There are plenty of third party implementations of Java. While Oracle's actions in the Android case have been dubious and absurd of late, they've shown no sign of wanting to close 100% compliant third party Java implementations.
Plus, you know, they lost that case, so they'd have problems suing anyway.
(And I hate to break it to you, but it's Senate Democrats who voted down the budget for two weeks.)
No they didn't.
The Senate passed the budget, with one minor amendment that had nothing to do with the budget. The Republicans in the House refused to allow a vote on the final bill.
This isn't a law against Tesla, electric cars, or anything else. It's a law about how a car manufacturer is supposed to work with the public, eg through independently owned dealerships.
Nobody (except the dealers) in the car industry likes these laws, but they're not discriminatory per se. They just suck.
FWIW there's also the whole "Technically superior for you doesn't mean technically superior for me" stuff.
- VHS vs Beta - Ability to record an entire movie (or two!) on one tape vs marginally (and questionable) better image quality.
- Storage system (the Sony and IOMega formats you mention) - works anywhere devices vs good but not compelling advantages hampered by unavailability of readers. (And in Sony's case, often proprietary, crippled, software that damaged the utility of the supposed advantages in the first place.)
- DVD/Netflix vs Blu-ray - wide range of low cost movies that work reliably on supported hardware vs marginally higher quality (in most cases) in exchange for unreliability, higher cost, and limited selection.
I can probably go on with the other technologies. The one that I'm noticing going the same route as "VHS vs Beta" (ie insistent fanbois insisting the failed system is technically superior but ignoring reality) is LCD vs Plasma. The latter is a system of fragile televisions that have problems showing anything other than native aspect ratio content without risking problems for hours later. The former is a system of rock solid TVs where owners don't have to worry about the type of content they're viewing (4:3, 16:9, 21:9, paused video games, etc) whose color range was once poor but these days is about equal except in exceptional conditions. By any reasonable count, LCD is now a technically superior option for most people. But the videophile community doesn't want to hear that, and I guarantee you that in twenty years, LCD "winning" over Plasma despite "poorer quality" will continue to be pushed just as the VHS vs Beta thing is today.
If you understood the concept of "Insurance", you'd understand it is all about the majority having a small inconvienience in exchange for protection from something that'll happen to a small, unknown, minority..
Leaving that aside however, the big changes that effect the 270 Million are there to benefit the 270 Million - that is, the reform of how your insurance company deals with you. It'll be harder for you to lose insurance once something happens to you that was the specific reason you got insurance in the first place. You're not going to find the money suddenly runs out because you've expended some lifetime benefits limit.
I agree it sucks, and we should replace it with a single payer system like Medicare for all, but it's simply ridiculous to argue that the changes that affect 300 million people are there solely for the sake of 30 million who aren't insured today. They're not. That's almost completely seperate.
Sure it's worse. You asked for HTTPS when you entered or selected the URL. You were, by implication, asking for a secure connection. You deserve a warning that you actually probably don't have a secure connection, that you asked for something that's probably not being provided.
And yeah, I'm aware that some people self sign their certificates to their own websites and manually check them, and are paranoid that the NSA has hacked a legitimate registrar and so on. Thing is:
1. OK, the NSA thing isn't paranoia any more except in the "OMFG THE NSA KNOWS I'M A NERD LIVING IN MY PARENT'S BASEMENT" sense, but the NSA can only force a registrar to provide a cert that won't result in a warning. You still have the option of manually checking the cert if you have the information needed to check it, so you lose nothing.
2. The vast majority of people don't have that information, and don't have the ability to check their bank's SSL cert is the right one. If it's self signed, it is a problem. The NSA is only one attacker, but they can get your bank records regardless. We're more worried about regular old organized crime.
So the warning is right. It should be presented. It'd be irresponsible for a browser to have the ability to perform some checks on an SSL cert and not check and/or not present its findings when it has a problem.
Right, moreover people unfamiliar with computing history very frequently underestimate the degree to which computer architecture has changed over the last three decades in particular. To give but one example: our current 8/16/32 (and now 64) bit word system, with each related to the other, is a concept that was pioneered with the IBM System/360, but wasn't standardized until the rise of the mass produced microprocessor as the standard processing unit for all computers, a process that started in the late 1970s and ended in the late 1980s (it wasn't an overnight change!)
The Linux kernel is based around an expectation of how certain computing concepts should work. It is almost certainly possible to port it to the IBM System/370, but it'd surprise many here how many of the 370's peers would be physically incapable of running it outside of an emulator for a more suitable architecture.
I can understand being wary of Skype (hey, I was anti-Skype before it was cool, I'm such a sipster - sipster, geddit? it's like hipster but never mind) but advocating a switch to SIP on the grounds you don't want the NSA to be able to intercept your communications seems like bad advice.
FWIW I agree with you, but it says something that the discussion has veered from "Hillary announced the names of the victims before the attack happened!!" to "In my view, the answer Hillary gave to a congressman who is not pushy in my opinion was not appropriate".
I think regardless of whether Jane QP recognizes her argument about the nature of Clinton's reply is accurate or not, she has to concede that her original, and sadly still moderated at +5 Insightful, post, was a collection of garbage, lies, and smears, whether that was her intent or not.
It's always been the case that your interactions with other people or entities are less secure, from a 5th Amendment point of view, than what you do in private - which, by definition, involves no other people or parties.
I'm pretty sure that if you'd asked Wells Fargo to take a bag of cash to the New York offices of The Reasonably Sincere Gentlemen in favor of a British Monarch, the well known 19th Century anti-American terrorist organization that, uh, President Monroe had banned, testimony from the clerk who took the order would be acceptable in court, as would the paper records they keep.
All that's changed is that the words "on a computer" have come into being. The Clerk is no longer human, it's a collection of computers managed by a collection of humans, but it's still a third party that's being a witness to the crime.
Besides which, while China owns a fair amount of US debt, it's not the majoritan amount debt critics pretend it is. Moreover, it's traded internationally in the form of fungible bonds - China deciding to get rid of it wouldn't involve them forcing the US to come up with the money, they'd sell it on the open market. And this would merely push down the price, which wouldn't be great, that'd increase interest rates on issues of future debt, but it's not the end of the world.
Why? It's not as if European manufacturers will be allowed to play by different rules.
The WTO doesn't supercede normal regulatory activity, it simply works against regulatory activity designed to benefit the products of one group geographic group of manufacturers against other geographic origins.
In fact both mini and micro USB are bad designs, they do not sit firmly in the socket and micro USB connectors have a tendency to break off the little plastic contact plate inside the socket.
I've not had that problem with either connector design and nor does anyone I know.
I'd say the sole problem with the current crop of tiny USB connectors is purely that whole four dimensional thing (where you have to turn it around twice to get it to fit.) Since the great switch over, I cannot think of a single device I've had where either USB standard has failed on me. They don't break, and they're difficult to disconnect accidentally - you really have to give a hard tug to unplug a microUSB cable.
I'm not surprised you were modded Insightful. There's a post on the Clinton thread that's modded +5 Insightful that repeats conspiracy theories about her so absurd not even Glenn Beck is making the same claims. But what you've posted is counter to reality. It's not a perfect connector, but it's become exceedingly rare any of us have had to throw out a USB cable because of a failure on the microUSB end, and the sockets themselves are close to indestructable.
I agree. Also, charge him with the most offensive, evil, despicable crime this country has ever thought of.
Charge him with Copyright Infringement.
Yes, I think we can sincerely say that his crimes were that bad. Some would say his crimes were worse than copyright infringement, but there's no need for that kind of extremist rhetoric. Godwin's law exists for a reason y'know.
35 miles before the gasoline engine kicks in, you say?
The Tesla's gasoline engine kicks in when? It doesn't? It doesn't have one?
So we have an apples and oranges comparison basically. The Tesla's range appears to be 208-265 miles (according to your comments) before it becomes stranded unless it's driven somewhere within range of a charging station. Tesla is improving their network of charging stations, so this isn't bad, though potential customers need to be confident they'll only be driving in those areas.
The Cadillac - essentially it can drive anywhere in the country, though the efficiency of it goes down if it's driven more than 35 miles from home. It will be very efficient for most commutes (though not all), but will be passably efficient for longer distances. Still better than a normal vehicle but not as efficient as a Tesla Model S.
It sounds to be that the comments on range really can't be pigeon holed into a one being superior than the other type thing. Different drivers will want different things. My suspicion is that the GM model is going to be more suitable to the majority of drivers in 2013/2014, but Tesla's intention to expand the number of public charging points may change that in the longer term.
My understanding is that the submitter went through a list of things to compare it to, to ensure Slashdot would take the article, but felt that comparing it to iOS 7, the iPhone 5S, the Makerbot, the Raspberry Pi, or Kickstarter, just would be a stretch too far.
The eventual pick was made on the basis that the Model S is a car, like the new Cadillac.
The government did lend the ashes of the company some money to ensure that a viable business could be built, and also preventing GM's creditors from going bankrupt, which would have caused immense damage to the surviving car industry. But GM went bankrupt. And the replacement company, by all accounts, is a success, which is pretty good considering the economy continues to be in deep shit.
No, the word remains "negotiation". The fact that GM was managed by incompetent, but sadly typical, executives who refused to take any notice of those "dirty hippies" and "tree huggers" who said things like "Uh, gasoline isn't always going to be cheap" and "Wait, isn't the middle east unstable these days? Shouldn't we develop some better, more fuel efficient, vehicles just in case the shit hits the fan", doesn't change the fact that the union and the crappy management did negotiate a deal that would have been perfectly fine had they, you know, produced decent vehicles.
BTW, isn't criticizing someone else's negotiation compensation "the politics of envy" and "class warfare", or does that only apply when it's criticism of executives who get obscene bonuses for running their companies into the ground?
Agreed. Actually, I'd say the critic is mostly wrong. Word is a general purpose word processing application and complaining that it's not "pure" enough because it dares to support multiple paradigms both misses the point, and is complaining about a non-issue.
If someone wanting to write a quick note has to go through the bureaucracy of setting up stylesheets, or someone who wants to produce a ready formatted text book has to manually change the font every time they create a headline, subheading, or margin note, then the application is a failure. It isn't. It, like its many peers (where does the submitter get it from that Word was the first WYSIWYG word processor out of interest?), is a universal word processing application that caters to multiple types of user.
Is this response to me, or just something you wanted to get off your chest? Because if the former, then there's absolutely no assertion you're making that has any relevence whatsoever to anything I assumed, wrote, or implied.
Given the King's status of head of the Church (making it improbable any soldier would try such a deed and get away with it), the fact that such an attrocity would be worse than the more famous attrocities committed against Americans yet is unheard of, and the fact that, as the GP said, a famous incident fitting the description did occur, but in Nazi occupied France, I'm inclined to believe the GP and not you.
But that said, if you can point at a historical account of this attrocity, I'll be interested in reading it and am perfectly willing to change my mind.
I've seen comment threads that are Facebook-login-required, such as that awful Examiner.com site that the Unskewed Polls kook uses, and anonymous or pseudo-anonymous, such as CNN.com, and quite honestly, I don't see the difference. They're both cesspools. The only difference is that fewer people are willing to comment at all if anonymous or pseudonymous posting is prevented - look at McClatchy's move to Facebook from Disqus over the last few weeks. It's pretty much dead now.
The notion that forcing people to post under their real names has any effect whatsoever on civil discourse is, regretably, a complete myth. Most people don't care, they'd be just as rude discussing politics over a drink, why would they care what people think of them on the Internet?
Yeah, I read the article and noted the same thing.
It's nominally a bad ruling but not the end of the world.
- The circumstances in which the paper was held accountable are fairly narrow. Anonymous comments allowed, no "proactive" moderation (whatever that is.)
- The fine was tiny
My guess is that this'll encourage the move to Facebook commenting that we've seen lately (urgh), as most papers don't want to spend money on moderators. This is a bad thing. But the ruling could have been worse.
Again, if the W3C were standardizing DRM, that's be something different. They're not. DRM will be provided by a system of proprietary, platform specific, browser specific, plug-ins.
It's stupid. It's completely unnecessary. There's no demand for a means to stream HTML5 video that's reliant on a third party plug-in to work. Netflix will NOT benefit from this tag, except in that they'll have one more option, on top of Flash and Silverlight and Real, to use.
I'm having a hard time seeing the justification. It would be better, IMO, to provide a core DRM system that is standardized, with, say, a couple of patented aspects, providing a free "class license" to anyone who implements the DRM system intact. The content industry can then decide whether to stick with third party plug-ins or to use a DRM system that's hackable, but that mainstream browsers all support as described.
Unfortunately, I suspect they'll pass, for the same reasons they passed on the relatively simple and trouble free, but slightly hackable, HD DVD, in favor of the troublesome garbage that is difficult-to-hack but hard to make a protected disc that works in all players, Blu-ray.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of third party implementations of Java. While Oracle's actions in the Android case have been dubious and absurd of late, they've shown no sign of wanting to close 100% compliant third party Java implementations.
Plus, you know, they lost that case, so they'd have problems suing anyway.
Even worse he thinks ChromeOS (an OS where all the apps are HTML5) is going to replace it.
No they didn't.
The Senate passed the budget, with one minor amendment that had nothing to do with the budget. The Republicans in the House refused to allow a vote on the final bill.
No.
This isn't a law against Tesla, electric cars, or anything else. It's a law about how a car manufacturer is supposed to work with the public, eg through independently owned dealerships.
Nobody (except the dealers) in the car industry likes these laws, but they're not discriminatory per se. They just suck.
FWIW there's also the whole "Technically superior for you doesn't mean technically superior for me" stuff.
- VHS vs Beta - Ability to record an entire movie (or two!) on one tape vs marginally (and questionable) better image quality.
- Storage system (the Sony and IOMega formats you mention) - works anywhere devices vs good but not compelling advantages hampered by unavailability of readers. (And in Sony's case, often proprietary, crippled, software that damaged the utility of the supposed advantages in the first place.)
- DVD/Netflix vs Blu-ray - wide range of low cost movies that work reliably on supported hardware vs marginally higher quality (in most cases) in exchange for unreliability, higher cost, and limited selection.
I can probably go on with the other technologies. The one that I'm noticing going the same route as "VHS vs Beta" (ie insistent fanbois insisting the failed system is technically superior but ignoring reality) is LCD vs Plasma. The latter is a system of fragile televisions that have problems showing anything other than native aspect ratio content without risking problems for hours later. The former is a system of rock solid TVs where owners don't have to worry about the type of content they're viewing (4:3, 16:9, 21:9, paused video games, etc) whose color range was once poor but these days is about equal except in exceptional conditions. By any reasonable count, LCD is now a technically superior option for most people. But the videophile community doesn't want to hear that, and I guarantee you that in twenty years, LCD "winning" over Plasma despite "poorer quality" will continue to be pushed just as the VHS vs Beta thing is today.
If you understood the concept of "Insurance", you'd understand it is all about the majority having a small inconvienience in exchange for protection from something that'll happen to a small, unknown, minority..
Leaving that aside however, the big changes that effect the 270 Million are there to benefit the 270 Million - that is, the reform of how your insurance company deals with you. It'll be harder for you to lose insurance once something happens to you that was the specific reason you got insurance in the first place. You're not going to find the money suddenly runs out because you've expended some lifetime benefits limit.
I agree it sucks, and we should replace it with a single payer system like Medicare for all, but it's simply ridiculous to argue that the changes that affect 300 million people are there solely for the sake of 30 million who aren't insured today. They're not. That's almost completely seperate.
Sure it's worse. You asked for HTTPS when you entered or selected the URL. You were, by implication, asking for a secure connection. You deserve a warning that you actually probably don't have a secure connection, that you asked for something that's probably not being provided.
And yeah, I'm aware that some people self sign their certificates to their own websites and manually check them, and are paranoid that the NSA has hacked a legitimate registrar and so on. Thing is:
1. OK, the NSA thing isn't paranoia any more except in the "OMFG THE NSA KNOWS I'M A NERD LIVING IN MY PARENT'S BASEMENT" sense, but the NSA can only force a registrar to provide a cert that won't result in a warning. You still have the option of manually checking the cert if you have the information needed to check it, so you lose nothing.
2. The vast majority of people don't have that information, and don't have the ability to check their bank's SSL cert is the right one. If it's self signed, it is a problem. The NSA is only one attacker, but they can get your bank records regardless. We're more worried about regular old organized crime.
So the warning is right. It should be presented. It'd be irresponsible for a browser to have the ability to perform some checks on an SSL cert and not check and/or not present its findings when it has a problem.
Right, moreover people unfamiliar with computing history very frequently underestimate the degree to which computer architecture has changed over the last three decades in particular. To give but one example: our current 8/16/32 (and now 64) bit word system, with each related to the other, is a concept that was pioneered with the IBM System/360, but wasn't standardized until the rise of the mass produced microprocessor as the standard processing unit for all computers, a process that started in the late 1970s and ended in the late 1980s (it wasn't an overnight change!)
The Linux kernel is based around an expectation of how certain computing concepts should work. It is almost certainly possible to port it to the IBM System/370, but it'd surprise many here how many of the 370's peers would be physically incapable of running it outside of an emulator for a more suitable architecture.
Right, because SIP is encrypted...?
I can understand being wary of Skype (hey, I was anti-Skype before it was cool, I'm such a sipster - sipster, geddit? it's like hipster but never mind) but advocating a switch to SIP on the grounds you don't want the NSA to be able to intercept your communications seems like bad advice.
FWIW I agree with you, but it says something that the discussion has veered from "Hillary announced the names of the victims before the attack happened!!" to "In my view, the answer Hillary gave to a congressman who is not pushy in my opinion was not appropriate".
I think regardless of whether Jane QP recognizes her argument about the nature of Clinton's reply is accurate or not, she has to concede that her original, and sadly still moderated at +5 Insightful, post, was a collection of garbage, lies, and smears, whether that was her intent or not.
It's always been the case that your interactions with other people or entities are less secure, from a 5th Amendment point of view, than what you do in private - which, by definition, involves no other people or parties.
I'm pretty sure that if you'd asked Wells Fargo to take a bag of cash to the New York offices of The Reasonably Sincere Gentlemen in favor of a British Monarch, the well known 19th Century anti-American terrorist organization that, uh, President Monroe had banned, testimony from the clerk who took the order would be acceptable in court, as would the paper records they keep.
All that's changed is that the words "on a computer" have come into being. The Clerk is no longer human, it's a collection of computers managed by a collection of humans, but it's still a third party that's being a witness to the crime.
You're completely right, of course.
Besides which, while China owns a fair amount of US debt, it's not the majoritan amount debt critics pretend it is. Moreover, it's traded internationally in the form of fungible bonds - China deciding to get rid of it wouldn't involve them forcing the US to come up with the money, they'd sell it on the open market. And this would merely push down the price, which wouldn't be great, that'd increase interest rates on issues of future debt, but it's not the end of the world.
Why? It's not as if European manufacturers will be allowed to play by different rules.
The WTO doesn't supercede normal regulatory activity, it simply works against regulatory activity designed to benefit the products of one group geographic group of manufacturers against other geographic origins.
I've not had that problem with either connector design and nor does anyone I know.
I'd say the sole problem with the current crop of tiny USB connectors is purely that whole four dimensional thing (where you have to turn it around twice to get it to fit.) Since the great switch over, I cannot think of a single device I've had where either USB standard has failed on me. They don't break, and they're difficult to disconnect accidentally - you really have to give a hard tug to unplug a microUSB cable.
I'm not surprised you were modded Insightful. There's a post on the Clinton thread that's modded +5 Insightful that repeats conspiracy theories about her so absurd not even Glenn Beck is making the same claims. But what you've posted is counter to reality. It's not a perfect connector, but it's become exceedingly rare any of us have had to throw out a USB cable because of a failure on the microUSB end, and the sockets themselves are close to indestructable.
I agree. Also, charge him with the most offensive, evil, despicable crime this country has ever thought of.
Charge him with Copyright Infringement.
Yes, I think we can sincerely say that his crimes were that bad. Some would say his crimes were worse than copyright infringement, but there's no need for that kind of extremist rhetoric. Godwin's law exists for a reason y'know.
35 miles before the gasoline engine kicks in, you say?
The Tesla's gasoline engine kicks in when? It doesn't? It doesn't have one?
So we have an apples and oranges comparison basically. The Tesla's range appears to be 208-265 miles (according to your comments) before it becomes stranded unless it's driven somewhere within range of a charging station. Tesla is improving their network of charging stations, so this isn't bad, though potential customers need to be confident they'll only be driving in those areas.
The Cadillac - essentially it can drive anywhere in the country, though the efficiency of it goes down if it's driven more than 35 miles from home. It will be very efficient for most commutes (though not all), but will be passably efficient for longer distances. Still better than a normal vehicle but not as efficient as a Tesla Model S.
It sounds to be that the comments on range really can't be pigeon holed into a one being superior than the other type thing. Different drivers will want different things. My suspicion is that the GM model is going to be more suitable to the majority of drivers in 2013/2014, but Tesla's intention to expand the number of public charging points may change that in the longer term.
My understanding is that the submitter went through a list of things to compare it to, to ensure Slashdot would take the article, but felt that comparing it to iOS 7, the iPhone 5S, the Makerbot, the Raspberry Pi, or Kickstarter, just would be a stretch too far.
The eventual pick was made on the basis that the Model S is a car, like the new Cadillac.
GM did fail. It went bankrupt.
The government did lend the ashes of the company some money to ensure that a viable business could be built, and also preventing GM's creditors from going bankrupt, which would have caused immense damage to the surviving car industry. But GM went bankrupt. And the replacement company, by all accounts, is a success, which is pretty good considering the economy continues to be in deep shit.
No, the word remains "negotiation". The fact that GM was managed by incompetent, but sadly typical, executives who refused to take any notice of those "dirty hippies" and "tree huggers" who said things like "Uh, gasoline isn't always going to be cheap" and "Wait, isn't the middle east unstable these days? Shouldn't we develop some better, more fuel efficient, vehicles just in case the shit hits the fan", doesn't change the fact that the union and the crappy management did negotiate a deal that would have been perfectly fine had they, you know, produced decent vehicles.
BTW, isn't criticizing someone else's negotiation compensation "the politics of envy" and "class warfare", or does that only apply when it's criticism of executives who get obscene bonuses for running their companies into the ground?
Agreed. Actually, I'd say the critic is mostly wrong. Word is a general purpose word processing application and complaining that it's not "pure" enough because it dares to support multiple paradigms both misses the point, and is complaining about a non-issue.
If someone wanting to write a quick note has to go through the bureaucracy of setting up stylesheets, or someone who wants to produce a ready formatted text book has to manually change the font every time they create a headline, subheading, or margin note, then the application is a failure. It isn't. It, like its many peers (where does the submitter get it from that Word was the first WYSIWYG word processor out of interest?), is a universal word processing application that caters to multiple types of user.
Is this response to me, or just something you wanted to get off your chest? Because if the former, then there's absolutely no assertion you're making that has any relevence whatsoever to anything I assumed, wrote, or implied.
Given the King's status of head of the Church (making it improbable any soldier would try such a deed and get away with it), the fact that such an attrocity would be worse than the more famous attrocities committed against Americans yet is unheard of, and the fact that, as the GP said, a famous incident fitting the description did occur, but in Nazi occupied France, I'm inclined to believe the GP and not you.
But that said, if you can point at a historical account of this attrocity, I'll be interested in reading it and am perfectly willing to change my mind.
I've seen comment threads that are Facebook-login-required, such as that awful Examiner.com site that the Unskewed Polls kook uses, and anonymous or pseudo-anonymous, such as CNN.com, and quite honestly, I don't see the difference. They're both cesspools. The only difference is that fewer people are willing to comment at all if anonymous or pseudonymous posting is prevented - look at McClatchy's move to Facebook from Disqus over the last few weeks. It's pretty much dead now.
The notion that forcing people to post under their real names has any effect whatsoever on civil discourse is, regretably, a complete myth. Most people don't care, they'd be just as rude discussing politics over a drink, why would they care what people think of them on the Internet?
Yeah, I read the article and noted the same thing.
It's nominally a bad ruling but not the end of the world.
- The circumstances in which the paper was held accountable are fairly narrow. Anonymous comments allowed, no "proactive" moderation (whatever that is.)
- The fine was tiny
My guess is that this'll encourage the move to Facebook commenting that we've seen lately (urgh), as most papers don't want to spend money on moderators. This is a bad thing. But the ruling could have been worse.
Again, if the W3C were standardizing DRM, that's be something different. They're not. DRM will be provided by a system of proprietary, platform specific, browser specific, plug-ins.
It's stupid. It's completely unnecessary. There's no demand for a means to stream HTML5 video that's reliant on a third party plug-in to work. Netflix will NOT benefit from this tag, except in that they'll have one more option, on top of Flash and Silverlight and Real, to use.
I'm having a hard time seeing the justification. It would be better, IMO, to provide a core DRM system that is standardized, with, say, a couple of patented aspects, providing a free "class license" to anyone who implements the DRM system intact. The content industry can then decide whether to stick with third party plug-ins or to use a DRM system that's hackable, but that mainstream browsers all support as described.
Unfortunately, I suspect they'll pass, for the same reasons they passed on the relatively simple and trouble free, but slightly hackable, HD DVD, in favor of the troublesome garbage that is difficult-to-hack but hard to make a protected disc that works in all players, Blu-ray.