And Kerry, in the link that was posted, is saying he'd have done the same thing in Iraq that Bush did.
That's not quite what Kerry's saying, though that's certainly what you'll be hearing on Fox. In reality, all he said was that he stands ny his initiial "Yes" vote:
The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have."
If you remember, at the time of the vote, Bush was saying that we would not go to war until he had exhausted all diplomatic avenues.
Kerry went on to say:
"I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." He challenged Bush to answer four questions.
"My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asked. "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?
"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?
"There are four, not hypothetical questions like the president's, but real questions that matter to Americans," Kerry said. "And I hope you'll get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."
Bush, on the other hand, even knowing that Iraq didn't have WMD's, still would have gone to war:
"Everybody thought they would be there. We haven't found them yet," Bush said. "But he did have the capability of making weapons. Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision."
All that (article IX) seems to say is that a right not specifically defined isn't automatically non-existent. It doesn't say the opposite, that a right not specifically defined is automatic. Closer to your intended point would be article X which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". Unfortunately, all this means is that you have a given, hypothetical right, unless your state has a law restricting it. Even then, federal courts have greatly reduced the rights of the states over the last 223 years to the point that many people argue that Article X is now irrelevent.
I should point out that I don't disagree with you in spirit. I agree that the law as you state it is probably what the founding fathers (certainly Jefferson, at least) meant. However over the years, the courts have greatly changed the reach of several of the amendments.
Note: I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. These points are as I understand them from talking to people much smarter then myself. I could be wrong, however.
Your call : does your Bill of Rights define all of the rights which you have?
This is a great philosophy, but utterly irrelevant in this circumstance.
The bill of rights defines your rights with regard to the government. It has basically nothing to do with your rights when dealing with a private company. For example, Google could institute a new policy saying that they reserve the right to block emails discussing certain topics. The government doing this would probably violate the first amendment, but it would be legal for Google since it is a private company.
As for your "philosophical outlook on the law", courts have generally said that the constitution grants you certain rights only. Any right not specifically defined does not exist. So, for example, we do not have a right to privacy, even though the need for such is entirely created by modern technology (and therefore would have been irrelevant for the first 200 years the constitution was around. Too bad the founding fathers were only smart, not psychic). Unfortunately, philosophy & law only rarely coincide.
I got mine months ago. I don't remember when, but early march sounds about right. I know that several other people did as well, because the teller at the bank commented that she had seen a bunch of the checks & was upset because she didn't hear about it in time to get her own check. Like you said, there is a PO box, so why not write to it & inquire?
Your post was pointless because it didn't give a viable solution to the problem. "Simply fixing these issues prevents the problem"? I'm not sure you understand the issue. These pages aren't *changing* Mozilla's UI, they are *recreating* it in XUL or DHTML after they remove the real UI using Javascript. How do you suggest Mozilla tell whether a page is attempting to mimic its UI or not? It's impossible. The only way to fix the problem is to prevent removing the real UI in the first place.
Actually, I did offer a solution. Admittedly, in this post, I didn't repeat everything that I had said elsewhere, but the solution could easily be inferred from what I did say: "The problem is that Mozilla lets a page change the UI -without permission-, and without giving any visual indication that it has done so." In other words, tell the user that the UI has been changed by the page. Certainly some users will still be fooled, but you can only hold the users hand so far. I see no reason to limit the flexibility of the the available tools simply because a few users are to stupid to pay attention to a dialog box.
This prevents a generic spoof, but any spoof that checks the platform would still work. It just would not display the menubar on the Mac version. Like you said, most script kiddies probably won't bother, but you should still be aware of the problem.
All of these are excellent examples of why shutting off toolbars can be a good idea. They are also good examples of why the solution I suggested much earlier would work well...
Whenever a new window is opened, and the default UI is changed, place a vertical warning bar along the left side. This would be fairly clutter-free and non-intrusive, but provide a simple, clear indication to all but the most naieve user that something isn't right. As long as the warning is distinctive, and cannot be disabled code, it should provide sufficient protection from spoofing.
The real problem is that browsers were never meant to be front ends to databases.
Bullshit. As far as I know, Mosaic 1.0 had basic forms. Coupled with a cgi script, Mosaic was a DB front-end from the beginning. On top of that, Mozilla is, of course, the direct descendent of Netscape, which was designed by Marc Andressen, the original developer of Mosaic. Andressen stated repeatedly that he wanted to make Netscape a platform rather then just a browser, so your point is quite thouroughly shot to hell.
But even if your statement was remotely correct, it would still be irrelevent. Just because the original designers didn't foresee an application, doesn't mean that the application is somehow verboten. Innovation happens. Deal with it. The browser makes the IDEAL front end to a database. Properly implemented, it provides near write-one, run-anywhere capabilities to application developers. If you are developing an kind of database application, and you want to be able to support all users, regardless of OS, one of the easiest possible solutions is to create a browser based app. Sure you could do it in Java, but not everyone has Java installed or turned on (I don't). And sure you could write a frontend in Python (or whatever), but most users won't have the necessary software installed. By making it web based, and coding carefully, with a liittle effort you can support probably 98% of all users, without requiring anything of your users except that they be running a recent browser.
This spoofing exploit is a serious issue, but it's not one that suggests that we should throw away the "browser as platform" concept. The problem needs to be addressed, but there are several ways to do that without crippliing the browser.
"The quality, severity and frequency of reported bugs is no indication of a product's buggy future, UNLESS you are willing to go through the code yourself and deemed it bug-less."
Sorry, but I can't see how you can possibly rationalize this as correct. Had you said "The quality, severity and frequency of reported bugs is -LITTLE- indication of a product's buggy future", I'd have said that you're probably correct. For example, take two programs of a similar age & popularity (for example, program A & program B). Program A has 1000 reported bugs, program B has 100. Which program is more likely to have future bugs? From just that much information, it's hard to answer conclusively. Maybe program A has much more proactive developers who have actually sought out bugs.
But you didn't say "little indication", you said "NO indication". Based on simply the bug list, you may be correct. But in the real world, you can factor in other issues, such as the developers history, availability of source, etc. Using this extra info, you can reasonably guage the overall security of a product. Granted, this isn't a guarantee of security, but it certainly is -an indication-.
Since it doesn't affect the Mac OS X version (just checked), it won't stop me using Mozilla Firefox, for sure;)
Are you sure? Ok, so the POC may not have worked, but that doesn't mean that you're not vulnerable. If you are sure, what is it about the MacOS version that makes you invulnerable?
It is ironic tho, with all the MS bashing, and this is actually a more serious exploit the last few IE exploits. Firefox doesn't have the quantity of bugs that IE has, but it makes up for it with the quality I guess.
But this isn't a Firefox vulnerability. As others have pointed out, the same class of vulnerability also affects IE and most other browsers as well. Even with issues like this Firefox is more secure for two reasons:
1) The developers usually respond more quickly (present bug excluded).
2) I hate to say it, but security through obscurity. IE commands >90% of the browser market, so the vast majority of exploits are still directed at it.
While neither of these mean Firefox provides rock solid security, I can almost guarantee you that you'll have far fewer security problems on Firefox then you will on IIE.
There is NO GOOD REASON to turn them off, ever. If you are writing a web application that assumes the back button doesn't exist, you're writing it wrong. If your application really *needs* to show windows without forward/back buttons and menu/status bars and stuff, chances are your web application would be much more appropriate as a *real* application.
Bullshit. A Mozilla based app IS a real application, just one that has used the Mozilla toolkit for it UI. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The problem is that Mozilla lets a page change the UI -without permission-, and without giving any visual indication that it has done so. Simply fixing these issues prevents the problem, without being unnecessarily draconian.
It's not fucking complicated how to fix it, and the solution works for every browser out there: Stop letting web pages turn off the URL box and menus. DUH.
Actually, as others have pointed out, turning off the location bar can be a good thing. The easy fix is to not turn off the location bar without user permission. Simply putting up a dialog saying "The requested page wants to hide the location bar. This could be a security risk. Proceed?" would help prevent the problem. Allowing a page to be marked as trusted would help reduce the annoyances that this would cause.
An even better option would be to always display a 20-30 pixel wide warning bar along the left side of the page any time the location bar has been hidden. This would eliminate the necessity for a dialog box, but would still create a noticeable change in the appearance of the web page. Once again, marking the page as trusted would allow hiding this.
Neither of these solutions are perfect (a user could mark a page trusted that they shouldn't), but that's fine. You'll never be able to protect a stupid user from themselves completely, but at least these options would provide a hint for most users.
some of you guys way overreact to things like this, you just have to realize that as your precious OSS grows to be the king of the hill people will write exploits for it too.
And some of you guys need to get a sense of humor. The parent was making a joke!
Interestingly, that's not his only incentive to block p2p. He's also an "Exceptional Singer, Songwriter and Composer". And, though you can listen to a few of his songs on his web site, it's hard to believe that he's not one of the top two or three most pirated artists on the net. I mean, according to one Sony exec, "On any given day in Nashville we receive 200 good songs. What we are interested in is great songs. We think two of the songs are great songs and that they'll be around for 100 years or more". And of course, no one in the record industry would ever lie to further their own agenda.
You know, I would like to see this pass, I would even like to see the Betamax decision overturned. Why you might ask? Because of the wakeup call it will create.
I'm sure that lot's of pepople said the same thing about the DMCA, but here we are six years later, and the DMCA is still going strong, despite such stupid things as the DMCA being used to outlaw third party batteries & inkjet cartridges.
The American people are way to complacent to object to simple things like losing their rights. All the RIAA has to do is somehow associate piracy with Terrorism, and Americans will be happy to give up their rights.
Not quite correct, states were indeed free to raise their speed limits, but at the cost of forfeiting federal road funds. The federal gov 'reversed blackmailed' the states, "do as we want or don't get the money".
Actually, if you reread the parent post, he never said that states raised the speed limit. On the contrary, he said "the national speed limit was only a technicality since there are no national traffic police: local cops enforced the "unofficial" local speed limit". In other words, the law still existed, but most muniicipaliities chose to ignore it.
You sound like an english major, but you seem to have missed an important lecture... Proper grammar evolves. What is proper today probably wasn't proper yesterday. This evolution is generated by usage. Words and phrases enter the lexicon, often improperly, but eventually they become so widespread as to become "official". A perfect example of this is the use of 'quote' as a noun. As you point out, it is now in the official dictionaries. It's generally accepted that dictionaries are the source to look at for proper word usage, so if they say quote can be used as a noun then, at least in common usage, quote can be used as a noun.
Forget about Blockbuster, this wouldn't really be profitable for them at least not like regular DVD rentals. If these things took off, and are as cheap or cheaper than a blockbuster rental it will drive Blockbuster and all video rental places out of business or at least force them to change their business' to the point where it wouldn't be a rental shop.
There's no way that this would put Blockbuster & the rest out of business. True, hot titles could be carried everywhere, but what about catalog titles? Do you really expect that your neighborhoood convenience store will carry 5,000 titles? And sure Best Buy can carry lot's of titles, but they tend to be inconvenient. People don't want to drive across town to rent a movie.
What this will do to the rental industry is further drive out the mom & pops (funny how the MPAA/RIAA are all for protecting -their- business model, but not so concerned about anyone else's).
I'm just sad I had to read this far to find that response, which is the only logical reason for these DVD's. You won't see these sold to consumers like the fanatical and uninformed submitter ranted about. You'll see them at blockbuster and love them for exactly the reason outlined above, you don't have to return it.
Why would blockbuster love these again? Blockbuster now has to pay $.98 PER RENTAL (or whatever) instead of (((N - U) * C) / R) (N= New price, U= Used copy sale price, C= number of copies purchased, R=Number of rentals). While I don't know the exact values for each of those numbers, I reasonable certain that the number is well below the price of a disposable. In addition, now blockbuster has the extra overhead involved with maintaing inventory, and they lose the cash cow of late fees.
And as for consumers? Sure, no late fees, but now I have an 8 hour window to watch a movie. No more 5 day rentals here. Sure, the 8 hour window doesn't start until you open the DVD (I assume), but what happens if you fall asleep during the movie or decide to finish it later? Sure, there's no chance of a scratch (though there's probably a greater chance of a manufacturing defect-- disposable items tend to have sloppy QC), but the added hassles of disposables outweigh the advantages as far as I can see.
1) The disc and packaging are recyclable, according to the site.
Lot's of things are recycleable. Any idea what percentage of them are actually recycled? (I don't know, but I guarantee that it's well under 50%).
2) What 'program?' There's no 'program' mentioned on the site.
I think he means program in the non-computer sense. And from that perspective, I tend to agree with him. And besides, as you point out, this is only a technology preview, so there's no way that my local video store would have started to use it yet. While I tend to agree with you that this won't be that big of a deal, if the idea DID catch on, I would be on the side of the pirates...
More of the beauty of Linux-- not every app require's it's own spell check. So, technically, you're correct, the editors on the floppy don't have a spell checker, but once you've installed aspell, they -all- have a spell checker. Once again, options=freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously! I mean the manufacturer wouldn't have any reason to lie, would they!
Sure, really don't care who wins... Oh wait CEO of Diebold in as much Guarantees Bush WIN.
You may be thinking of the lengthy article written by Greg Palast for Salon.com.
Another version of the same article is available, no reg required, at the Nation
And Kerry, in the link that was posted, is saying he'd have done the same thing in Iraq that Bush did.
That's not quite what Kerry's saying, though that's certainly what you'll be hearing on Fox. In reality, all he said was that he stands ny his initiial "Yes" vote:
The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have."
If you remember, at the time of the vote, Bush was saying that we would not go to war until he had exhausted all diplomatic avenues.
Kerry went on to say:
"I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." He challenged Bush to answer four questions.
"My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asked. "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?
"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?
"There are four, not hypothetical questions like the president's, but real questions that matter to Americans," Kerry said. "And I hope you'll get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."
Bush, on the other hand, even knowing that Iraq didn't have WMD's, still would have gone to war:
"Everybody thought they would be there. We haven't found them yet," Bush said. "But he did have the capability of making weapons. Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision."
So, how are these two indistinguishable?
All that (article IX) seems to say is that a right not specifically defined isn't automatically non-existent. It doesn't say the opposite, that a right not specifically defined is automatic. Closer to your intended point would be article X which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". Unfortunately, all this means is that you have a given, hypothetical right, unless your state has a law restricting it. Even then, federal courts have greatly reduced the rights of the states over the last 223 years to the point that many people argue that Article X is now irrelevent.
I should point out that I don't disagree with you in spirit. I agree that the law as you state it is probably what the founding fathers (certainly Jefferson, at least) meant. However over the years, the courts have greatly changed the reach of several of the amendments.
Note: I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. These points are as I understand them from talking to people much smarter then myself. I could be wrong, however.
Your call : does your Bill of Rights define all of the rights which you have?
This is a great philosophy, but utterly irrelevant in this circumstance.
The bill of rights defines your rights with regard to the government. It has basically nothing to do with your rights when dealing with a private company. For example, Google could institute a new policy saying that they reserve the right to block emails discussing certain topics. The government doing this would probably violate the first amendment, but it would be legal for Google since it is a private company.
As for your "philosophical outlook on the law", courts have generally said that the constitution grants you certain rights only. Any right not specifically defined does not exist. So, for example, we do not have a right to privacy, even though the need for such is entirely created by modern technology (and therefore would have been irrelevant for the first 200 years the constitution was around. Too bad the founding fathers were only smart, not psychic). Unfortunately, philosophy & law only rarely coincide.
I got mine months ago. I don't remember when, but early march sounds about right. I know that several other people did as well, because the teller at the bank commented that she had seen a bunch of the checks & was upset because she didn't hear about it in time to get her own check. Like you said, there is a PO box, so why not write to it & inquire?
Your post was pointless because it didn't give a viable solution to the problem. "Simply fixing these issues prevents the problem"? I'm not sure you understand the issue. These pages aren't *changing* Mozilla's UI, they are *recreating* it in XUL or DHTML after they remove the real UI using Javascript. How do you suggest Mozilla tell whether a page is attempting to mimic its UI or not? It's impossible. The only way to fix the problem is to prevent removing the real UI in the first place.
Actually, I did offer a solution. Admittedly, in this post, I didn't repeat everything that I had said elsewhere, but the solution could easily be inferred from what I did say: "The problem is that Mozilla lets a page change the UI -without permission-, and without giving any visual indication that it has done so." In other words, tell the user that the UI has been changed by the page. Certainly some users will still be fooled, but you can only hold the users hand so far. I see no reason to limit the flexibility of the the available tools simply because a few users are to stupid to pay attention to a dialog box.
This prevents a generic spoof, but any spoof that checks the platform would still work. It just would not display the menubar on the Mac version. Like you said, most script kiddies probably won't bother, but you should still be aware of the problem.
All of these are excellent examples of why shutting off toolbars can be a good idea. They are also good examples of why the solution I suggested much earlier would work well...
Whenever a new window is opened, and the default UI is changed, place a vertical warning bar along the left side. This would be fairly clutter-free and non-intrusive, but provide a simple, clear indication to all but the most naieve user that something isn't right. As long as the warning is distinctive, and cannot be disabled code, it should provide sufficient protection from spoofing.
The real problem is that browsers were never meant to be front ends to databases.
Bullshit. As far as I know, Mosaic 1.0 had basic forms. Coupled with a cgi script, Mosaic was a DB front-end from the beginning. On top of that, Mozilla is, of course, the direct descendent of Netscape, which was designed by Marc Andressen, the original developer of Mosaic. Andressen stated repeatedly that he wanted to make Netscape a platform rather then just a browser, so your point is quite thouroughly shot to hell.
But even if your statement was remotely correct, it would still be irrelevent. Just because the original designers didn't foresee an application, doesn't mean that the application is somehow verboten. Innovation happens. Deal with it. The browser makes the IDEAL front end to a database. Properly implemented, it provides near write-one, run-anywhere capabilities to application developers. If you are developing an kind of database application, and you want to be able to support all users, regardless of OS, one of the easiest possible solutions is to create a browser based app. Sure you could do it in Java, but not everyone has Java installed or turned on (I don't). And sure you could write a frontend in Python (or whatever), but most users won't have the necessary software installed. By making it web based, and coding carefully, with a liittle effort you can support probably 98% of all users, without requiring anything of your users except that they be running a recent browser.
This spoofing exploit is a serious issue, but it's not one that suggests that we should throw away the "browser as platform" concept. The problem needs to be addressed, but there are several ways to do that without crippliing the browser.
"The quality, severity and frequency of reported bugs is no indication of a product's buggy future, UNLESS you are willing to go through the code yourself and deemed it bug-less."
Sorry, but I can't see how you can possibly rationalize this as correct. Had you said "The quality, severity and frequency of reported bugs is -LITTLE- indication of a product's buggy future", I'd have said that you're probably correct. For example, take two programs of a similar age & popularity (for example, program A & program B). Program A has 1000 reported bugs, program B has 100. Which program is more likely to have future bugs? From just that much information, it's hard to answer conclusively. Maybe program A has much more proactive developers who have actually sought out bugs.
But you didn't say "little indication", you said "NO indication". Based on simply the bug list, you may be correct. But in the real world, you can factor in other issues, such as the developers history, availability of source, etc. Using this extra info, you can reasonably guage the overall security of a product. Granted, this isn't a guarantee of security, but it certainly is -an indication-.
Since it doesn't affect the Mac OS X version (just checked), it won't stop me using Mozilla Firefox, for sure ;)
Are you sure? Ok, so the POC may not have worked, but that doesn't mean that you're not vulnerable. If you are sure, what is it about the MacOS version that makes you invulnerable?
It is ironic tho, with all the MS bashing, and this is actually a more serious exploit the last few IE exploits. Firefox doesn't have the quantity of bugs that IE has, but it makes up for it with the quality I guess.
But this isn't a Firefox vulnerability. As others have pointed out, the same class of vulnerability also affects IE and most other browsers as well. Even with issues like this Firefox is more secure for two reasons:
1) The developers usually respond more quickly (present bug excluded).
2) I hate to say it, but security through obscurity. IE commands >90% of the browser market, so the vast majority of exploits are still directed at it.
While neither of these mean Firefox provides rock solid security, I can almost guarantee you that you'll have far fewer security problems on Firefox then you will on IIE.
There is NO GOOD REASON to turn them off, ever. If you are writing a web application that assumes the back button doesn't exist, you're writing it wrong. If your application really *needs* to show windows without forward/back buttons and menu/status bars and stuff, chances are your web application would be much more appropriate as a *real* application.
Bullshit. A Mozilla based app IS a real application, just one that has used the Mozilla toolkit for it UI. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The problem is that Mozilla lets a page change the UI -without permission-, and without giving any visual indication that it has done so. Simply fixing these issues prevents the problem, without being unnecessarily draconian.
It's not fucking complicated how to fix it, and the solution works for every browser out there: Stop letting web pages turn off the URL box and menus. DUH.
Actually, as others have pointed out, turning off the location bar can be a good thing. The easy fix is to not turn off the location bar without user permission. Simply putting up a dialog saying "The requested page wants to hide the location bar. This could be a security risk. Proceed?" would help prevent the problem. Allowing a page to be marked as trusted would help reduce the annoyances that this would cause.
An even better option would be to always display a 20-30 pixel wide warning bar along the left side of the page any time the location bar has been hidden. This would eliminate the necessity for a dialog box, but would still create a noticeable change in the appearance of the web page. Once again, marking the page as trusted would allow hiding this.
Neither of these solutions are perfect (a user could mark a page trusted that they shouldn't), but that's fine. You'll never be able to protect a stupid user from themselves completely, but at least these options would provide a hint for most users.
some of you guys way overreact to things like this, you just have to realize that as your precious OSS grows to be the king of the hill people will write exploits for it too.
And some of you guys need to get a sense of humor. The parent was making a joke!
Interestingly, that's not his only incentive to block p2p. He's also an "Exceptional Singer, Songwriter and Composer". And, though you can listen to a few of his songs on his web site, it's hard to believe that he's not one of the top two or three most pirated artists on the net. I mean, according to one Sony exec, "On any given day in Nashville we receive 200 good songs. What we are interested in is great songs. We think two of the songs are great songs and that they'll be around for 100 years or more". And of course, no one in the record industry would ever lie to further their own agenda.
You know, I would like to see this pass, I would even like to see the Betamax decision overturned. Why you might ask? Because of the wakeup call it will create.
I'm sure that lot's of pepople said the same thing about the DMCA, but here we are six years later, and the DMCA is still going strong, despite such stupid things as the DMCA being used to outlaw third party batteries & inkjet cartridges.
The American people are way to complacent to object to simple things like losing their rights. All the RIAA has to do is somehow associate piracy with Terrorism, and Americans will be happy to give up their rights.
Not quite correct, states were indeed free to raise their speed limits, but at the cost of forfeiting federal road funds. The federal gov 'reversed blackmailed' the states, "do as we want or don't get the money".
Actually, if you reread the parent post, he never said that states raised the speed limit. On the contrary, he said "the national speed limit was only a technicality since there are no national traffic police: local cops enforced the "unofficial" local speed limit". In other words, the law still existed, but most muniicipaliities chose to ignore it.
You sound like an english major, but you seem to have missed an important lecture... Proper grammar evolves. What is proper today probably wasn't proper yesterday. This evolution is generated by usage. Words and phrases enter the lexicon, often improperly, but eventually they become so widespread as to become "official". A perfect example of this is the use of 'quote' as a noun. As you point out, it is now in the official dictionaries. It's generally accepted that dictionaries are the source to look at for proper word usage, so if they say quote can be used as a noun then, at least in common usage, quote can be used as a noun.
Forget about Blockbuster, this wouldn't really be profitable for them at least not like regular DVD rentals. If these things took off, and are as cheap or cheaper than a blockbuster rental it will drive Blockbuster and all video rental places out of business or at least force them to change their business' to the point where it wouldn't be a rental shop.
There's no way that this would put Blockbuster & the rest out of business. True, hot titles could be carried everywhere, but what about catalog titles? Do you really expect that your neighborhoood convenience store will carry 5,000 titles? And sure Best Buy can carry lot's of titles, but they tend to be inconvenient. People don't want to drive across town to rent a movie.
What this will do to the rental industry is further drive out the mom & pops (funny how the MPAA/RIAA are all for protecting -their- business model, but not so concerned about anyone else's).
I'm just sad I had to read this far to find that response, which is the only logical reason for these DVD's. You won't see these sold to consumers like the fanatical and uninformed submitter ranted about. You'll see them at blockbuster and love them for exactly the reason outlined above, you don't have to return it.
Why would blockbuster love these again? Blockbuster now has to pay $.98 PER RENTAL (or whatever) instead of (((N - U) * C) / R) (N= New price, U= Used copy sale price, C= number of copies purchased, R=Number of rentals). While I don't know the exact values for each of those numbers, I reasonable certain that the number is well below the price of a disposable. In addition, now blockbuster has the extra overhead involved with maintaing inventory, and they lose the cash cow of late fees.
And as for consumers? Sure, no late fees, but now I have an 8 hour window to watch a movie. No more 5 day rentals here. Sure, the 8 hour window doesn't start until you open the DVD (I assume), but what happens if you fall asleep during the movie or decide to finish it later? Sure, there's no chance of a scratch (though there's probably a greater chance of a manufacturing defect-- disposable items tend to have sloppy QC), but the added hassles of disposables outweigh the advantages as far as I can see.
1) The disc and packaging are recyclable, according to the site.
Lot's of things are recycleable. Any idea what percentage of them are actually recycled? (I don't know, but I guarantee that it's well under 50%).
2) What 'program?' There's no 'program' mentioned on the site.
I think he means program in the non-computer sense. And from that perspective, I tend to agree with him. And besides, as you point out, this is only a technology preview, so there's no way that my local video store would have started to use it yet. While I tend to agree with you that this won't be that big of a deal, if the idea DID catch on, I would be on the side of the pirates...
More of the beauty of Linux-- not every app require's it's own spell check. So, technically, you're correct, the editors on the floppy don't have a spell checker, but once you've installed aspell, they -all- have a spell checker. Once again, options=freedom.