux distribution that doesn't allow editing of the list of repositories? If you can edit it, the distro can't be "kosher", as there is no way to track every single repository on the planet to verify that it isn't 100% FSF-defined "free" software.
Do you realize that every time anyone installs a new version of Firefox, the former configuration is over-written to include a maintenance service that gives Mozilla Foundation control over the user's computer?
This is not true, at least in my experience.
Once you disable the Mozilla update service, it stays disabled. You can even uninstall it completely if you want, and updating Firefox does not result in it being re-installed.
Also DRM prevents fair-use rights, for example the right for a backup copy, the right to use short clips from the video
For products you actually buy (like the Blu-Ray example you gave that isn't really related to this issue), you definitely have rights like media shifting, etc., and DRM does get in the way of those things. But, we are talking about audio and video that will be accessed through the browser. It's pretty safe to say that 99% of that will be a "rental" of some kind, like Netflix.
In that case, you don't have as many fair use rights, as you don't have any of the first sale protections. Likewise, I don't know how successful you'd be arguing "fair use" when using short clips from a rental product. That's a slippery slope that would have people arguing that they are only recording the movie in the theater on their cell phone so that they can review it using a few short clips.
I also don't see how you could argue the need for media/device shifting or time shifting, as if this is a Firefox browser feature, then any device with Firefox would allow you to view the content at any time.
DRM in Firefox will download a binary module from adobe, and it can be enabled/disabled by the user.
I'm pretty sure the endgame for the major content providers is to close that loophole.
What loophole? If the user disables the DRM module, then they can't view/hear anything that uses DRM. I don't see why content providers would care if someone "turns off the TV".
rc.d has had a very good run, but there is a demand for faster, asynchronous booting, so systemd can get a system from the kernel to services started in just a few seconds, as well as down the machine in the same time.
If you ignore things like timing issues on NFS mounts (systemd often starts services that need the mount before the mount is really 100% ready), and just stick with local dependencies, systemd might save you 3-5 seconds on boot over upstart or plain old SysV init. If you don't ignore those things, it's possible that systemd will cost you time not only every boot, but admin time as you try to debug why the services aren't functioning correctly.
This is absolute unimportant compared to the sometimes nearly 5 minutes required for the hardware to go through all its tests. Saving a few seconds from the time grub starts until the system is fully usable really only impacts VMs. And, I really don't care about saving 5 seconds every few months.
FLAC is great for the individual tracks, but there is also information about inter-track gaps. If you lose that, playing the album won't sound right if any of the tracks are supposed to flow into the next one.
There is no such thing as an "inter-track gap" as far as ripping is concerned, since no ripper pays attention to the index markers on the CD.
Basically, every bit on a music CD is part of some track. What people call "inter-track gap" is really the silence that exists between songs. In some cases, this silence is codified into the disc by being index 0 of the track. You can tell this is happening if your CD player display changes (OK, mine does, but maybe not some others) to the next track and shows a negative time. That small chunk is index 0, with index 1 (hopefully) being the start of the actual song.
But, when you rip, the entire track (including all indexes) is saved. If you have a player that doesn't artificially add silence between tracks, you can then play every track ripped from the disc in order and it will have the exact same spacing (or lack thereof) between songs as was on the CD. Again, this is my experience with all the ripping software I have used. Other software may do stupid things like throw away silence at the beginning of end of tracks.
Thunderbolt can drive six PCI-E devices per bus (http://www.macworld.com/article/2146360/lab-tested-the-mac-pro-daisy-chain-challenge.html). Most desktops don't have six PCI-E slots total.
Because motherboards don't add slots unless they have the bandwidth to drive them.
Although in theory you can hook up a half dozen PCI cards to the Thunderbolt chain, since the internal connection is likely routed through a PCIe x4 on the motherboard, you're not going to get very good performance if you try to use more than one device at a time.
They've got 300 popular books and literary classics. It's a lightweight, standardized, secure library for sailors who are bored and want to read. While this would be a terrible consumer device, I think it makes sense for the use case. If you're deployed on a ship for six months, having 300 books to choose from is a lot better than having zero books to choose from.
It's terrible for the use case.
The average size of an eBook in my collection is 1.1MB. The basic Kindle has 1.25GB of available storage. That means it can hold 1,100 books (Amazon claims 1,400). A Kindle is generally used by one person, so that's a huge amount of storage, but if you are sharing among 30 other people (about 150 crew on a US submarine), it makes a lot more sense.
So, why does this e-reader for the Navy hold only 300 books, when over 108,000 are available to sailors (as eBooks) when they are on shore? Fill it up with storage and put a couple thousand books on it.
Some people have OnStar just because of the crash reporting stuff - it's not just for GPS.
Although the satellite connection of OnStar offers service in some places you can't get cell phone service, there aren't very many such places.
So, as long as you have a bluetooth connection in your car, your car can dial your phone when you are in an accident. I know not every car that supports bluetooth has the "crash dial 911" feature, but every Ford sold today does, and I suspect a lot of other manufacturers not named GM are similar.
There are a lot of accidental deaths due to children getting hold of guns... that alone gives the government a moral imperative to support smart guns already.
There are a lot of accidental deaths due to people texting while driving...that alone gives the government a moral imperative to require phones not work if they are moving faster than 5mph.
There are a lot of accidental deaths due to people drinking while driving...that alone gives the government a moral imperative to ban alcohol (or require breathalyzer ignition interlocks, etc.).
Note that the number of deaths due to alcohol-impaired driving is vastly larger than the number of children killed in gun accidents where the child is the shooter, so if the government needs to do something about children playing with guns, it needs to do a lot more about alcohol and driving, and do it much faster.
Actually, as he points out in one of the answers, it isn't because in one case there's a practical reason (you can't have two people renting the same car), while in the other case if you had access to the source code, there would be no practical reason.
So, movie theaters should just let people in for free? Every concert should be live broadcast for free to everyone in the world?
Just because something can be sent to everybody "at the same time" doesn't mean it should be. So, yeah, there is a "practical reason" to have to pay for something like Netflix. Part of the problem with RMS is that he wants to spend his life ignoring reality, and this makes his arguments look so far out of touch that nobody takes him seriously anymore. He's become the joke of the free software movement.
That's the crux of the argument - computers are general-purpose devices and (according to RMS) we should not accept restrictions to that.
So, he only uses microwaves, dishwashers, and refrigerators that give him the source code? Today, those are all far more powerful "computers" than what was use to send men to the moon. Where does he draw the line?
Some computing devices can be more general purpose, but a perfectly legitimate purpose for them is to watch movies from Netflix. Just because I use my computer to watch movies with DRM doesn't mean I can't also run any other software I want on it. You can support free software without being a slave to it.
RMS: You shouldn't play non-free games or use netflix.
I wonder if RMS ever rents cars, stays at hotels, rides the subway, or visits museums that charge admission?
Every one of those is identical to what Netflix does (pay some money for temporary use of or access to something). Since Netflix is up front about the fact that what they provide is a rental, nobody should have any problem with this. The fact that you can't save a Netflix video to watch later is no different from the fact that you can't use a rental car after you have returned it.
If you are seeing this in your URL bar, and it's the page you are on, it's already too late. The same is true if Google showed you "shadywebsite.ru" in the "Origin Chip".
What Google is doing won't stop you from pasting that URL into the bar and hitting enter, since the alert won't happen until after you have already navigated to the page.
Slashdot Mirror
136 people were gunned down at the Berlin wall. Number of people killed every year on the American-Mexican border is almost four times higher.
The difference between those numbers is that East Germany was trying to keep people from leaving, making the country one giant prison.
Right or wrong, the US is just trying to keep people without documentation from coming in to the country.
I can't state the law, but I can say that as being a federal contractor personally, at least at all the companies myself and my co-workers have worked for, it's true.
Of the 3 companies I have worked for where I was being "paid" by the federal government (i.e., my hours were billed to the government by the company), only one required me to take a drug test.
And, one of the companies that didn't test had a "no alcohol or drugs at any company function" that literally required us to do things like not wear company-logo'd swag if we had a beer in our hand. So, it's not like drugs and alcohol were accepted there...they just didn't test for them.
Except there won't be and most likely there is a good chance there will be more reckless drivers as they get frustrated at being caught behind cars driving the speed limit.
I'd have no problems riding at the speed limit in a autonomous vehicle because I would know that it would always be driving at the speed limit, since it wouldn't have to slow down for idiots doing stupid stuff.
When every vehicle was self-driving, the traffic would flow much better, since speed limits could be raised to what the road was designed to handle. The primary reason I drive above the speed limit on limited access highways is that it is artificially low...those roads were often designed with 75mph traffic in mind. Secondly, I drive faster to make up for the times when idiots cause me to have to slow down to 30mph below the speed limit.
There's an old saying about "if you have to hit your brakes on the interstate, somebody did something wrong".
Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true.
It absolutely is true.
No, it is not. The only thing that controls what you can do with the DVD you purchased is copyright law. Nothing written on the cover of the DVD can change that law. As an example, many DVDs have wording that say you can't rent them out to other people. This is a lie (in the US, at least). It is perfectly legal to purchase a DVD and then rent it to somebody else.
Please tell me where I can purchase a $60 million film for $18.
You are conflating purchasing a copy of copyright material with purchasing the copyright. Nobody in their right mind believes that buying a hardcover book for $20 gives them ownership of the copyright for that book. Movies on DVD are no different from books. When you purchase either, you don't own the copyright to the content, but you do own the content as it is embodied in that particular copy.
And, because you own it, you retain first-sale rights. Note that these rights are held by the purchaser, not the copyright owner. So, they really should be called "first purchase" rights. See the referenced Wikipedia page for more information on an attempt by a book publisher that who tried to claim limits on first sale rights in a very similar manner to wording on DVDs.
Also note that "first sale" is a misnomer in another way in that it really refers to the point at which the copyright holder lawfully transfers a copy of the copyrighted material to another entity. At that point, the object can then be passed on to any number of other people/businesses, all of whom have the same "first sale" rights in that they can sell, rent, etc., the object without requiring any permission from the copyright holder. So, this makes them "first purchase and beyond" rights.
This is something, which you can not legally do even with a DVD you purchased in a store — they are only licensed for private viewing.
Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true. If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.
The actual phrasing in 17 USC concerns "public performance". If these DVDs had been legally purchased (instead of definitely pirated), it's possible the prison performance would not be considered "public". After all, can you just walk in and watch movies with the prisoners? Remember that size of audience is unimportant for determining "private" or "public". A wedding with 500 guests where only people with invitations are allowed in is "private", while a bar with seating for 3 people is "public".
I've just started and my goal for this year to get a sub one minute solve.
It's been nearly 20 years since I even touched a cube, so I suspect my reactions aren't what they once were. I don't think I could get back to the consistent 1:30 I used to have, with many times under a minute.
But, it might be fun just to show people I know how to do it.
I believe he considers movies and similar art to be open enough by virtue of the fact that you can see them.
This is where his lack of understanding of reality reveals itself.
There is no difference between paying to be permitted into a movie theater or art museum and paying Netflix to watch House of Cards. The only difference is that the "DRM" at the movie theater is a guy who will toss you out on your ass if you try to get by him without a ticket.
Most people don't know the risks of DRM, a lot of people don't even know what DRM is. YOU might have been overwarned, but most people have never heard of The Right to Read, and don't understand why DRM could be problematic.
The thing is...we don't have "the right to read". If I write something, you don't get the right to read it. I might give you my permission to read it, but I don't have to.
In his story, RMS was conflating "first sale rights" into "I should be able to do anything with any book, any time I want, regardless of the author's wishes". Basically, he took his free software opinions and twisted them to apply to books as well. I do agree that DRM can remove some of your first sale rights, and that's a real pain. You should be able to loan, sell, rent, etc., a book that you purchased. But, if you merely rent a book/movie/car/whatever, then you don't get all those same rights, and the story RMS wrote was about rental of books, not sale.
And, yes, I do think it's OK for a company that rents you a physical book/movie/car/whatever to put in a provision that you can't loan it to anybody else. If you don't like that provision, then do business with some other company.
As such, it actually comes out a touch cheaper than the cost that DirecTV spent on their satellites in the first place, and AT&T gets to exploit the 16% profit margin on DirecTV's lines of service.
And, it basically kills off any chance for improvement of DirecTV technologies:
Basically, AT&T is going to cannibalize DirecTV by taking all the money from DirecTV to use on cell phone spectrum. So, no money for new satellites, improved encoding hardware, more servers for download of on demand, etc.
I've been a DirecTV subscriber since 1999, and if this merger goes through, I'll have to start looking for some other provider. It might even make me cut the cord.
OnStar used to brag about the satellite technology they used, and Hughes was part of the initial development and provided "communications and satellite technology" (according to Wikipedia).
But you are correct that if they ever used it, they don't now, so my point is even more valid: every car with bluetooth is just as much able to help you in an accident as GMs with OnStar. It's just a matter of whether the car has the right programming.
It's why they have a list of kosher distributions, Debian doesn't make the list because it allows for the installation of non-free repositories.
Is there any Linux distribution that doesn't allow editing of the list of repositories? If you can edit it, the distro can't be "kosher", as there is no way to track every single repository on the planet to verify that it isn't 100% FSF-defined "free" software.
Do you realize that every time anyone installs a new version of Firefox, the former configuration is over-written to include a maintenance service that gives Mozilla Foundation control over the user's computer?
This is not true, at least in my experience.
Once you disable the Mozilla update service, it stays disabled. You can even uninstall it completely if you want, and updating Firefox does not result in it being re-installed.
Also DRM prevents fair-use rights, for example the right for a backup copy, the right to use short clips from the video
For products you actually buy (like the Blu-Ray example you gave that isn't really related to this issue), you definitely have rights like media shifting, etc., and DRM does get in the way of those things. But, we are talking about audio and video that will be accessed through the browser. It's pretty safe to say that 99% of that will be a "rental" of some kind, like Netflix.
In that case, you don't have as many fair use rights, as you don't have any of the first sale protections. Likewise, I don't know how successful you'd be arguing "fair use" when using short clips from a rental product. That's a slippery slope that would have people arguing that they are only recording the movie in the theater on their cell phone so that they can review it using a few short clips.
I also don't see how you could argue the need for media/device shifting or time shifting, as if this is a Firefox browser feature, then any device with Firefox would allow you to view the content at any time.
DRM in Firefox will download a binary module from adobe, and it can be enabled/disabled by the user.
I'm pretty sure the endgame for the major content providers is to close that loophole.
What loophole? If the user disables the DRM module, then they can't view/hear anything that uses DRM. I don't see why content providers would care if someone "turns off the TV".
rc.d has had a very good run, but there is a demand for faster, asynchronous booting, so systemd can get a system from the kernel to services started in just a few seconds, as well as down the machine in the same time.
If you ignore things like timing issues on NFS mounts (systemd often starts services that need the mount before the mount is really 100% ready), and just stick with local dependencies, systemd might save you 3-5 seconds on boot over upstart or plain old SysV init. If you don't ignore those things, it's possible that systemd will cost you time not only every boot, but admin time as you try to debug why the services aren't functioning correctly.
This is absolute unimportant compared to the sometimes nearly 5 minutes required for the hardware to go through all its tests. Saving a few seconds from the time grub starts until the system is fully usable really only impacts VMs. And, I really don't care about saving 5 seconds every few months.
If you try to rip from a BluRay drive, the ripping slows down to a crawl and can take an hour or more to rip a single CD.
Although I don't use EAC regularly, I have tested it with my Blu-Ray writer as the source drive, and found it to run at normal speed.
FLAC is great for the individual tracks, but there is also information about inter-track gaps. If you lose that, playing the album won't sound right if any of the tracks are supposed to flow into the next one.
There is no such thing as an "inter-track gap" as far as ripping is concerned, since no ripper pays attention to the index markers on the CD.
Basically, every bit on a music CD is part of some track. What people call "inter-track gap" is really the silence that exists between songs. In some cases, this silence is codified into the disc by being index 0 of the track. You can tell this is happening if your CD player display changes (OK, mine does, but maybe not some others) to the next track and shows a negative time. That small chunk is index 0, with index 1 (hopefully) being the start of the actual song.
But, when you rip, the entire track (including all indexes) is saved. If you have a player that doesn't artificially add silence between tracks, you can then play every track ripped from the disc in order and it will have the exact same spacing (or lack thereof) between songs as was on the CD. Again, this is my experience with all the ripping software I have used. Other software may do stupid things like throw away silence at the beginning of end of tracks.
Thunderbolt can drive six PCI-E devices per bus (http://www.macworld.com/article/2146360/lab-tested-the-mac-pro-daisy-chain-challenge.html). Most desktops don't have six PCI-E slots total.
Because motherboards don't add slots unless they have the bandwidth to drive them.
Although in theory you can hook up a half dozen PCI cards to the Thunderbolt chain, since the internal connection is likely routed through a PCIe x4 on the motherboard, you're not going to get very good performance if you try to use more than one device at a time.
They've got 300 popular books and literary classics. It's a lightweight, standardized, secure library for sailors who are bored and want to read. While this would be a terrible consumer device, I think it makes sense for the use case. If you're deployed on a ship for six months, having 300 books to choose from is a lot better than having zero books to choose from.
It's terrible for the use case.
The average size of an eBook in my collection is 1.1MB. The basic Kindle has 1.25GB of available storage. That means it can hold 1,100 books (Amazon claims 1,400). A Kindle is generally used by one person, so that's a huge amount of storage, but if you are sharing among 30 other people (about 150 crew on a US submarine), it makes a lot more sense.
So, why does this e-reader for the Navy hold only 300 books, when over 108,000 are available to sailors (as eBooks) when they are on shore? Fill it up with storage and put a couple thousand books on it.
Odd, my Honda's all have 10 year warranties as a normal warranty
Your Honda might have a 10 year "power-train" warranty, but not a 10 year "bumper-to-bumper" warranty, which is the type the GP was referencing.
Some people have OnStar just because of the crash reporting stuff - it's not just for GPS.
Although the satellite connection of OnStar offers service in some places you can't get cell phone service, there aren't very many such places.
So, as long as you have a bluetooth connection in your car, your car can dial your phone when you are in an accident. I know not every car that supports bluetooth has the "crash dial 911" feature, but every Ford sold today does, and I suspect a lot of other manufacturers not named GM are similar.
There are a lot of accidental deaths due to children getting hold of guns... that alone gives the government a moral imperative to support smart guns already.
There are a lot of accidental deaths due to people texting while driving...that alone gives the government a moral imperative to require phones not work if they are moving faster than 5mph.
There are a lot of accidental deaths due to people drinking while driving...that alone gives the government a moral imperative to ban alcohol (or require breathalyzer ignition interlocks, etc.).
Note that the number of deaths due to alcohol-impaired driving is vastly larger than the number of children killed in gun accidents where the child is the shooter, so if the government needs to do something about children playing with guns, it needs to do a lot more about alcohol and driving, and do it much faster.
Actually, as he points out in one of the answers, it isn't because in one case there's a practical reason (you can't have two people renting the same car), while in the other case if you had access to the source code, there would be no practical reason.
So, movie theaters should just let people in for free? Every concert should be live broadcast for free to everyone in the world?
Just because something can be sent to everybody "at the same time" doesn't mean it should be. So, yeah, there is a "practical reason" to have to pay for something like Netflix. Part of the problem with RMS is that he wants to spend his life ignoring reality, and this makes his arguments look so far out of touch that nobody takes him seriously anymore. He's become the joke of the free software movement.
That's the crux of the argument - computers are general-purpose devices and (according to RMS) we should not accept restrictions to that.
So, he only uses microwaves, dishwashers, and refrigerators that give him the source code? Today, those are all far more powerful "computers" than what was use to send men to the moon. Where does he draw the line?
Some computing devices can be more general purpose, but a perfectly legitimate purpose for them is to watch movies from Netflix. Just because I use my computer to watch movies with DRM doesn't mean I can't also run any other software I want on it. You can support free software without being a slave to it.
RMS: You shouldn't play non-free games or use netflix.
I wonder if RMS ever rents cars, stays at hotels, rides the subway, or visits museums that charge admission?
Every one of those is identical to what Netflix does (pay some money for temporary use of or access to something). Since Netflix is up front about the fact that what they provide is a rental, nobody should have any problem with this. The fact that you can't save a Netflix video to watch later is no different from the fact that you can't use a rental car after you have returned it.
Yes they can: http://bank-of-america.shadywe...
If you are seeing this in your URL bar, and it's the page you are on, it's already too late. The same is true if Google showed you "shadywebsite.ru" in the "Origin Chip".
What Google is doing won't stop you from pasting that URL into the bar and hitting enter, since the alert won't happen until after you have already navigated to the page.