If you really want to know how fast evolution is going, just visit a museum of Sumer or ancient Egypt. Sumer for example go back to 4500 or 4000 BC. Than compare the every day life of a Sumerer to the today life. You would be surprised how little people have changed.
Sure, we have computers, air planes, auto mobiles, etc. today. But the every day life looks shocking familiar to 7000 years ego. We still drink wine and beer, enjoy music, enjoy dancing, enjoy talking, reading, praying, eating, mating, go to war, kill millions innocent including children, and so on. In fact I would say we didn't changed at all in 10,000 years.
The author is confusing knowledge with wisdom or being smart. Sure in 100 years you will be able to load every article of Wikipedia in your brain, but will it make you smart? Intelligence is not how much you know, intelligence is your understanding and your problem solving abilities. Nobody would think that Newton was stupid only because he didn't know how far is the next star from us (Proxima Centauri 4.2421ly).
Evolution is a very very very slow process. And if Darwin is correct then without pressure to become smarter, people will stay at the current level of "smartness". We have got the state in which we are smart enough, meaning we can produce food cheap and have a comfortable life. In fact, more smarter persons have a very difficult time to survive.
I don't really think that give more 10,000 years or 100,000 years, even with the current exponential increasing technology, we will get any smarter then the Sumerer. Maybe if we can replace the part of the brain for "intelligence" with a computer chip.
DRM is just software so I don't know what can not be "GPL compliant". I agree that an open source DRM will not be very functional. But that is not the problem with any open source license, that is a problem of DRM schemes.
So that is my point: EME is a "non standard". It leaves the most important part out and in the current proposal it's just a few APIs to access DRM. To compare EME to an actual standard like SCSI is a "straw man argument".
Fine with that. But please make a DRM _standard_. Not an API to access DRM but the DRM itself. That means, describe the DRM standard so that anyone can implement it. Even in Linux I can implement any DRM, just like I can implement any encryption, but give me a standard.
All EME is doing is to describe a API to access DRM. That's it. Don't believe me? Go to the EME proposal. See that big one: Content Decryption Module (CDM)? That is the DRM. All around it is the EME.
Just to make it clear: the EME will not standardize the SCSI. All EME is doing is to standardize what cable you use for SCSI. That's it.
No, the problem with DRM is that a) you are assumed to be a dirty pirate even if you pay and b) it takes your rights away.
a) Even if you play the game and pay for the video or music, the distributor assumes that you are a dirty pirate anyway and you will share it with your friends (yes you are a dirty pirate if you share with your friends) or seed it in Pirate Bay. So the distributor needs to restrict your rights like in b)
b) for DRM to work a part of the hardware or software needs to be restricted from you, the user / owner. So even you pay for the Intel Core i8 and the Nvidia Geforce XXL, a part is restricted from you and you can't access it. The restriction will affect your rights like video recording, time shifting and format shifting, fair use rights and so on. Even with TV it's perfectly legal to record the shows and watch them later.
Regarding the first part: since when you have to seed for a day, or since when we have space problems with hard disks? Maybe if you got a netbook, tablet or notebook with 64GB SSD or something like that. IMHO if you can stream a video with HD quality you can download a video as fast from The Pirate Bay.
I couldn't agree more. Anyway, a system should be as transparent as possible and just behave like a terminal to start up applications. That why I was laughing really hard why Windows Vista and 7 now got a "benchmark score". Like Windows is some kind of game.
My guess is also, why Microsoft pushed really hard for OOXML and the IMHO stupid ribbon GUI. So Microsoft can have anything "new" and of "value" to sell a new Office version.
Btw, I just searched a little bit but I couldn't find: can you put the ribbon on for example Office vertical to the right or left side? IMHO the biggest problem with the ribbon is, that it is to fat, especially with the wide screen monitors that are very common today.
For the same reason that the whole premise of capitalism is false: humans are not just driven by greed, or that greed is the most important factor for humans. Humans have very diverse ideas of happiness and fulfilment. Some want to have an easy life with a huge yacht (like you?); some want just do what they are good at (like me); and some want to run a big cooperation. That is also why you don't see any correlation in CEO salary and bonuses and company success.
I can agree to that. I don't really care if Microsoft can create record profits. I do care that I can install Linux now on almost every hardware and it will work. I do care about LibreOffice and open standards so that I can exchange documents freely. I do care about an open web.
With this for me important aspects of the software industry increasing year after year I couldn't be happier. 15 years ego it was all looking very dim for open source software and free standards. 15 years ego if you didn't used Windows you couldn't do any work and the IE and Microsoft Word and Excel was the "standard".
So you say: the BSD/Apache works best for you because you can leech from it? So I like the LGPL/GPL licenses even more now. I hope your company at least donate some moneys to the projects, or contribute some enhancements back to the projects.
No it will not. EME is a "non-standard". All issues of EME are by default "out of scope" and are left to the Content Decryption Modules (CDM). As of now the EME "standard" is nothing more then like a Firefox API to start up Flash or Silverlight. So if the goal is to standardize UA plugin APIs so why not do that instead of the EME proposal?
Yes interesting indeed. I did not alter the meaning of your words and I did not add any new context. I don't know if you agree or not. Only because I reply to your post and I'm cite your words to make a point, does not mean I attack you.
With "you" I just meant the figurative "you", "you" to the people that want to implement DRM in the open web. I don't know if you count yourself to those people.
So what? It's Netflix problem, not the problem of the open web. So their customers have to install some plugin or app. How is that affect the open web?
If I chose to be Netflix customer, then I have to eat their crap. If I chose the open web I don't have to install any plugin or app. For me the choice is clear. Preserver the open web and don't give a damn what some companies want. The open web will win in the end anyway, like it did.
Ah really? EME is not limited to video. I would argue that once EME is in place and is adopted by enough UA implementations then a new group will be formed: EME Extended. Also the same groups will push for it: Google, Microsoft, BBC, Netflix, and I guess many more, like Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.
Then the W3C will declare it "in scope" and for the future of the open web. And all they done is replaced Flash and Silverlight with a new binary blob inside your browser, or worse, inside your property (i.e. your computer).
"[...]would be processed in a completely different way to Netflix's current catalog. I don't think Netflix is unreasonable in requiring everything be streamed the same way [...]"
And that you want to bring to the open Web? Oh I'm sorry but all web content is DRM protected, it's unreasonable to require that your stuff will be offered without DRM. Also since the open Web now includes DRM, we are just using open standards to deliver our content. Not our fault if your Firefox browser or Linux distribution don't implement an open standard.
You are a moron. You know that without DRM it would work the same way? It's the same as saying, I'm fine with a dictatorship as long as it works. DRM is dictatorship, it takes your rights away. It takes your rights away that you get when you buy your hardware. And it lets other people dictate you what you can and can't do.
moron [mrn] n 1. a foolish or stupid person 2. (Psychology) a person having an intelligence quotient of between 50 and 70, able to work under supervision
That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Netflix needs is pushed to the rest of the open Web. It is Netflix problem how they implement DRM in an open Web. It is not a problem of the open Web.
The issue is not about Netflix needing DRM. The issue is about DRM included in the open Web.
So true. A standardize DRM scheme will only invite to do everything with DRM protected. Want to block that ad? Sorry it's DRM protected. Want to copy&paste that text from the web site? Sorry it's DRM protected. Want to print that web site? Sorry it's DRM protected. Want to send a link of that web site to your friend? Sorry it's DRM protected.
And so on. Right now such restrictions are not possible, because you have to resort to Flash or Silverlight. And you all know how "good" web sites made entirely in Flash are. But this new EME scheme will open the gates for exactly that kind of abuse.
Spell it how you like, but the new DRM scheme from W3C is a huge step towards DRM and proprietary formats. The only possibility for EME to work is that DRM is included either per default in the Browser or in the computer hardware. The first possibility will exclude all open source browsers and the second will exclude all open source operating systems.
It is not possible to have an open source browser like Firefox and to have any DRM in it. What will hinder me to download a Firefox plugin to save the decrypted video to disk? Also open source operating systems like Linux are not possible. You have to give me a binary proprietary hardware driver to prevent me to save the decrypted video stream to disk. Also the proponents for the EME "standard" know that well. It is no surprise that the BBC is also wants legal possibilities in EME.
The scheme "it don't bother me so it is ok" is not an argument. Slavery don't bother me either, but it is not ok. There are kinds of people, the first are greedy and want DRM and control of content; the second wants to watch movies; and the third wants to push for openness. Now the second kind of people don't care for openness, but at the end they will profit from the push to openness too.
Since the beginning of the Web the openness advocates have been pushing for an open Web. The Firefox browser, Mozilla Foundation, the W3C and so on, would not have been created if not for those openness advocates.
Who cares if Netflix will not use Html5? They didn't used Html1, Html2, Html3, Html4 for their videos before why would you care if they will use Html5 now? Why should all people suffer only because of Netflix?
The sensible thing to do is to stand by an open Web, with open standards. And if Netflix or the BBC still have to resort to Flash or Silverlight it is their problem, not the problem of the open Web. They need to change and adopt themselves to the open Web, not the other way around.
That is what I was talking about. So Lyx basically ties you to Lyx with the new file Lyx-format. But Tex files are human "generated" and by that they are really simple and easy to understand. Lyx replacing that simple human written and understandable language with some computer generated code. So basically it throws Latex away and replaces it with a text like binary format.
No I can't agree to that. Even if Lyx is generating better looking documents because it's Latex under the hood. But it does by throwing away a big advantage of Latex.
Working with colleagues with Latex is quite simple: each colleague will write the text in whatever he/she likes. The partner will send you the text document (can be text file, ODT file, Microsoft Word file) and you copy and paste the text in the Latex project, and add Latex formats for section, paragraph, footnote, etc. The finished Pdf file can then be distributed.
BTW; Kile is just that: a simple text editor using the same text editor GUI and engine as Kate and KWrite (simple text editors in KDE). All what the developers have added is buttons for some common Latex commands, a button to compile the Latex code, and previews.
I would rather argue that Tex/Latex is way simpler to learn then any Word Software. I don't know about Lyx but it would help to have a one simple Setup.exe for Windows users that installs the Lyx software and setup the most common Latex packages so it's ready to go. On Linux is for course trivial. Just install all texlive packages it be done with it.
But frankly, I don't really like Lyx. I just try Lyx again and it feels like any Word processor. WYSIWYG horror brought to you to Latex. Latex is great because all you do is edit simple Text Files, in a simple Text Editor. No formatting is shown to you. All you need to do is add some buttons to compile the Latex code, show previews and create Pdf files. IMHO Kile is way simpler, easier and straight forward to use Latex editor.
For example in Lyx the sections are shown as 1. The Section, with The Section is big and bold. What is the point in doing that? IMHO Lyx should just abandon that and instead just show tag like symbols on the left hand side. And show the text just as text.
Why did you invent some new format, why not just use Tex files? By inventing a new format you throw away all what is good of Latex: a stable interchangeable format. It's like we have ODT but LibreOffice will invent a new format. The great thing about Latex is that I can use Linux, Texlive, MacOS and give the Tex file to someone else, who is using Windows or other Tex Distribution, and that person can create the same Pdf file that I have. But now all you did is introducing a new dependency for no reason at all. And a new incompatibility: Lyx13, Lyx14, Lyx15, Lyx16.
An error occurred while running: tex2lyx -f "groovybash_en.tex" "groovybash_en.lyx"
Done manually in the console:
$ tex2lyx -f "groovybash_en.tex" "groovybash_en.lyx" Overwriting existing file/mnt/read/devent/Projects/com.anrisoftware/groovybash/groovybash-docu/groovybash_en.lyx Cannot read layout file `'. Error reading `' (Check `documanual') Check your installation and try Options/Reconfigure... Error: Could not read layout file for textclass "documanual".
documanual is my own document class file, in the same directory as the Tex file: documanual.cls. Great, it can't even open Latex files. So I need to buy into the Lyx style and abandon my style. So Lyx is Tex for Dummys?
Slashdot Mirror
If you really want to know how fast evolution is going, just visit a museum of Sumer or ancient Egypt. Sumer for example go back to 4500 or 4000 BC. Than compare the every day life of a Sumerer to the today life. You would be surprised how little people have changed.
Sure, we have computers, air planes, auto mobiles, etc. today. But the every day life looks shocking familiar to 7000 years ego. We still drink wine and beer, enjoy music, enjoy dancing, enjoy talking, reading, praying, eating, mating, go to war, kill millions innocent including children, and so on. In fact I would say we didn't changed at all in 10,000 years.
The author is confusing knowledge with wisdom or being smart. Sure in 100 years you will be able to load every article of Wikipedia in your brain, but will it make you smart? Intelligence is not how much you know, intelligence is your understanding and your problem solving abilities. Nobody would think that Newton was stupid only because he didn't know how far is the next star from us (Proxima Centauri 4.2421ly).
Evolution is a very very very slow process. And if Darwin is correct then without pressure to become smarter, people will stay at the current level of "smartness". We have got the state in which we are smart enough, meaning we can produce food cheap and have a comfortable life. In fact, more smarter persons have a very difficult time to survive.
I don't really think that give more 10,000 years or 100,000 years, even with the current exponential increasing technology, we will get any smarter then the Sumerer. Maybe if we can replace the part of the brain for "intelligence" with a computer chip.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/millihelen
millihelen (plural millihelens)
(informal) A unit of measure of pulchritude, corresponding to the amount of beauty required to launch one ship. [quotations ]
That is good ROFL
DRM is just software so I don't know what can not be "GPL compliant".
I agree that an open source DRM will not be very functional. But that is not the problem with any open source license, that is a problem of DRM schemes.
So that is my point: EME is a "non standard". It leaves the most important part out and in the current proposal it's just a few APIs to access DRM. To compare EME to an actual standard like SCSI is a "straw man argument".
Fine with that. But please make a DRM _standard_. Not an API to access DRM but the DRM itself.
That means, describe the DRM standard so that anyone can implement it. Even in Linux I can implement any DRM, just like I can implement any encryption, but give me a standard.
All EME is doing is to describe a API to access DRM. That's it. Don't believe me? Go to the EME proposal. See that big one: Content Decryption Module (CDM)? That is the DRM. All around it is the EME.
Just to make it clear: the EME will not standardize the SCSI. All EME is doing is to standardize what cable you use for SCSI. That's it.
No, the problem with DRM is that a) you are assumed to be a dirty pirate even if you pay and b) it takes your rights away.
a) Even if you play the game and pay for the video or music, the distributor assumes that you are a dirty pirate anyway and you will share it with your friends (yes you are a dirty pirate if you share with your friends) or seed it in Pirate Bay. So the distributor needs to restrict your rights like in b)
b) for DRM to work a part of the hardware or software needs to be restricted from you, the user / owner. So even you pay for the Intel Core i8 and the Nvidia Geforce XXL, a part is restricted from you and you can't access it. The restriction will affect your rights like video recording, time shifting and format shifting, fair use rights and so on. Even with TV it's perfectly legal to record the shows and watch them later.
Regarding the first part: since when you have to seed for a day, or since when we have space problems with hard disks? Maybe if you got a netbook, tablet or notebook with 64GB SSD or something like that. IMHO if you can stream a video with HD quality you can download a video as fast from The Pirate Bay.
I couldn't agree more. Anyway, a system should be as transparent as possible and just behave like a terminal to start up applications. That why I was laughing really hard why Windows Vista and 7 now got a "benchmark score". Like Windows is some kind of game.
My guess is also, why Microsoft pushed really hard for OOXML and the IMHO stupid ribbon GUI. So Microsoft can have anything "new" and of "value" to sell a new Office version.
Btw, I just searched a little bit but I couldn't find: can you put the ribbon on for example Office vertical to the right or left side? IMHO the biggest problem with the ribbon is, that it is to fat, especially with the wide screen monitors that are very common today.
For the same reason that the whole premise of capitalism is false: humans are not just driven by greed, or that greed is the most important factor for humans. Humans have very diverse ideas of happiness and fulfilment. Some want to have an easy life with a huge yacht (like you?); some want just do what they are good at (like me); and some want to run a big cooperation. That is also why you don't see any correlation in CEO salary and bonuses and company success.
I can agree to that. I don't really care if Microsoft can create record profits. I do care that I can install Linux now on almost every hardware and it will work. I do care about LibreOffice and open standards so that I can exchange documents freely. I do care about an open web.
With this for me important aspects of the software industry increasing year after year I couldn't be happier. 15 years ego it was all looking very dim for open source software and free standards. 15 years ego if you didn't used Windows you couldn't do any work and the IE and Microsoft Word and Excel was the "standard".
So yes, high fives everyone.
So you say: the BSD/Apache works best for you because you can leech from it?
So I like the LGPL/GPL licenses even more now.
I hope your company at least donate some moneys to the projects, or contribute some enhancements back to the projects.
You can take BSD code and integrate them into a closed source product.
But how does BSD promote open source software? It does not.
Just asking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask
No it will not. EME is a "non-standard". All issues of EME are by default "out of scope" and are left to the Content Decryption Modules (CDM). As of now the EME "standard" is nothing more then like a Firefox API to start up Flash or Silverlight. So if the goal is to standardize UA plugin APIs so why not do that instead of the EME proposal?
See EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop
Yes interesting indeed. I did not alter the meaning of your words and I did not add any new context. I don't know if you agree or not. Only because I reply to your post and I'm cite your words to make a point, does not mean I attack you.
With "you" I just meant the figurative "you", "you" to the people that want to implement DRM in the open web. I don't know if you count yourself to those people.
So what? It's Netflix problem, not the problem of the open web.
So their customers have to install some plugin or app. How is that affect the open web?
If I chose to be Netflix customer, then I have to eat their crap. If I chose the open web I don't have to install any plugin or app. For me the choice is clear. Preserver the open web and don't give a damn what some companies want. The open web will win in the end anyway, like it did.
Ah really? EME is not limited to video.
I would argue that once EME is in place and is adopted by enough UA implementations then a new group will be formed: EME Extended. Also the same groups will push for it: Google, Microsoft, BBC, Netflix, and I guess many more, like Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.
Then the W3C will declare it "in scope" and for the future of the open web. And all they done is replaced Flash and Silverlight with a new binary blob inside your browser, or worse, inside your property (i.e. your computer).
"[...]would be processed in a completely different way to Netflix's current catalog. I don't think Netflix is unreasonable in requiring everything be streamed the same way [...]"
And that you want to bring to the open Web? Oh I'm sorry but all web content is DRM protected, it's unreasonable to require that your stuff will be offered without DRM. Also since the open Web now includes DRM, we are just using open standards to deliver our content. Not our fault if your Firefox browser or Linux distribution don't implement an open standard.
You are a moron. You know that without DRM it would work the same way?
It's the same as saying, I'm fine with a dictatorship as long as it works. DRM is dictatorship, it takes your rights away. It takes your rights away that you get when you buy your hardware. And it lets other people dictate you what you can and can't do.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moron
moron [mrn]
n
1. a foolish or stupid person
2. (Psychology) a person having an intelligence quotient of between 50 and 70, able to work under supervision
That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Netflix needs is pushed to the rest of the open Web.
It is Netflix problem how they implement DRM in an open Web. It is not a problem of the open Web.
The issue is not about Netflix needing DRM. The issue is about DRM included in the open Web.
So true. A standardize DRM scheme will only invite to do everything with DRM protected.
Want to block that ad? Sorry it's DRM protected.
Want to copy&paste that text from the web site? Sorry it's DRM protected.
Want to print that web site? Sorry it's DRM protected.
Want to send a link of that web site to your friend? Sorry it's DRM protected.
And so on. Right now such restrictions are not possible, because you have to resort to Flash or Silverlight. And you all know how "good" web sites made entirely in Flash are. But this new EME scheme will open the gates for exactly that kind of abuse.
Spell it how you like, but the new DRM scheme from W3C is a huge step towards DRM and proprietary formats.
The only possibility for EME to work is that DRM is included either per default in the Browser or in the computer hardware. The first possibility will exclude all open source browsers and the second will exclude all open source operating systems.
It is not possible to have an open source browser like Firefox and to have any DRM in it. What will hinder me to download a Firefox plugin to save the decrypted video to disk? Also open source operating systems like Linux are not possible. You have to give me a binary proprietary hardware driver to prevent me to save the decrypted video stream to disk. Also the proponents for the EME "standard" know that well. It is no surprise that the BBC is also wants legal possibilities in EME.
The scheme "it don't bother me so it is ok" is not an argument. Slavery don't bother me either, but it is not ok. There are kinds of people, the first are greedy and want DRM and control of content; the second wants to watch movies; and the third wants to push for openness. Now the second kind of people don't care for openness, but at the end they will profit from the push to openness too.
Since the beginning of the Web the openness advocates have been pushing for an open Web. The Firefox browser, Mozilla Foundation, the W3C and so on, would not have been created if not for those openness advocates.
Who cares if Netflix will not use Html5? They didn't used Html1, Html2, Html3, Html4 for their videos before why would you care if they will use Html5 now? Why should all people suffer only because of Netflix?
The sensible thing to do is to stand by an open Web, with open standards. And if Netflix or the BBC still have to resort to Flash or Silverlight it is their problem, not the problem of the open Web. They need to change and adopt themselves to the open Web, not the other way around.
That is what I was talking about. So Lyx basically ties you to Lyx with the new file Lyx-format. But Tex files are human "generated" and by that they are really simple and easy to understand. Lyx replacing that simple human written and understandable language with some computer generated code. So basically it throws Latex away and replaces it with a text like binary format.
No I can't agree to that. Even if Lyx is generating better looking documents because it's Latex under the hood. But it does by throwing away a big advantage of Latex.
Working with colleagues with Latex is quite simple: each colleague will write the text in whatever he/she likes. The partner will send you the text document (can be text file, ODT file, Microsoft Word file) and you copy and paste the text in the Latex project, and add Latex formats for section, paragraph, footnote, etc. The finished Pdf file can then be distributed.
BTW; Kile is just that: a simple text editor using the same text editor GUI and engine as Kate and KWrite (simple text editors in KDE). All what the developers have added is buttons for some common Latex commands, a button to compile the Latex code, and previews.
I would rather argue that Tex/Latex is way simpler to learn then any Word Software.
I don't know about Lyx but it would help to have a one simple Setup.exe for Windows users that installs the Lyx software and setup the most common Latex packages so it's ready to go. On Linux is for course trivial. Just install all texlive packages it be done with it.
But frankly, I don't really like Lyx. I just try Lyx again and it feels like any Word processor. WYSIWYG horror brought to you to Latex.
Latex is great because all you do is edit simple Text Files, in a simple Text Editor. No formatting is shown to you. All you need to do is add some buttons to compile the Latex code, show previews and create Pdf files. IMHO Kile is way simpler, easier and straight forward to use Latex editor.
For example in Lyx the sections are shown as 1. The Section, with The Section is big and bold. What is the point in doing that? IMHO Lyx should just abandon that and instead just show tag like symbols on the left hand side. And show the text just as text.
Why did you invent some new format, why not just use Tex files? By inventing a new format you throw away all what is good of Latex: a stable interchangeable format. It's like we have ODT but LibreOffice will invent a new format. The great thing about Latex is that I can use Linux, Texlive, MacOS and give the Tex file to someone else, who is using Windows or other Tex Distribution, and that person can create the same Pdf file that I have. But now all you did is introducing a new dependency for no reason at all. And a new incompatibility: Lyx13, Lyx14, Lyx15, Lyx16.
An error occurred while running:
tex2lyx -f "groovybash_en.tex" "groovybash_en.lyx"
Done manually in the console:
$ tex2lyx -f "groovybash_en.tex" "groovybash_en.lyx" /mnt/read/devent/Projects/com.anrisoftware/groovybash/groovybash-docu/groovybash_en.lyx
Overwriting existing file
Cannot read layout file `'.
Error reading `'
(Check `documanual')
Check your installation and try Options/Reconfigure...
Error: Could not read layout file for textclass "documanual".
documanual is my own document class file, in the same directory as the Tex file: documanual.cls.
Great, it can't even open Latex files. So I need to buy into the Lyx style and abandon my style. So Lyx is Tex for Dummys?