They don't even need to go back to flash. They could do it entirely with Javascript. Heck, there have even been at least one implementation of a flash player itself in Javascript.
I use Firefox and Chrome. The interface does look similar (everybody 'copies' everybody) but Firefox also lets me customize it way beyond what chrome allows, and I don't have to add a third toolbar for my bookmarks.
Firefox allows far less customization than it used to (that's why extensions like Classic Theme Restorer are necessary -- and even those will stop working with 57). Firefox has not become a complete Chrome clone yet, but every release that's happened in the past couple of years has taken another step in that direction. That's why I believe being a Chrome clone is an overt design goal.
They already had the power in a number of different ways. That fact is one of the arguments against the EME: the only real effect the EME has is to bless the idea of DRM.
That statement from Mozilla was the one that made me realize that Mozilla was no longer the organization that I knew and loved. It also marked the moment when I began to seriously think that the day was coming when Firefox would no longer meet my needs.
Also, as I said earlier, I'm also speaking from memory and haven't dealt with any of this stuff for about 20 years, so I'm really speaking in approximate terms.
It depends. In many nations, it doesn't affect things at all. In many, it does (a nation may not have a DMCA-type law itself, but may be obligated by treaty to help the US enforce the DMCA).
Your point is a great one, though. People seem to have forgotten one of that primary effects of the old US law that classified strong encryption as munitions for export purposes: the US was not where most serious crypto research took place, and fell behind in the crypto race.
if I am returning something THEY sold me and I am getting store credit.
If all I'm getting is store credit, then I don't do the return (and am less likely to shop at the store in the future). I sell the item myself. At least I'll get some cash for it that way.
and I expect they will use them as a base to expand AmazonFresh
I suspect this is the major thing in their minds. It will be interesting to see how that works out. I still have a hard time believing that many people would be willing to buy meat and produce sight unseen, but you never know.
I think you're missing the point. The point isn't what can or can't be done with the browser. The point is that this is another step in the transformation of the HTML standard away from being one for everybody and toward being one for the big corporations.
This isn't just about streaming netflix and hulu in a web browser.
Or, from my point of view, this isn't about streaming Netflix or the like at all. I couldn't care less about whether a browser can do that. I care about the precedent being set in the standard, and what this rather severe shift in the priorities of the W3C means for the future.
I suspect Mozilla is being bribed to cripple their browser.
No, Firefox doesn't have nearly enough market share to be worth bribing. Mozilla wants Firefox to be king of the browsers again, and thinks that the way to do that is to become Chrome.
Now corporations will be able to block out alternatives like Pale Moon due to the DRM being entrenched in Mozilla.
I'm not sure what you mean here... Pale Moon could, if it wanted, implement EME as well. I hope it doesn't, but it could.
The idea that the best stuff on the internet will be hidden behind walls in apps rather than accessible through any browser is the mortal fear for open web lovers
This argument makes no sense. Essentially, the argument is that it's better to have the best stuff on the internet hidden behind walls in the browser rather than hidden behind walls in apps.
Either way, it's hidden behind walls -- so from my point of view, it's a distinction without a difference.
But I will confess, I don't think this idea that the browser should be a one-stop portal to everything on the internet is a good one. I think that it pretty much guarantees that the utility of the various services is reduced.
I think email and file servers are a good example of what I mean.
Don't feel sorry for me, this is the sort of work I prefer. I wouldn't trade it out for anything.
The only common library that crosses all the required platforms is the old-school C (not C++) library. So if it isn't in there, then we have to do it ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a huge fan of properly-done one-time pads. They're the only actually unbreakable crypto out there.
But I'm curious about how you would solve the problem that limits their utility: key exchange.
They don't even need to go back to flash. They could do it entirely with Javascript. Heck, there have even been at least one implementation of a flash player itself in Javascript.
How so? The NSA exists to penetrate everyone's informational security. Pushing crypto they can break is exactly in line with their purpose.
I use Firefox and Chrome. The interface does look similar (everybody 'copies' everybody) but Firefox also lets me customize it way beyond what chrome allows, and I don't have to add a third toolbar for my bookmarks.
Firefox allows far less customization than it used to (that's why extensions like Classic Theme Restorer are necessary -- and even those will stop working with 57). Firefox has not become a complete Chrome clone yet, but every release that's happened in the past couple of years has taken another step in that direction. That's why I believe being a Chrome clone is an overt design goal.
Too late. Firefox added EME support quite a while ago.
They already had the power in a number of different ways. That fact is one of the arguments against the EME: the only real effect the EME has is to bless the idea of DRM.
It's funny...
That statement from Mozilla was the one that made me realize that Mozilla was no longer the organization that I knew and loved. It also marked the moment when I began to seriously think that the day was coming when Firefox would no longer meet my needs.
So then why are the big boys so keen on getting this stuff into the browser?
I wasn't referring to the keyboard controller.
Also, as I said earlier, I'm also speaking from memory and haven't dealt with any of this stuff for about 20 years, so I'm really speaking in approximate terms.
It depends. In many nations, it doesn't affect things at all. In many, it does (a nation may not have a DMCA-type law itself, but may be obligated by treaty to help the US enforce the DMCA).
Your point is a great one, though. People seem to have forgotten one of that primary effects of the old US law that classified strong encryption as munitions for export purposes: the US was not where most serious crypto research took place, and fell behind in the crypto race.
I dunno about that. I share your disdain for Wal-Mart, but they always look busy when I drive by one.
Then why make the trip? Why not save $12 and some time instead of saving just $10?
if I am returning something THEY sold me and I am getting store credit.
If all I'm getting is store credit, then I don't do the return (and am less likely to shop at the store in the future). I sell the item myself. At least I'll get some cash for it that way.
and I expect they will use them as a base to expand AmazonFresh
I suspect this is the major thing in their minds. It will be interesting to see how that works out. I still have a hard time believing that many people would be willing to buy meat and produce sight unseen, but you never know.
I'd rather just avoid that content entirely, thanks.
I think you're missing the point. The point isn't what can or can't be done with the browser. The point is that this is another step in the transformation of the HTML standard away from being one for everybody and toward being one for the big corporations.
This isn't just about streaming netflix and hulu in a web browser.
Or, from my point of view, this isn't about streaming Netflix or the like at all. I couldn't care less about whether a browser can do that. I care about the precedent being set in the standard, and what this rather severe shift in the priorities of the W3C means for the future.
I suspect Mozilla is being bribed to cripple their browser.
No, Firefox doesn't have nearly enough market share to be worth bribing. Mozilla wants Firefox to be king of the browsers again, and thinks that the way to do that is to become Chrome.
Now corporations will be able to block out alternatives like Pale Moon due to the DRM being entrenched in Mozilla.
I'm not sure what you mean here... Pale Moon could, if it wanted, implement EME as well. I hope it doesn't, but it could.
Indeed. I wasn't commenting on that, I was only commenting on what the primary issue for the corps is.
Yes, but that doesn't matter when the data is coming from elsewhere.
I am sorry that the W3C had to approve DRM.
I think your premise is wrong here -- they didn't have to approve the EME. They wanted to.
It doesn't matter, the primary issue the corporations are concerned with isn't piracy, it's control of the distribution channel.
From TFS:
The idea that the best stuff on the internet will be hidden behind walls in apps rather than accessible through any browser is the mortal fear for open web lovers
This argument makes no sense. Essentially, the argument is that it's better to have the best stuff on the internet hidden behind walls in the browser rather than hidden behind walls in apps.
Either way, it's hidden behind walls -- so from my point of view, it's a distinction without a difference.
But I will confess, I don't think this idea that the browser should be a one-stop portal to everything on the internet is a good one. I think that it pretty much guarantees that the utility of the various services is reduced.
I think email and file servers are a good example of what I mean.
Don't feel sorry for me, this is the sort of work I prefer. I wouldn't trade it out for anything.
The only common library that crosses all the required platforms is the old-school C (not C++) library. So if it isn't in there, then we have to do it ourselves.
And.... Holy Crap we have them now!!!
No, we don't. What they're describing is literally nothing like nanites.