Do also notice that they're only protesting that they don't spy on U.S. citizens; they never actually say they do not allow direct access to everyone from outside the U.S.
KDE is probably the most flexible and professional DE that is available for Linux.
It may be the most flexible, but I suppose you and I have different view on what's "professional" here: it's too cluttered, there's not only one but several kitchen sinks thrown in almost everywhere, the configuration options are all over the damn place and they're pretty incoherent, I can *still* make Plasma crash if I just play around with the panel and so on. GNOME2 was a lot more "professional" IMHO, and a whole lot more useable.
unless its the third Thursday of the month and its sunny in which case rule 34 applies
To be honest, if you believe rule 34 applies only on special days you clearly have been visiting the wrong kinds of websites. Or you haven't been visiting enough of the right kinds of websites.
Bah. There is no "potentially" there at all, everyone knows it would come to that and it would come to that FAST. Just look at MAFIAA, the Finnish Teosto, the French equivalent who's name I can't remember and so on, take a look at how often companies file DMCA take-down requests even for items that are clear fair-use.. I mean, power almost always equal money and when money is involved basic human rights and common decency get to take the hike. At this rate I'm afraid the whole notion of "fair-use" will be completely eradicated during the next few decades and the ability to claim copyright to anything will be removed completely from any entity that isn't already an established multinational super-corporation.
If the blob returns video directly instead of writing to some DRM path like windows has it would be useless.
You do realize that e.g. Flash does run on Linux? It is a binary blob running under a F/OSS platform and still does DRMed content.
So this adds nothing, netflix would still be limited to close source operating systems.
Netflix already does work on Chromebooks by way of preliminary HTML5 DRM-support. Porting a single DRM-module across platforms is easier than a full-blown, fat binary that does everything the whole browser can do.
That sounds like replacing one plugin interface for another one.
It is, yes, but with e.g. Flash or Silverlight you get a large, fat binary that's supposed to do quite a lot of things -- animations, window handling, 3D, network protocols and so on -- and that means a lot of used system resources and a larger surface for malicious attacks. A DRM-module, on the other hand, doesn't need to worry about 3D-rendering, window handling, vector graphics or anything such, it only needs to decrypt the data and verify that the surface it's given is acceptable to it. It all comes down to hopefully less resources consumed, higher stability and a lesser surface area for malicious attackers to latch on to. It just seems like a positive step to me, even if it is a small one.
No, he's quite correct. Atleast in the case of movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed without any sort of a DRM at all, they will flat out deny everyone access if it ever were to come to that. If W3C were to scrap the plans for HTML5 DRM the content providers would simply cling on to proprietary plugins and we'd be no better off than we are already. With the HTML5 DRM we could atleast shed all the excess weight provided by these plugins since only the part that decodes and displays the video would be proprietary, it wouldn't need to carry with it all the other features of these plugins along. And who knows? Maybe smaller proprietary binaries would be easier to reverse-engineer?
Pfft. Only hipsters got friends. Real nerds do not need such new-fangled humbug -- cold, hard electronics and the soothing back-light of a large LCD should be more than enough!
What I want to know if why the %$#@! are they using electric drones if the idea is to service remote areas? 10km? Give me a couple days to warm up and I could carry 100lbs/day of supplys that far on foot without hardly trying.
Drones don't need "a couple of days to warm up," and besides, what're you gonna do if there's a mountain or a canyon, a landfall, a sinkhole, collapsed buildings or anything similar in the way? That wouldn't be a problem at all for flying drones, but you could spend days trekking another path. In the time spent for you to "warming up" and finding another path to the destination the drones would've already sent several times the amount of stuff that you can carry.
I wouldn't be surprised if some type of DRM appeared on printers to prevent this
3D-printers are actually pretty easy to build even at home and if you build one of your own there wouldn't be any sort of a DRM.
The DRM could look for blueprint designs by hash, or certain "gun-like" items.
Impossible. There is no way for the printer or the software to know what the parts will be used for. There is no universal definition for "gun-like" as even a simple, straight tube would be "gun-like."
As unpopular as it is, I am in favor of dictatorship as long as the dictator is a benevolent one who actually cares about the well-being of the common folk.
You contradict yourself nicely, there. I, on the other hand, am not ashamed of admitting that I've been known to consume porn in various form and of various genres, including video and still pictures, gay men, lesbian women, straight people of either sex, asians, blacks, whites, BDSM, anal, vaginal, oral, DP, ladyboys, transsexuals, hentai, big breasts, small breasts and oh, so much more. These days I've mostly lost my interest in sex, but alas, I don't really care if my neighbours or family found out about the kinds of stuff I've consumed. It's not like they don't do the exact same thing themselves.
Snapchat should be overwriting the files instead of just renaming them and queuing for delete in the future...
No. Due to wear-leveling and the likes that is not good enough for data that is supposed to be gone forever. The correct way would be for the app to generate a random encryption key in RAM, encrypt the file with that, save the file to the filesystem but keep the key in RAM, and when the app is done with the file it should overwrite the encryption key -- with proper encryption there is no way of reversing the encryption in any sort of a reasonable amount of time (1000 years) without the key.
Say what you will about Kim-Jong Un, but he has shown great dedication in how to have a cake and eat it, too. He has already mastered the latter part of that!
uh, no. businesses make money by providing value which customers then pay for.
You just explained yourself the whole point with artificially-limited resources: you make the resources scarce, you end up with value, then you sell that.
I'm not assuming anything. DRM isn't a theoretical proposition. It's still used, despite the complaints, because it works.
To be honest, DRM is used because it works for controlling the paying people. Companies just like to pretend they're all worried about pirates, but they know perfectly well that DRM won't stop piracy. No, they just don't want to tell that DRM is used to control the people who are willing to part with their money so that even more money can be squeezed out of them -- piracy is just a convenient excuse. In a way you are correct, just for the wrong reasons.
You have to understand that DRM only makes this more difficult, not impossible, and once the DRM has been broken it no longer limits anyone but the legitimate users.
It's not black and white. There aren't two distinct camps: those that always legitimately purchase, and those that always pirate. There is a significant band in the middle of people who will pirate if it's easy and buy if it's not. Non-perfect DRM still performs it's function of increasing the number of people who pay for the product.
I didn't take any stand whatsoever on the people who do or don't pirate and as such anything you said doesn't rebut what I said: the people who pirate aren't limited by DRM and the people who don't are. Also, do notice that you're just assuming that the non-perfect DRM will increase the number of people who would pay for the product -- the same people could just as well buy the product if it didn't come with such and chooses to skip buying the product because they can't be arsed with serials or such. The thing is, even in the middle-section you mentioned the pendulum swings both ways and there is no way of ever fixing a social problem like piracy via technological means, atleast unless we fit every single living human with a mind-reading device.
How would those who are opposed to DRM ensure that artists will get just compensation for their works if there are no mechanisms to prevent someone from simply digitally copying a work (be it music, movie or book) and giving it away to anyone who wants it?
That's the whole reason why copyright exists. You have to understand that DRM only makes this more difficult, not impossible, and once the DRM has been broken it no longer limits anyone but the legitimate users.
So if you have 4 USB SS ports on a motherboard that motherboard is going to have to be able to supply 400W @ 5V? You can't be serious
Most likely you'll have one USB3.0SS -port capable of putting out the full 100W and the rest will be limited to something much, much lower. Possibly even zero ports that can do the full 100W. Then the manufacturers will be making these highly-expensive, "premium" motherboards that sport more 100W ports so as to gouge money from the people who want that functionality.
Rather than power just the 60-70W the TV draws it needs to have a power supply that could supply 100's of extra watts?
Well, good thing, then, that the spec makes the 100W - support optional? Also, it's perfectly possible that the TV will have e.g. 4 ports, but share the 100W between all of them -- if you have 4 devices connected, with each only taking 20W you're good, but if some device requests 80W either it or the other devices will be denied.
Slashdot Mirror
Do also notice that they're only protesting that they don't spy on U.S. citizens; they never actually say they do not allow direct access to everyone from outside the U.S.
KDE is probably the most flexible and professional DE that is available for Linux.
It may be the most flexible, but I suppose you and I have different view on what's "professional" here: it's too cluttered, there's not only one but several kitchen sinks thrown in almost everywhere, the configuration options are all over the damn place and they're pretty incoherent, I can *still* make Plasma crash if I just play around with the panel and so on. GNOME2 was a lot more "professional" IMHO, and a whole lot more useable.
unless its the third Thursday of the month and its sunny in which case rule 34 applies
To be honest, if you believe rule 34 applies only on special days you clearly have been visiting the wrong kinds of websites. Or you haven't been visiting enough of the right kinds of websites.
Bah. There is no "potentially" there at all, everyone knows it would come to that and it would come to that FAST. Just look at MAFIAA, the Finnish Teosto, the French equivalent who's name I can't remember and so on, take a look at how often companies file DMCA take-down requests even for items that are clear fair-use.. I mean, power almost always equal money and when money is involved basic human rights and common decency get to take the hike. At this rate I'm afraid the whole notion of "fair-use" will be completely eradicated during the next few decades and the ability to claim copyright to anything will be removed completely from any entity that isn't already an established multinational super-corporation.
I know. I still stand by my assertion that it's a lot lighter a binary than either the full-blown Flash - plugin or the Silverlight - one.
If the blob returns video directly instead of writing to some DRM path like windows has it would be useless.
You do realize that e.g. Flash does run on Linux? It is a binary blob running under a F/OSS platform and still does DRMed content.
So this adds nothing, netflix would still be limited to close source operating systems.
Netflix already does work on Chromebooks by way of preliminary HTML5 DRM-support. Porting a single DRM-module across platforms is easier than a full-blown, fat binary that does everything the whole browser can do.
That sounds like replacing one plugin interface for another one.
It is, yes, but with e.g. Flash or Silverlight you get a large, fat binary that's supposed to do quite a lot of things -- animations, window handling, 3D, network protocols and so on -- and that means a lot of used system resources and a larger surface for malicious attacks. A DRM-module, on the other hand, doesn't need to worry about 3D-rendering, window handling, vector graphics or anything such, it only needs to decrypt the data and verify that the surface it's given is acceptable to it. It all comes down to hopefully less resources consumed, higher stability and a lesser surface area for malicious attackers to latch on to. It just seems like a positive step to me, even if it is a small one.
No, he's quite correct. Atleast in the case of movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed without any sort of a DRM at all, they will flat out deny everyone access if it ever were to come to that. If W3C were to scrap the plans for HTML5 DRM the content providers would simply cling on to proprietary plugins and we'd be no better off than we are already. With the HTML5 DRM we could atleast shed all the excess weight provided by these plugins since only the part that decodes and displays the video would be proprietary, it wouldn't need to carry with it all the other features of these plugins along. And who knows? Maybe smaller proprietary binaries would be easier to reverse-engineer?
or perhaps even friends.
Pfft. Only hipsters got friends. Real nerds do not need such new-fangled humbug -- cold, hard electronics and the soothing back-light of a large LCD should be more than enough!
What I want to know if why the %$#@! are they using electric drones if the idea is to service remote areas? 10km? Give me a couple days to warm up and I could carry 100lbs/day of supplys that far on foot without hardly trying.
Drones don't need "a couple of days to warm up," and besides, what're you gonna do if there's a mountain or a canyon, a landfall, a sinkhole, collapsed buildings or anything similar in the way? That wouldn't be a problem at all for flying drones, but you could spend days trekking another path. In the time spent for you to "warming up" and finding another path to the destination the drones would've already sent several times the amount of stuff that you can carry.
I wouldn't be surprised if some type of DRM appeared on printers to prevent this
3D-printers are actually pretty easy to build even at home and if you build one of your own there wouldn't be any sort of a DRM.
The DRM could look for blueprint designs by hash, or certain "gun-like" items.
Impossible. There is no way for the printer or the software to know what the parts will be used for. There is no universal definition for "gun-like" as even a simple, straight tube would be "gun-like."
As unpopular as it is, I am in favor of dictatorship as long as the dictator is a benevolent one who actually cares about the well-being of the common folk.
1. I am not ashamed to admit I watch porn.
-- Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.
You contradict yourself nicely, there. I, on the other hand, am not ashamed of admitting that I've been known to consume porn in various form and of various genres, including video and still pictures, gay men, lesbian women, straight people of either sex, asians, blacks, whites, BDSM, anal, vaginal, oral, DP, ladyboys, transsexuals, hentai, big breasts, small breasts and oh, so much more. These days I've mostly lost my interest in sex, but alas, I don't really care if my neighbours or family found out about the kinds of stuff I've consumed. It's not like they don't do the exact same thing themselves.
Snapchat should be overwriting the files instead of just renaming them and queuing for delete in the future...
No. Due to wear-leveling and the likes that is not good enough for data that is supposed to be gone forever. The correct way would be for the app to generate a random encryption key in RAM, encrypt the file with that, save the file to the filesystem but keep the key in RAM, and when the app is done with the file it should overwrite the encryption key -- with proper encryption there is no way of reversing the encryption in any sort of a reasonable amount of time (1000 years) without the key.
Say what you will about Kim-Jong Un, but he has shown great dedication in how to have a cake and eat it, too. He has already mastered the latter part of that!
uh, no. businesses make money by providing value which customers then pay for.
You just explained yourself the whole point with artificially-limited resources: you make the resources scarce, you end up with value, then you sell that.
So when I type 'password' for my password it will show it. Great news!
...in the INSTALLER.
...oh, wait...
It's been around in the form of bcache for ages now and bcache is considered stable -- it is already in production-use. It's a pretty nifty thing, can be configured to your needs to quite a large degree and it's smart enough not to cache large, sequential reads/writes. If you're interested check out http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org/ and http://atlas.evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git/tree/Documentation/bcache.txt?h=bcache-dev
I'm not assuming anything. DRM isn't a theoretical proposition. It's still used, despite the complaints, because it works.
To be honest, DRM is used because it works for controlling the paying people. Companies just like to pretend they're all worried about pirates, but they know perfectly well that DRM won't stop piracy. No, they just don't want to tell that DRM is used to control the people who are willing to part with their money so that even more money can be squeezed out of them -- piracy is just a convenient excuse. In a way you are correct, just for the wrong reasons.
You have to understand that DRM only makes this more difficult, not impossible, and once the DRM has been broken it no longer limits anyone but the legitimate users.
It's not black and white. There aren't two distinct camps: those that always legitimately purchase, and those that always pirate. There is a significant band in the middle of people who will pirate if it's easy and buy if it's not. Non-perfect DRM still performs it's function of increasing the number of people who pay for the product.
I didn't take any stand whatsoever on the people who do or don't pirate and as such anything you said doesn't rebut what I said: the people who pirate aren't limited by DRM and the people who don't are. Also, do notice that you're just assuming that the non-perfect DRM will increase the number of people who would pay for the product -- the same people could just as well buy the product if it didn't come with such and chooses to skip buying the product because they can't be arsed with serials or such. The thing is, even in the middle-section you mentioned the pendulum swings both ways and there is no way of ever fixing a social problem like piracy via technological means, atleast unless we fit every single living human with a mind-reading device.
How would those who are opposed to DRM ensure that artists will get just compensation for their works if there are no mechanisms to prevent someone from simply digitally copying a work (be it music, movie or book) and giving it away to anyone who wants it?
That's the whole reason why copyright exists. You have to understand that DRM only makes this more difficult, not impossible, and once the DRM has been broken it no longer limits anyone but the legitimate users.
So, in what language would you write a compiler?
COBOL.
did all five victims of the "pandemic"
According to WHO the number is actually 773 deaths, with 8273 cases in total.
So if you have 4 USB SS ports on a motherboard that motherboard is going to have to be able to supply 400W @ 5V? You can't be serious
Most likely you'll have one USB3.0SS -port capable of putting out the full 100W and the rest will be limited to something much, much lower. Possibly even zero ports that can do the full 100W. Then the manufacturers will be making these highly-expensive, "premium" motherboards that sport more 100W ports so as to gouge money from the people who want that functionality.
Rather than power just the 60-70W the TV draws it needs to have a power supply that could supply 100's of extra watts?
Well, good thing, then, that the spec makes the 100W - support optional? Also, it's perfectly possible that the TV will have e.g. 4 ports, but share the 100W between all of them -- if you have 4 devices connected, with each only taking 20W you're good, but if some device requests 80W either it or the other devices will be denied.