I will "fail" again because you're only looking for very specific answers. To me, lack of choice in computing is dangerous and harmful in and of itself. To you, that does not seem to be the case.
No I'm not saying it's not dangerous and harmful, I'm only saying it can be and there are also situations in where it is not and in those places where I can simply treat it as a black box and confine it then it is not dangerous and harmful at all.
I thought this was all about forsaking those ideals when it's convenient enough, not whether DRM is always bad.
No, only when it is not harmful and dangerous - despite what you may preach those situations do exist, as I have pointed out.
They have tons of documentation about iCloud works aimed at all levels.
Ok then where is the documentation that explains how iMessage works? I couldn't find it - I'm certainly not saying it doesn't exist so if you can point me to it then that would be very helpful.
Of course they are. The moment they go into the account they see a phone number associated with it, and moreover when they make changes to iCloud and get notification they see the number listed at part of the iCloud contacts along with emails.
The issue is that it isn't clear that this is associating the phone number with the account for other people, so you changing your phone and you not using iMessage doesn't mean that iMessage won't be used by other people to contact you. Just look at all the confusion in this story by comments of techs and geeks and then imagine how the non-tech crowd reacts.
Which is marked undelivered for the sender until at least one device picks it up and then it is marked delivered. And if they have read receipts on they also know unread.
Based on my testing "delivered" means delivered to the server, not to a device. Which also explains why people get iMessages that are delivered by not received. Of course if the documentation is as abundant as you claim then surely something like this would be pretty easy to find.
That still does not make someone a government boot-licker. You accuse me of stating my subjective views as a fact, yet here you are doing just that.
Wrong, they give you 2 options, you do one of them instead of taking action to ensure the creation of a 3rd. Rosa Parks did not simply "not ride the bus".
Either you're a religious zealot who states his opinions as facts, or you're not and you don't. Nice false dichotomy.
Wrong again, subjective opinions are not fact, that is a fact.
With the whole NSA debacle, Sony rootkits, and the countless times that corporations and governments have taken advantage of their powers (Are you seriously going to make me list every act of corruption?), you'd be ignorant to think it's just fear-mongering. In fact, you are profoundly ignorant.
I never said they don't exist, I said they potentially could exist but you insist on impugning the entire market out of your fear of a few bad apples, terrorism works on you.
No, it does have a real impact, because it restricts your options. That is just a fact, regardless of whether you decide to take advantage of them.
If you don't exercise the options then it has no impact...seriously how daft are you to not realize that? Explain how it can have an impact if you don't exercise that option.
You seem to have your own devotion to religious ideals, and they come in the form of opposing me and accusing me of having religious ideals. That can easily be turned back upon you, insect.
Wrong, you are free to feel however you like, but you insist on imposing those on others. You don't want them to have choice, if you were ok with choice you would have no problem with DRM in firefox, but you don't want people to have that choice because you want to push your religious ideals on others.
I already did answer it.
Wrong again, I clearly said be specific, you failed, try again.
Funny... I'd say that's your problem.
You're the one trying to eliminate choice, and you're the one losing so it's your problem.
I 'bully' people that way because it's The Truth.
It's merely your point of view.
And again, you say you're not obsessed with the here-and-now, but it seems all you think about is the present
No I'm trying to get an example of your opposition to the specific scenario I laid out, which you failed time and time again to do, and you will fail again.
and never think about possible future dangers that have been adequately pointed out.
No i quite clearly said the extrapolated potential future dangers is what you use to make your argument.
But enough of your idiocy, explain this one thing and if you can do that then perhaps you can convince me. All you have to do is make your point in the specific context I've laid out for you if not you can admit that DRM is not bad in all situations, so here goes:
Assuming I'm watching Netflix on AppleTV or in a disposable virtual machine what is the real specific danger I face?
Apple is a company with enough marketshare (in fact they almost monopolized the business of selling music online at a time), Mozilla isn't. Apple then did exactly what I was saying and pushed back on the content producers.
It is not a losing battle to fight against DRM.
These days there is more DRM encumbered media and streaming services than ever before!
Mozilla could have said to big media, "this is a shit idea" and rather than sacrifice that huge potential audience the media conglomerates would have found a more favorable alternative.
I like your optimism but I don't think Mozilla have that much clout. Perhaps it's time to fork Firefox? Though I'm pretty sure there are quite a lot of popular forks already that are unlikely to implement this DRM so maybe one of them should make an attempt to do what you say.
What a strange definition of "government boot-licker." Here I thought it referred to those who practically worship the government and believe whatever it says. But no, it's anyone who is at all affected by the government's corruption; everyone.
No it's that you let them dictate what you do and do not do, they can control you simply by putting in place a requirement that you won't comply with, you are just as easily manipulated as those who do comply with the requirement.
In the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a point of view. With all the shit that they do, this is just a fact.
Wrong, only a religious zealot presents his subjective point of view as fact.
Backdoors or bugs that make one insecure that you have practically zero chance of catching and fixing do not have real impact?
They potentially could exist and if they did exist they could potentially have a real impact, but fear-mongering is your only argument.
Being practically unable to get updates from anywhere other than the original developer (With FOSS, it can just be forked of the original developer screws up.) has no real impact?
Again it potentially could and sometimes does but in many cases it does not.
Not having any real control has no impact?
Once again it potentially could but as I demonstrated with the AppleTV example and the Netflix in a VM example it can have none whatsoever. How do you expect to convince people that something is bad if you can't even identify any specific real impact?
Free software is not a be-all-end-all fix for everything, but letting people have the possibility to truly understand and control what the software is doing is an important step forward.
And for the people who want that option it is there, that's the great thing about choice. You just can't accept that people don't have the devotion to the religious ideals that you have.
If specific here-and-now danger is all you're worried about, then no wonder the government and corporations do as they please. People like you are easy to fool.
No, it's not "all I'm worried about", I never said anything of the sort. It's just the specific question I asked but you are deflecting because you know you cannot answer it. Try again. I made it as clear as possible for you to be specific, I even bolded it but you still failed, so ask yourself why did you fail? Can you answer that? I doubt it.
Your problem is your inability to make your argument in an objective manner, you can state your point of view all you want and attempt to bully people who think differently by calling them "ignorant" but that you need to resort to that means are unable to educate people on the virtues of your ideals - either because they are not relevant or because they have to real impact - and that is your failure.
Nope. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that there is lots of content that people want that is only legally available with DRM.
That's exactly right! But the anti-DRM crew seem intent on attacking the symptom rather than the root cause - and have been fighting that losing battle for years. It's time to wake up and realise that if you convince the content producers to stop their use of DRM or get users to avoid content that uses DRM then DRM will disappear. Blocking DRM in Firefox will just cause content producers and users to support a different browser.
Recipient told Apple's servers to associate their phone number will iMessage.
No they didn't, they just turned on iMessage for free texting between iPhones, iPads, Macs and iPods. The problem is that they never explain to the user how it works, their "it just works" concept is the problem.
They never told Apple's servers to stop doing that, they don't bother to turn that off.
Because they aren't told that it is their phone number that is associated with their iMessage account and that when they turn that on it tells all their iPhone contacts to send messages to their iMessage account instead of SMS directly to the phone.
Sender either changed away from default which is to try iMessage and then fallback to SMS
-- or --
Recipient still has a device picking up his iMessages other than his phone
The sender does try iMessage, which is then delivered to the receiver's iMessage account. The problem exists because iMessage fails if the user's account has been disabled or the sender cannot reach the iMessage server, not if the receiver doesn't pick up the message which is why you can still send an iMessage to somebody even if their phone is switched off or out of service range (and to iPods or wifi iPads that aren't connected).
And how, exactly, does that make me a government boot-licker? Since I'm actively opposing them, that cannot be.
You let them dictate what you do.
What a bunch of nonsense. I said that in a very specific context to indicate that I oppose the TSA, DUI checkpoints, and other such things.
As long as law enforcement acts like a bunch of corrupt thugs, and we have a bunch of unjust laws on the books, being cooperative with them is just foolish. But even that would not render us lawless.
You specifically said you were uncooperative with law enforcement and 'acting like corrupt thugs' is just a point of view. Whilst I do agree with your assessment I can accept that it is not an objective assessment.
It makes them ignorant of the value of liberties.
And when you say "many," you really mean "a vast minority" Most people don't understand at least one of the following: DRM, individual liberties, or the dangers of proprietary software.
That's because most of the "dangers" of proprietary software do not have any real impact aside from the ad absurdum extrapolations of conspiracy theorists. Like I said if I watch Netflix on an AppleTV that is a whole bunch of proprietary software and DRM but what are you suggesting is "dangerous" about that? Specifically, not perceived, not some extrapolated theory, the real, specific here-and-now danger?
The freedoms I mentioned are freedoms I do not believe should be given up.
And some people disagree, that does not make them ignorant.
Which has nothing to do with putting up with them or being a government boot-licker, since I'm doing about all any one person can do to stop them.
But in doing so you let them restrict you, either you do it their way or you don't do it all, both of which are their target outcomes.
Straw man. No one is suggesting that there be no laws. Either that or you're using the old "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad" logic. Which, if any, is it?
No it isn't a straw man, you specifically indicated being uncooperative with law enforcement which is what happened there and the result is a myriad of people uncooperative with law enforcement to the point at which laws are no longer enforced.
And you seem to be defending the TSA et al. I hope this is not the case and this is a mere misunderstanding on my part.
No I am not.
I don't think it's ignorant at all. People are often ignorant about what they're giving up and why it isn't a good idea; that's just a fact.
And many people are willing to give up some liberties for some time in some specific case knowing full well the implications of doing so, that doesn't make them ignorant.
If you have any other iDevices or OS X with "Messages", they _will_ be delivered.
You don't need a device you just need an iMessage account and the messages will be delivered there. I send iMessages to friends with wifi ipads or ipods and even if they are switched off or not connected to the internet the message gets delivered and is then picked up from iMessage when they get access.
My definition of ignorant is the same as the common definition. Anyone who doesn't understand that governments and corporations have abused their powers many millions of times throughout history is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand that they are being restricted by DRM and proprietary software is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't know what freedoms they're giving up is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand what importance freedom has is also ignorant.
There is a difference between acceptable sacrifices of particular elements of freedom for particular times and giving up any and all freedoms indefinitely.
I do? That's news to me. I don't get on planes, am completely uncooperative with authority figures, and use encryption as often as is humanely possible.
Yes, you allow them to restrict your movement because you see no ability to give up a particular freedom at a particular time for a specific amount of time which is not the same as waiving that freedom indefinitely. You have obviously never been to war torn countries and seen what happens when there are no laws, everybody has the freedom to do whatever they want and it is a damn scary place to visit, at least I knew I could escape it. It would work fine if everybody was civil and respectful toward one another but in the real world that does not happen.
Whereas you seem content mocking anyone who gives a shit about freedom.
No I'm not mocking anybody, I'm pointing out that your labeling of everybody who doesn't feel the same as you about all forms of freedom as ignorant is itself ignorant. Your opinion is merely a point of view, not a fact. Whilst I agree with your point of view in principle and apply that to a certain degree in particular areas I don't disparage others for not taking an interest in it or not applying it in areas in which it does not affect them.
People who agree in principle with the TSA or NSA surveillance are ignorant. People who think DUI checkpoints are good are ignorant. People who think draconian copyright laws are good are ignorant. People who don't understand the value of freedom in general are ignorant.
Yeah OK clearly your definition of ignorant is "anybody who doesn't agree with me". The fact is you put up with all of those things, so ultimately you pontificate about freedom but you're just a government boot-licker, you can act all enlightened but in the end you knuckle under anyway so whether or not you perceive others as "ignorant" (by your definition) makes no practical difference.
The legal right to control distribution still exists. It hasn't been taken.
Wrong, you do not have control over the distribution, obviously. If you did then people whom didn't authorize to have that data would not have it.
The harm is based on why I want to control distribution. Some data I share, like financial and medical, is only for use by certain people, and use by other people could directly harm me.
The right to control distribution of data isn't about whether there is some potentially harmful repercussion should it fall into the hands of some particular person.
Disney has no objections to me, or anybody else, seeing their latest movie; all they want, really, is that they get paid for it.
So it's ok to take their right to control distribution of their data but it's not ok to take your right to control distribution of your data. What the data is is not relevant, the intent does not affect the right to control distribution of it. If you distribute modified GPL code in binary form that does no harm either but the copyright owner retains the right to control how that software is distributed and that must be respected, it isn't just a free-for-all where anybody can redistribute anything to anybody however they want.
DRM always restricts functionality, even if you personally don't encounter the functions. It still implicitly treats you as a criminal. I find both things unacceptable.
If you find that unacceptable that's fine, that doesn't make everybody else ignorant.
Because I do not have an opportunity to learn about what is happening.
And because most people don't want to that makes them ignorant?
Putting aside the fact that companies don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to privacy (or not using outright malware, like that Sony rootkit garbage)
Not really relevant when I'm just watching TV or using Netflix in a disposable VM, it is a black box so I treat it accordingly.
If the content that people want becomes DRM-free then DRM will have no purpose and cease to exist so fighting DRM at the web browser level is moronic, it will only drive people who want that content away from that browser and if you don't want DRM content then this doesn't affect you anyway. There will always be a vendor that will provide a DRM platform so long as the customers demand DRM content so battling it at the platform level is pointless, if you want DRM to go away you need to either convince customers to avoid DRM content or content producers to stop using DRM.
So I'm not sure what the complaint is here, for those who don't like DRM this is no issue, for those who want DRM content this allows that and if you are an anti-DRM crusader then you would be looking at users or content producers anyway.
It's important that a browser protect me and my rights on my system, not the business model of other DRM-happy corporations.
And you can have that because this is open source software. Mozilla doesn't have to do what you feel is important. The whole advocacy of free software is such that the user can change/remove things he/she does not want and even to fork it if they don't like the developers' ideology.
The solution is there, it's the solution you have been advocating for so stop bitching that Mozilla isn't catering to your specific needs in every way you demand them to and use it, it's Free Software!
this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby.
No it is a feature the that the content producers make use of, if you don't have it you can't view their content so Mozilla are providing users the option. If you don't like it don't use it and if you are really paranoid then Firefox is open source and you can remove it completely and you would be no better or worse off than before.
I despise DRM because it tries to restrict me. I despise DRM because it often harms actual customers. I despise DRM because it treats me as some sort of criminal.
And if it doesn't get in your way? If you don't even know it's there? I can use AppleTV to watch Netflix and I don't see any DRM because the exact thing that I wanted to do is accomplished.
It is about control over your computing. As long as you have software that maliciously treats you as a hostility and unjustly restricts your actions, you do not have control, even if you fully own the machine.
For similar reasons, I do not use proprietary software.
So what? All i'm doing is watching a fucking video on the TV and look how bent out of shape you're getting about needing to control every aspect of it.
Then those people are ignorant, since DRM is for suckers.
That sentence right there pretty much proves you don't even know why you hate it, you've been told it's bad, believed that an propagated that idea. Even if you were at the height of conspiracy theories and actually believed that it could take unprivileged control of my VM what's it going to do?
I also think many game companies have become obsessed with 'oh shiney!' tech
What does that even mean? You really think going to best effort to fulfill the vision of the art designers is the just idiotic cliche of "oh shiny"? Some art designs don't require putting effort into realistic graphics, sound, physics, voice acting, motion capture, etc... (WoW, Limbo for example) but some do (Doom 3, Crysis for example), and yeah I know those games are just so mainstream.
No, DRM *is* the problem. DRM is malicious in the sense that it tries to control the user's computing in unacceptable ways.
It's not unacceptable because plenty of people use services like Netflix and Pandora that do have DRM. You might view it as unacceptable so don't use those services and don't support that content.
What's been taken is the exclusive right to control distribution of specific data, yes it is just data but just because you have shared it with specific people doesn't mean you waive all rights to it and allow it to be shared with everybody. If somebody shared your medical or financial records or perhaps your banking credentials would you consider that ok? Perhaps the print of the key to your house and/or car? It's data you only share with specific people and data you retain the right to control distribution of so would you be happy for somebody to take that right away from you and just share all that data with everybody?
Slashdot Mirror
I will "fail" again because you're only looking for very specific answers. To me, lack of choice in computing is dangerous and harmful in and of itself. To you, that does not seem to be the case.
No I'm not saying it's not dangerous and harmful, I'm only saying it can be and there are also situations in where it is not and in those places where I can simply treat it as a black box and confine it then it is not dangerous and harmful at all.
I thought this was all about forsaking those ideals when it's convenient enough, not whether DRM is always bad.
No, only when it is not harmful and dangerous - despite what you may preach those situations do exist, as I have pointed out.
They have tons of documentation about iCloud works aimed at all levels.
Ok then where is the documentation that explains how iMessage works? I couldn't find it - I'm certainly not saying it doesn't exist so if you can point me to it then that would be very helpful.
Of course they are. The moment they go into the account they see a phone number associated with it, and moreover when they make changes to iCloud and get notification they see the number listed at part of the iCloud contacts along with emails.
The issue is that it isn't clear that this is associating the phone number with the account for other people, so you changing your phone and you not using iMessage doesn't mean that iMessage won't be used by other people to contact you. Just look at all the confusion in this story by comments of techs and geeks and then imagine how the non-tech crowd reacts.
Which is marked undelivered for the sender until at least one device picks it up and then it is marked delivered. And if they have read receipts on they also know unread.
Based on my testing "delivered" means delivered to the server, not to a device. Which also explains why people get iMessages that are delivered by not received. Of course if the documentation is as abundant as you claim then surely something like this would be pretty easy to find.
That still does not make someone a government boot-licker. You accuse me of stating my subjective views as a fact, yet here you are doing just that.
Wrong, they give you 2 options, you do one of them instead of taking action to ensure the creation of a 3rd. Rosa Parks did not simply "not ride the bus".
Either you're a religious zealot who states his opinions as facts, or you're not and you don't. Nice false dichotomy.
Wrong again, subjective opinions are not fact, that is a fact.
With the whole NSA debacle, Sony rootkits, and the countless times that corporations and governments have taken advantage of their powers (Are you seriously going to make me list every act of corruption?), you'd be ignorant to think it's just fear-mongering. In fact, you are profoundly ignorant.
I never said they don't exist, I said they potentially could exist but you insist on impugning the entire market out of your fear of a few bad apples, terrorism works on you.
No, it does have a real impact, because it restricts your options. That is just a fact, regardless of whether you decide to take advantage of them.
If you don't exercise the options then it has no impact...seriously how daft are you to not realize that? Explain how it can have an impact if you don't exercise that option.
You seem to have your own devotion to religious ideals, and they come in the form of opposing me and accusing me of having religious ideals. That can easily be turned back upon you, insect.
Wrong, you are free to feel however you like, but you insist on imposing those on others. You don't want them to have choice, if you were ok with choice you would have no problem with DRM in firefox, but you don't want people to have that choice because you want to push your religious ideals on others.
I already did answer it.
Wrong again, I clearly said be specific, you failed, try again.
Funny... I'd say that's your problem.
You're the one trying to eliminate choice, and you're the one losing so it's your problem.
I 'bully' people that way because it's The Truth.
It's merely your point of view.
And again, you say you're not obsessed with the here-and-now, but it seems all you think about is the present
No I'm trying to get an example of your opposition to the specific scenario I laid out, which you failed time and time again to do, and you will fail again.
and never think about possible future dangers that have been adequately pointed out.
No i quite clearly said the extrapolated potential future dangers is what you use to make your argument.
But enough of your idiocy, explain this one thing and if you can do that then perhaps you can convince me. All you have to do is make your point in the specific context I've laid out for you if not you can admit that DRM is not bad in all situations, so here goes:
Assuming I'm watching Netflix on AppleTV or in a disposable virtual machine what is the real specific danger I face?
It is not a losing battle to fight against DRM.
These days there is more DRM encumbered media and streaming services than ever before!
Mozilla could have said to big media, "this is a shit idea" and rather than sacrifice that huge potential audience the media conglomerates would have found a more favorable alternative.
I like your optimism but I don't think Mozilla have that much clout. Perhaps it's time to fork Firefox? Though I'm pretty sure there are quite a lot of popular forks already that are unlikely to implement this DRM so maybe one of them should make an attempt to do what you say.
What a strange definition of "government boot-licker." Here I thought it referred to those who practically worship the government and believe whatever it says. But no, it's anyone who is at all affected by the government's corruption; everyone.
No it's that you let them dictate what you do and do not do, they can control you simply by putting in place a requirement that you won't comply with, you are just as easily manipulated as those who do comply with the requirement.
In the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is a point of view. With all the shit that they do, this is just a fact.
Wrong, only a religious zealot presents his subjective point of view as fact.
Backdoors or bugs that make one insecure that you have practically zero chance of catching and fixing do not have real impact?
They potentially could exist and if they did exist they could potentially have a real impact, but fear-mongering is your only argument.
Being practically unable to get updates from anywhere other than the original developer (With FOSS, it can just be forked of the original developer screws up.) has no real impact?
Again it potentially could and sometimes does but in many cases it does not.
Not having any real control has no impact?
Once again it potentially could but as I demonstrated with the AppleTV example and the Netflix in a VM example it can have none whatsoever. How do you expect to convince people that something is bad if you can't even identify any specific real impact?
Free software is not a be-all-end-all fix for everything, but letting people have the possibility to truly understand and control what the software is doing is an important step forward.
And for the people who want that option it is there, that's the great thing about choice. You just can't accept that people don't have the devotion to the religious ideals that you have.
If specific here-and-now danger is all you're worried about, then no wonder the government and corporations do as they please. People like you are easy to fool.
No, it's not "all I'm worried about", I never said anything of the sort. It's just the specific question I asked but you are deflecting because you know you cannot answer it. Try again. I made it as clear as possible for you to be specific, I even bolded it but you still failed, so ask yourself why did you fail? Can you answer that? I doubt it.
Your problem is your inability to make your argument in an objective manner, you can state your point of view all you want and attempt to bully people who think differently by calling them "ignorant" but that you need to resort to that means are unable to educate people on the virtues of your ideals - either because they are not relevant or because they have to real impact - and that is your failure.
Nope. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that there is lots of content that people want that is only legally available with DRM.
That's exactly right! But the anti-DRM crew seem intent on attacking the symptom rather than the root cause - and have been fighting that losing battle for years. It's time to wake up and realise that if you convince the content producers to stop their use of DRM or get users to avoid content that uses DRM then DRM will disappear. Blocking DRM in Firefox will just cause content producers and users to support a different browser.
Recipient told Apple's servers to associate their phone number will iMessage.
No they didn't, they just turned on iMessage for free texting between iPhones, iPads, Macs and iPods. The problem is that they never explain to the user how it works, their "it just works" concept is the problem.
They never told Apple's servers to stop doing that, they don't bother to turn that off.
Because they aren't told that it is their phone number that is associated with their iMessage account and that when they turn that on it tells all their iPhone contacts to send messages to their iMessage account instead of SMS directly to the phone.
Sender either changed away from default which is to try iMessage and then fallback to SMS
-- or --
Recipient still has a device picking up his iMessages other than his phone
The sender does try iMessage, which is then delivered to the receiver's iMessage account. The problem exists because iMessage fails if the user's account has been disabled or the sender cannot reach the iMessage server, not if the receiver doesn't pick up the message which is why you can still send an iMessage to somebody even if their phone is switched off or out of service range (and to iPods or wifi iPads that aren't connected).
And how, exactly, does that make me a government boot-licker? Since I'm actively opposing them, that cannot be.
You let them dictate what you do.
What a bunch of nonsense. I said that in a very specific context to indicate that I oppose the TSA, DUI checkpoints, and other such things.
As long as law enforcement acts like a bunch of corrupt thugs, and we have a bunch of unjust laws on the books, being cooperative with them is just foolish. But even that would not render us lawless.
You specifically said you were uncooperative with law enforcement and 'acting like corrupt thugs' is just a point of view. Whilst I do agree with your assessment I can accept that it is not an objective assessment.
It makes them ignorant of the value of liberties.
And when you say "many," you really mean "a vast minority" Most people don't understand at least one of the following: DRM, individual liberties, or the dangers of proprietary software.
That's because most of the "dangers" of proprietary software do not have any real impact aside from the ad absurdum extrapolations of conspiracy theorists. Like I said if I watch Netflix on an AppleTV that is a whole bunch of proprietary software and DRM but what are you suggesting is "dangerous" about that? Specifically, not perceived, not some extrapolated theory, the real, specific here-and-now danger?
The freedoms I mentioned are freedoms I do not believe should be given up.
And some people disagree, that does not make them ignorant.
Which has nothing to do with putting up with them or being a government boot-licker, since I'm doing about all any one person can do to stop them.
But in doing so you let them restrict you, either you do it their way or you don't do it all, both of which are their target outcomes.
Straw man. No one is suggesting that there be no laws. Either that or you're using the old "X is worse than Y, so Y isn't bad" logic. Which, if any, is it?
No it isn't a straw man, you specifically indicated being uncooperative with law enforcement which is what happened there and the result is a myriad of people uncooperative with law enforcement to the point at which laws are no longer enforced.
And you seem to be defending the TSA et al. I hope this is not the case and this is a mere misunderstanding on my part.
No I am not.
I don't think it's ignorant at all. People are often ignorant about what they're giving up and why it isn't a good idea; that's just a fact.
And many people are willing to give up some liberties for some time in some specific case knowing full well the implications of doing so, that doesn't make them ignorant.
If you have any other iDevices or OS X with "Messages", they _will_ be delivered.
You don't need a device you just need an iMessage account and the messages will be delivered there. I send iMessages to friends with wifi ipads or ipods and even if they are switched off or not connected to the internet the message gets delivered and is then picked up from iMessage when they get access.
My definition of ignorant is the same as the common definition. Anyone who doesn't understand that governments and corporations have abused their powers many millions of times throughout history is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand that they are being restricted by DRM and proprietary software is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't know what freedoms they're giving up is ignorant. Anyone who doesn't understand what importance freedom has is also ignorant.
There is a difference between acceptable sacrifices of particular elements of freedom for particular times and giving up any and all freedoms indefinitely.
I do? That's news to me. I don't get on planes, am completely uncooperative with authority figures, and use encryption as often as is humanely possible.
Yes, you allow them to restrict your movement because you see no ability to give up a particular freedom at a particular time for a specific amount of time which is not the same as waiving that freedom indefinitely. You have obviously never been to war torn countries and seen what happens when there are no laws, everybody has the freedom to do whatever they want and it is a damn scary place to visit, at least I knew I could escape it. It would work fine if everybody was civil and respectful toward one another but in the real world that does not happen.
Whereas you seem content mocking anyone who gives a shit about freedom.
No I'm not mocking anybody, I'm pointing out that your labeling of everybody who doesn't feel the same as you about all forms of freedom as ignorant is itself ignorant. Your opinion is merely a point of view, not a fact. Whilst I agree with your point of view in principle and apply that to a certain degree in particular areas I don't disparage others for not taking an interest in it or not applying it in areas in which it does not affect them.
People who agree in principle with the TSA or NSA surveillance are ignorant. People who think DUI checkpoints are good are ignorant. People who think draconian copyright laws are good are ignorant. People who don't understand the value of freedom in general are ignorant.
Yeah OK clearly your definition of ignorant is "anybody who doesn't agree with me". The fact is you put up with all of those things, so ultimately you pontificate about freedom but you're just a government boot-licker, you can act all enlightened but in the end you knuckle under anyway so whether or not you perceive others as "ignorant" (by your definition) makes no practical difference.
Read what I wrote, I never said piracy was theft. I didn't disagree with your statement that piracy is not theft at all.
The legal right to control distribution still exists. It hasn't been taken.
Wrong, you do not have control over the distribution, obviously. If you did then people whom didn't authorize to have that data would not have it.
The harm is based on why I want to control distribution. Some data I share, like financial and medical, is only for use by certain people, and use by other people could directly harm me.
The right to control distribution of data isn't about whether there is some potentially harmful repercussion should it fall into the hands of some particular person.
Disney has no objections to me, or anybody else, seeing their latest movie; all they want, really, is that they get paid for it.
So it's ok to take their right to control distribution of their data but it's not ok to take your right to control distribution of your data. What the data is is not relevant, the intent does not affect the right to control distribution of it. If you distribute modified GPL code in binary form that does no harm either but the copyright owner retains the right to control how that software is distributed and that must be respected, it isn't just a free-for-all where anybody can redistribute anything to anybody however they want.
DRM always restricts functionality, even if you personally don't encounter the functions. It still implicitly treats you as a criminal. I find both things unacceptable.
If you find that unacceptable that's fine, that doesn't make everybody else ignorant.
Because I do not have an opportunity to learn about what is happening.
And because most people don't want to that makes them ignorant?
Putting aside the fact that companies don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to privacy (or not using outright malware, like that Sony rootkit garbage)
Not really relevant when I'm just watching TV or using Netflix in a disposable VM, it is a black box so I treat it accordingly.
If the content that people want becomes DRM-free then DRM will have no purpose and cease to exist so fighting DRM at the web browser level is moronic, it will only drive people who want that content away from that browser and if you don't want DRM content then this doesn't affect you anyway. There will always be a vendor that will provide a DRM platform so long as the customers demand DRM content so battling it at the platform level is pointless, if you want DRM to go away you need to either convince customers to avoid DRM content or content producers to stop using DRM.
So I'm not sure what the complaint is here, for those who don't like DRM this is no issue, for those who want DRM content this allows that and if you are an anti-DRM crusader then you would be looking at users or content producers anyway.
It's important that a browser protect me and my rights on my system, not the business model of other DRM-happy corporations.
And you can have that because this is open source software. Mozilla doesn't have to do what you feel is important. The whole advocacy of free software is such that the user can change/remove things he/she does not want and even to fork it if they don't like the developers' ideology.
The solution is there, it's the solution you have been advocating for so stop bitching that Mozilla isn't catering to your specific needs in every way you demand them to and use it, it's Free Software!
this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby.
No it is a feature the that the content producers make use of, if you don't have it you can't view their content so Mozilla are providing users the option. If you don't like it don't use it and if you are really paranoid then Firefox is open source and you can remove it completely and you would be no better or worse off than before.
And... now I'm actively looking for a new casual browser.
It's open source, can't you just remove the part you don't like?
I despise DRM because it tries to restrict me. I despise DRM because it often harms actual customers. I despise DRM because it treats me as some sort of criminal.
And if it doesn't get in your way? If you don't even know it's there? I can use AppleTV to watch Netflix and I don't see any DRM because the exact thing that I wanted to do is accomplished.
It is about control over your computing. As long as you have software that maliciously treats you as a hostility and unjustly restricts your actions, you do not have control, even if you fully own the machine.
For similar reasons, I do not use proprietary software.
So what? All i'm doing is watching a fucking video on the TV and look how bent out of shape you're getting about needing to control every aspect of it.
Then those people are ignorant, since DRM is for suckers.
That sentence right there pretty much proves you don't even know why you hate it, you've been told it's bad, believed that an propagated that idea. Even if you were at the height of conspiracy theories and actually believed that it could take unprivileged control of my VM what's it going to do?
I also think many game companies have become obsessed with 'oh shiney!' tech
What does that even mean? You really think going to best effort to fulfill the vision of the art designers is the just idiotic cliche of "oh shiny"? Some art designs don't require putting effort into realistic graphics, sound, physics, voice acting, motion capture, etc... (WoW, Limbo for example) but some do (Doom 3, Crysis for example), and yeah I know those games are just so mainstream.
Games are about interactive gameplay, not hi-def graphics.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
No, DRM *is* the problem. DRM is malicious in the sense that it tries to control the user's computing in unacceptable ways.
It's not unacceptable because plenty of people use services like Netflix and Pandora that do have DRM. You might view it as unacceptable so don't use those services and don't support that content.
Repeat after me: Piracy is not theft.
What's been taken is the exclusive right to control distribution of specific data, yes it is just data but just because you have shared it with specific people doesn't mean you waive all rights to it and allow it to be shared with everybody. If somebody shared your medical or financial records or perhaps your banking credentials would you consider that ok? Perhaps the print of the key to your house and/or car? It's data you only share with specific people and data you retain the right to control distribution of so would you be happy for somebody to take that right away from you and just share all that data with everybody?