Same reason as the Mac Pro: mistakes were made (particularly re: specifications and ports) that mean some of the market for the previous Macbook Pros aren't well served by the new one. The Macbook Pro traditionally compared well in terms of performance to other available highend notebooks, the new one does not, particularly with respect to RAM and GPU.
Hopefully they remedy this and the next Macbook Pro is again a high performance machine.
Some people just really like OS X. Plus, while you can do virtually everything on BSD or Linux, it does make certain thing stupid simple (like setting up VPN access) to do.
Yeah I get the argument for OSX in an end user scenario but what does it offer to the server market?
I support freedom to tinker with things you own, but you don't own the copyright to the movies you watch.
Pick one.
Pick one of what? What are you suggesting are the things he should pick from? He's saying he supports the freedom to tinker with things you own and that you don't own the copyright to movies you watch.
The freedom to tinker—or more generally, the right to use your property as you wish without interfering with others' equivalent rights to use their property—is fundamentally incompatible with copyright.
No it isn't, copyright relates to distribution and again to the point made above you don't seem to understand it is not your "property".
Either you are actually free to tinker with the things you own, potentially including using them to make copies of arbitrary data in your possession and giving or selling those copies to others, or a legally privileged class of copyright holders get to decide how you are allowed to use your property despite the fact that your use of your property does not and cannot in any way impede their use of their "property", which is non-rivalrous by nature.
No. You are free to tinker with things you own so long as you don't violate the rights (including copyrights) of others, it's not that complicated. I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't understand that or you're just pretending not to.
Not making DRM a W3C standard will turn it into another Flash/Silverlight type thing. Look at how hard it is for them to die.
No, the opposite: see how we can browse the web today with no Flash/Silverlight and others. If they were a standard, that would be impossible.
So why you think you could not browse the internet without a DRM module, or without EME altogether thanks to open source browsers or older versions of browsers that don't have it?
The vast majority of people are indifferent toward DRM, it has been annoying and a bit clunky in the past and this initiative aims to change that. What that means is consumers are even less bothered by DRM which is not good for the anti-DRM crowd if they are trying to rally support to their cause.
DRM was annoying and cumbersome so DRM proponents are now addressing that feedback. On the other side of the coin content providers didn't have a mechanism to deliver DRM-free content whilst still being guaranteed to get paid for doing their work, the anti-DRM crowd have yet to address this concern (and at the extreme end have just said "suck it up, you're not entitled to be paid for your work"), nor has there been any innovation around the incentives to offer content under a free (as in freedom) model. There have been some attempts (most notably crowd funding) but few successful projects, certainly nothing even close to tipping the balance in favour of anti-DRM.
Really there is a pressing need to innovate and incentivise on free content platforms such that content providers want to publish there.
Not making DRM a W3C standard will turn it into another Flash/Silverlight type thing. Look at how hard it is for them to die. If DRM is going to be done, and it is going to be done, a W3C standard is better than nothing.
It's not actually a standard, just defining a standard interface to a DRM module. It makes it easy for people who want content and aren't bothered by DRM and it makes it easy for people who avoid DRM content on an ideological basis, it also avoids fragmenting the mechanisms with different implementations like in Flash, Silverlight, ActiveX, etc.
I don't have modpoints (or a samsung device mind you) but kudos on a viable solution. Has anybody actually put an implementation of such a program on github for people with samsung devices to use? That would lower the barrier to entry even further.
Well there are many cases where paying money for something doesn't mean you own it but indeed if you buy a DVD you own that DVD, you're free to frisbee it, smash it up, lock it in a box and never use it or give it away to somebody else but you don't own the copyrights to the content on it.
Yes I see your point but that's not really how copyright works, you didn't purchase it, you licensed it. If you purchased it you would own it and be free to do whatever you like with it.
What people don't understand, is that while going cashless is convenient, it allows everything that you are doing to be tracked by the gooberment and businesses. Want to purchase something that you don't want anyone to know about.. can't do that.
Theranos is a PRIVATELY held company. There are only a handful of shareholders, and they already control the board. So they would just be suing themselves.
For example, if you want to prevent a buyer from later selling it, that's not legal.
Ok but we're not talking about buying and selling content here, what we're talking about is licensing. Where/what is the law that enshrines the right to transfer a license?
I have licenses to drive a car, ride a bike and recreational watercraft and I paid for them but I can't sell these licenses to other people.
All I said is that people are accepting a "licensing" model if that is offered to them in a comfortable way. Saying that people WANT a licensing model is bullshit if you ask me.
The licensing model is what enables the easy content delivery system. iPad buyers aren't saying "I really need a tablet with an Apple-engineered ARM-derivative CPU" either, sure that's what enables the product to work and so those buyers do indirectly want that much like the content licensing model. And in both cases superior alternatives might exist too but aren't currently implemented for people to choose from.
How about the people who had fake blood tests from Elizabeth Holmes run on them with fake results
There are ongoing lawsuits. Frankly an offer of effectively worthless shares in the company that did fake blood tests on you would be pretty offensive.
This is about technical mechanisms that restrict how you use your own machines.
If that is how you see it then don't install it. The very nature of licensed software means you can't just do whatever you want with it, if you don't agree with the software or content license then don't accept it and avoid that software and/or content.
Obviously the way you have stated it is intended to be overly broad but in reality the "restrictions" are in a very small and specific context and only for a specific time and even then that is only if you actually make the choice to accept the licenses and install the software and view the content in the first place.
DRM is the excuse publishers use to justify the ongoing control over one's computer, spying regime modern-day DRM schemes make possible and use, and thus pose genuine risks to everyday computer users. This is not about "balancing" rights as another poster said, this is about copyright holders and their business partners using a mechanism to get more control over your devices, your privacy, and your life than they ought to have.
If you really need the latest rehashed, "reimaged" Hollywood trash then run it in a VM, problem solved.
I want to see proof and lots of it
What proof do you have to back up your statements of them getting control of your life? That sounds like a pretty ominous statement so how about you strip away the hyperbole and give a concrete example of what you mean.
I mean do you really think anybody is going to take you seriously when you say things like that in reference to a piece of software that just enforces end-to-end encryption? Yes I do understand that in theory it could do many things, but that's no different to any piece of proprietary hardware or software, this has been the case for as long as computers have existed and the solution is still the same: If you're worried about it then don't use it or seek out, fund, promote an alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Same reason as the Mac Pro: mistakes were made (particularly re: specifications and ports) that mean some of the market for the previous Macbook Pros aren't well served by the new one. The Macbook Pro traditionally compared well in terms of performance to other available highend notebooks, the new one does not, particularly with respect to RAM and GPU.
Hopefully they remedy this and the next Macbook Pro is again a high performance machine.
No i mean specifically what is it that macOS offers to the server market that the incumbents (Linux and BSD) don't that you need?
Some people just really like OS X. Plus, while you can do virtually everything on BSD or Linux, it does make certain thing stupid simple (like setting up VPN access) to do.
Yeah I get the argument for OSX in an end user scenario but what does it offer to the server market?
What specifically do you need an OSX server for that you can't use BSD or Linux for? ...outside of say a build farm for OSX application development.
...and over time they neither upgraded the specifications nor dropped the price.
Hopefully they have the 'courage' to admit the same thing about the new Macbook Pros.
I support freedom to tinker with things you own, but you don't own the copyright to the movies you watch.
Pick one.
Pick one of what? What are you suggesting are the things he should pick from? He's saying he supports the freedom to tinker with things you own and that you don't own the copyright to movies you watch.
The freedom to tinker—or more generally, the right to use your property as you wish without interfering with others' equivalent rights to use their property—is fundamentally incompatible with copyright.
No it isn't, copyright relates to distribution and again to the point made above you don't seem to understand it is not your "property".
Either you are actually free to tinker with the things you own, potentially including using them to make copies of arbitrary data in your possession and giving or selling those copies to others, or a legally privileged class of copyright holders get to decide how you are allowed to use your property despite the fact that your use of your property does not and cannot in any way impede their use of their "property", which is non-rivalrous by nature.
No. You are free to tinker with things you own so long as you don't violate the rights (including copyrights) of others, it's not that complicated. I'm not sure whether you genuinely don't understand that or you're just pretending not to.
Not making DRM a W3C standard will turn it into another Flash/Silverlight type thing. Look at how hard it is for them to die.
No, the opposite: see how we can browse the web today with no Flash/Silverlight and others. If they were a standard, that would be impossible.
So why you think you could not browse the internet without a DRM module, or without EME altogether thanks to open source browsers or older versions of browsers that don't have it?
a mechanism to deliver DRM-free content whilst still being guaranteed to get paid for doing their work
What do guarantees have to do with anything? Do you think DRM gives some kind of guarantee?
Fine, replace it with "very high likelihood" instead if you need to be pedantic.
The vast majority of people are indifferent toward DRM, it has been annoying and a bit clunky in the past and this initiative aims to change that. What that means is consumers are even less bothered by DRM which is not good for the anti-DRM crowd if they are trying to rally support to their cause.
DRM was annoying and cumbersome so DRM proponents are now addressing that feedback. On the other side of the coin content providers didn't have a mechanism to deliver DRM-free content whilst still being guaranteed to get paid for doing their work, the anti-DRM crowd have yet to address this concern (and at the extreme end have just said "suck it up, you're not entitled to be paid for your work"), nor has there been any innovation around the incentives to offer content under a free (as in freedom) model. There have been some attempts (most notably crowd funding) but few successful projects, certainly nothing even close to tipping the balance in favour of anti-DRM.
Really there is a pressing need to innovate and incentivise on free content platforms such that content providers want to publish there.
Not making DRM a W3C standard will turn it into another Flash/Silverlight type thing. Look at how hard it is for them to die. If DRM is going to be done, and it is going to be done, a W3C standard is better than nothing.
It's not actually a standard, just defining a standard interface to a DRM module. It makes it easy for people who want content and aren't bothered by DRM and it makes it easy for people who avoid DRM content on an ideological basis, it also avoids fragmenting the mechanisms with different implementations like in Flash, Silverlight, ActiveX, etc.
I don't have modpoints (or a samsung device mind you) but kudos on a viable solution. Has anybody actually put an implementation of such a program on github for people with samsung devices to use? That would lower the barrier to entry even further.
Well there are many cases where paying money for something doesn't mean you own it but indeed if you buy a DVD you own that DVD, you're free to frisbee it, smash it up, lock it in a box and never use it or give it away to somebody else but you don't own the copyrights to the content on it.
You shouldn't need electricity or some kind of communications infrastructure in order to carry out trade.
Ok but that's a different issue to the one I was responding to.
Yes I see your point but that's not really how copyright works, you didn't purchase it, you licensed it. If you purchased it you would own it and be free to do whatever you like with it.
What people don't understand, is that while going cashless is convenient, it allows everything that you are doing to be tracked by the gooberment and businesses. Want to purchase something that you don't want anyone to know about.. can't do that.
Sure you can, Bitcoin already achieves this.
Theranos is a PRIVATELY held company. There are only a handful of shareholders, and they already control the board. So they would just be suing themselves.
Huh? the people who had fake blood tests from Elizabeth Holmes run on them with fake results were shareholders who control the board?
They apparently have in the order of $200 million in cash on hand. Plenty to settle those lawsuits.
For example, if you want to prevent a buyer from later selling it, that's not legal.
Ok but we're not talking about buying and selling content here, what we're talking about is licensing. Where/what is the law that enshrines the right to transfer a license?
I have licenses to drive a car, ride a bike and recreational watercraft and I paid for them but I can't sell these licenses to other people.
All I said is that people are accepting a "licensing" model if that is offered to them in a comfortable way. Saying that people WANT a licensing model is bullshit if you ask me.
The licensing model is what enables the easy content delivery system. iPad buyers aren't saying "I really need a tablet with an Apple-engineered ARM-derivative CPU" either, sure that's what enables the product to work and so those buyers do indirectly want that much like the content licensing model. And in both cases superior alternatives might exist too but aren't currently implemented for people to choose from.
How about the people who had fake blood tests from Elizabeth Holmes run on them with fake results
There are ongoing lawsuits. Frankly an offer of effectively worthless shares in the company that did fake blood tests on you would be pretty offensive.
For example?
This is about technical mechanisms that restrict how you use your own machines.
If that is how you see it then don't install it. The very nature of licensed software means you can't just do whatever you want with it, if you don't agree with the software or content license then don't accept it and avoid that software and/or content.
Obviously the way you have stated it is intended to be overly broad but in reality the "restrictions" are in a very small and specific context and only for a specific time and even then that is only if you actually make the choice to accept the licenses and install the software and view the content in the first place.
Despite the fact that their content is often simply a variation of what's already in the public domain.
In that case why do you care at all? Just enjoy the public domain works and this whole issue goes away from you, problem solved.
DRM is the excuse publishers use to justify the ongoing control over one's computer, spying regime modern-day DRM schemes make possible and use, and thus pose genuine risks to everyday computer users. This is not about "balancing" rights as another poster said, this is about copyright holders and their business partners using a mechanism to get more control over your devices, your privacy, and your life than they ought to have.
If you really need the latest rehashed, "reimaged" Hollywood trash then run it in a VM, problem solved.
I want to see proof and lots of it
What proof do you have to back up your statements of them getting control of your life? That sounds like a pretty ominous statement so how about you strip away the hyperbole and give a concrete example of what you mean.
I mean do you really think anybody is going to take you seriously when you say things like that in reference to a piece of software that just enforces end-to-end encryption? Yes I do understand that in theory it could do many things, but that's no different to any piece of proprietary hardware or software, this has been the case for as long as computers have existed and the solution is still the same: If you're worried about it then don't use it or seek out, fund, promote an alternative.