GTK and other toolkits (except perhaps WxWindows) that are ported to OS/X do NOT use the "AppKit" by any normal definition of "use". At least GTK (and FLTK which I am writing) use Quartz and thus are implemented just like AppKit. Perhaps others use AppKit to create windows but they certainly draw their own graphics inside them, claiming that such a program "uses" AppKit would be like claiming all web pages use AppKit because when Safari displays them they are inside an AppKit window.
Sounds pretty good. Pratically speaking, the ballot boxes would more likely be tamper-evident rather than tamper resistant. I would think an actual transmitter on the box would be impractical, and ones that break due to accidents would keep all the ballot police so busy they may not see any real fraud. A GPS recorder inside the box does sound like an excellent idea.
Um, Clinton DID win the popular vote. Unless you mean he got less than 50% but that is true of lots of presidents. The only elections where the Electorial vote disagreed with the popular vote was 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
First: I don't at all believe there was any kind of fixing. I also strongly believe that we need machines with paper ballots.
But your comment is wrong. That county does matter if you are fixing the vote. The presidential vote for the state is the total tally for the entire state. 100 extra votes in a democratic preceint are just as valuable as 100 extra votes in a republican one. They add an equal amount to the state total. What really matters is that the state is close so that the extra votes switch which way it goes. It is also possible that the very populated Dade county is the best place to hide a vote fix: if you went to a highly Republican county and with only 400 democrats, and lowered (or raised) the democrat vote by 100, it would be pretty obvious, but nobody would notice if there were 100,000 Democrats and Republicans. You want to hide it in the greatest tally for both parties. The big cities, despite being prodominantly Democrat, are so populous that they also contain more Republicans than the rural counties, thus making them the best place to hide vote fixing.
Now *states* that are not close are a different matter. Then it is pretty useless to try to fix the election. Fixing extra Democrat votes in California, or extra Republican ones in Texas, is a waste of time and money and very unlikely, because anybody smart and powerful enough to be able to fix an election would be too smart to waste the effort there when they can do it elsewhere. Oddly enough such meaningless election fixing claims are being spewed out by no-nothings on both sides of the political spectrum.
Damn right a Democrat in the right place can fix the election using these voting machines as well as a Republican!
All those idiots (including dozens of posters here) that say "this is those liberal silly Democrats whining because they lost" should wake up and realize this is not a left/right issue!
Then again, I feel these posts may be an attempt by those interested in having a fixable election trying to kill any reform by trying to make people believe it is an issue only for "crazy liberal conspiracy theorists".
You have thouroughly misunderstood what is meant by "paper receipt".
The voter does NOT take it with them. They confirm it says what they wanted to vote for and then insert it into a ballot box at the polling place.
Obviously a receipt the voter takes with them allows voter coercion just like you showed. It basically means there is no secret ballot, which I think may actually be a constitutional law (?) so it would be illegal in the USA.
No the votor cannot get a paper receipt showing how they voted. This would allow vote coercion (ie "show me the receipt showing you voted for my candidate or you are fired from your job"). Also I would suspect such receipts would not be very valuable for recounts since they could be forged rather easily, and votors would lose lots of them.
Your code becomes non-free when the other company, with much more publicity and ability to distribute the program, modifies it in such a way that your original version does not interoperate, thus reducing the value and utility of your code to zero.
That is NO DIFFERENT that running two 128mb and one 32mb OpenGL applications at the same time today. It works. There is nothing special that one of the programs is a window manager. VM in the OpenGL textures has been there for YEARS and years and years, it does not matter if it is an idea that just occurred to Microsoft (and it didn't, they also have had it for a long time).
You seem to be very confused, or are trying to troll.
In fact both Vista and these X things are abandoning any idea of having "both" 2D and 3D. This does not mean they are "combining" them as you claim, instead they are simply using 3D at all times. Rendering a rectangle that is parallel to the screen surface is a "3D" operation but it looks 2D.
There is absolutly no reason why using OpenGL for the compositing does not mean it can't be used by applications. You may be confused by Microsoft's direct attempts to make sure OpenGL is broken on Windows, if it were not for that it is equivalent to the ability to run a direct-x program inside a window on Vista, which is possible as I'm sure you know. GL use by programs and Window managers at the same time existed on SGI systems in 1988. It's true that X and Windows were both badly screwed up and thus killed progress by what looks like 25 years, but things are gradually climbing out of that hole.
The obvious answer today is to be similar to Windows. However there is a bit more history, all X programs I have ever seen, including the first ones, would attach the controls to the window displaying the document, and Windows actually copied this design.
An OS/X style menubar does not work with point-to-type. Despite detractors, point-to-type is such a huge improvement in speed and usability of multiple windows that people accostomed to it will NOT give it up.
Putting the menubar into the window title would be a good idea and would reduce screen usage, but this can only be done practically if the "window manager" is eliminated and programs draw their own borders. Unfortunately there is a huge fear that the users will be "confused" by window borders that don't all draw exactly pixel identical to each other, despite the fact that every X and Windows game and media player does this already and the users are not complaining.
Yes, the reason there is no write support is due to a lack of information from Microsoft.
It's not due to lazyness, as you seem to be implying. In fact probably about 100 times as much work has gone into attempting to reverse-engineer NTFS than would be required to get it to read/write with documentation.
No, SDMI is different, in that there was an easy test (whether or not the player worked) to tell if it was removed. The hope is that these guys will get some brains and realize that if the "watermark" prevents a player from working it will be removed/defeated, not because there is now an incentive, but because now there is a trivial test for a pirate to do to see if they succeeded (ie try playing it).
"watermark" is supposed to mean it is invisibly small. A player that does not play things with the wrong watermark is an amplifier that removes the invisiblitiy. It is then not a "watermark". Any such player should be kept under close lock and key, not sold to the masses at Walmart.
I think the scheme will work, but you are saying the exact thing that will kill it. The existence of a watermark should have *NO* effect on whether a machine will play it. If a $100 device from BestBuy will detect a watermark, then a pirate will be able to *easily* remove/change it, because they now have a reliable and simple and cheap test to see if the watermark is there!
If instead the only way to detect a watermark is to put it in a carefully protected machine in the RIAA's basement with a secret program on it, then there is no way any pirate will remove it successfully.
Unfortunately some pin head in management will not realize this and will insist that the watermark have some effect on players, thus defeating the only scheme that will really work for them. Of course they have proven to be idiots over and over again, and they will continue, so I'm sure this will happen.
The HP2100A, with 5 teleltypes and a high-speed photocell paper tape reader. It had 32K words (16 bits per word) of core memory and ran the Dartmouth Basic system.
You think you are being funny, but you accurately described a real, viable method of creating computer programs, called genetic programming, or neural nets, or a number of other names. These programs have created better algorithims in a shorter time than human "intelligent designers". The problem is that they can only work if a test for fitness can be written easily, ie if the fitness test is more complicated than the algorithim itself, which is true of something like word processor, it is not possible to use this. Evolution works because "not dying before reproducing" is a rather simple test.
You all-so-clever attempt to reverse the Galileo debate is so wrong it is laughable. Both of the models of the planets assummed (by that time) that they are earth-sized bodies moving in circles at constant speeds, and that the bodies are lit by the sun, and the idea that anything other than the sun and moon orbited the earth was abandoned hundreds of years earlier. The difference in the models is a more of a simplification by changing the coordinate system, actual tests to see if the earth was moving involving parallex of nearby stars was not possible until the 19th century. Epicycles were not used to fix the earth-centered model, they were in fact used in *both* models, due to the assumption that all things moved in circles and not ellipses. If ellipses are allowed the earth-centered model can be made to work perfectly, since it just rotates the heliocentric model about the earth.
Anti-evolution is more like saying "there are anomolies in the helio-centric idea, which proves that the planets don't move at all!". Of course you are so blinded by illogic that you don't see this at all. But trust me, it is true. I know you are also going to accuse me of being close-minded, which is pretty funny.
Yes, Adobe PDF files with restrictions *are* DRM. I was misled by your original description, I'm still certain that the inability to "publish" a document is not DRM. But not allowing print, or save-without-signature, in a program that otherwise could do these functions is a form of DRM. Using Adobe's software is an easy way to get such restrictions assumming a non-hostile environment (and since you were mostly talking about people making mistakes, this sounds like what you are trying to do).
Yes but I still claim that is protections/capabilities, not DRM. The reason no unauthorized software was allowed and print-screen was disabled on the machines is because you don't really have DRM, and thus adding such software would make it trivial to get around some of the restrictions.
DRM is an attempt to make these things work even if the end user is allowed to completely replace the machine with something of their own. I'm certain the best your system can do is prevent them from seeing the diagrams at all. That is not DRM. DRM would make it so the person's replacement machine can see the diagrams but still cannot print them.
Anything done on the central server (such as not allowing "publishing" of a document) is not DRM. If some sinister agents broke in and replaced the central server with their own machine, I'm quite certain they would then be able to "publish" things if they wanted to. It is far more practical for you to just put a lock on your central server room than to try to implement an actual working DRM.
According to Wikipedia, Stepehn Schneider said this in 1971, not 1976. The 1976 paper was a retraction of this.
Personally I remember quite clearly that the popular consensus was for the world to heat up, though usually the cause was not CO2 but particulates and water vapor condensing. This was highly influenced by the Venus probes in the 1960's that revealed just how hot the surface of Venus was, caused by the greenhouse effect. I vaguely remember a few people claiming that it would get colder, but that was considered the fringe theories (most of the quotes supposedly trying to prove "global cooling" being popular are quoting these articles that were precisely designed to counter popular belief. The biggest of these was the "nuclear winter" scenarios of around 1979, which I remember being attacked by the right because they disagreed with the "everybody knows it will make the world warmer", and defended as it being a short-term effect verses the longer term pollution effects. If "global cooling" was every a popular theory it was before 1960, I have certainly seen popular sci-fi from that period that worried about the return of the ice age and how we would fight it.
Just having lived that time and been exposed to popular beliefs (taught by liberal teachers and popular press) I have to challenge any claim that there has been a change in consensus. I very much remember it being claimed that it would be warmer, and that the few who challenged this were considered fringe.
Quote from Wikipedia:
In 1971 Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138-141). This paper used a 1-d radiative climate model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:
However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.
Carbon dioxide was predicted to have only a minor role. However, the model was very simple and the calculation of the CO2 effect was incorrect by a factor of about three--a fact soon recognised.
In 1976 Schneider wrote The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival in which he said:
One form of such pollution that affects the entire atmosphere is the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas.... Human activities have already raised the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 10 percent and are estimated to raise it some 25 percent by the year 2000. In later chapters, I will show how this increase could lead to a 1 Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) average warming of the earth's surface... Another form of atmospheric pollution results from... atmospheric aerosols... there is some evidence that atmospheric aerosols may have already affected the climate. A consensus among scientists today would hold that a global increase in atmospheric aerosols would probably result in a cooling of the climate; however, a smaller but growing fraction of the current evidence suggests that it may have a warming effect.
In 1977 Schneider criticized a popular science book (The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age) that predicted an imminent Ice Age, writing in Nature:...it insists on maintaining the shock effect of the dramatic...rather than the reality of the discipline: we just don't know enough to chose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling- or when.
For your own image you could do anything you want.
However I could imagine some sort of GPL image that includes a PSD file, and if you then edit it in photoshop to a new version and want to send your result to anybody, you have to include your modified PSD file.
Though this runs into problems with what the "commonly used format for working" is. You could very well never write a PSD file while using PhotoShop, just saving your new result as a jpeg file, and quitting. This means no PSD file is available to represent your changes. But somebody else who wanted to further modify your image could very well start with the jpeg file and may not think anything is wrong. Others may say that the lossy compression threw away too much of the original PSD file. It is hard to say whether just the image fulfills the GPL requirements.
You are describing normal permission controls for documents. That is not DRM. I'm quite certain somebody viewing your documents could take a screen shot, or save the image as a new file, or actually make the car from the wrong diagrams. What they can't do is accidentally (or on purpose) overwrite the correct information with the wrong one in your central database, or somehow convince somebody else that a certain drawing is the correct one. That is permissions/capabilities that have been around for 40 years.
Confusing DRM with normal permissions is one of the many ways of confusing the issue so that people don't realize what it is. Getting rid of DRM has nothing to do with letting anybody who wants to see all documents.
A digital image starts out as an RGB and is edited that way, but it must be converted to CMYK before it can be sent to an imagesetter for four-color printing. This isn't a "good thing to have."
Actually that is wrong, what you are describing is what Gimp does, or what printer drivers do when transferring an RGB input to a CMYK output.
What is missing is to actually store and paint the 4 values for CMYK. Mathematically you cannot convert these 4 values to 3 and recover the original 4, thus any image editor that stores RGB cannot reproduce all possible CMYK settings. Photoshop does this and Gimp does not.
Everything else discussed such as color management or pantone, etc, is missing the real problem. You can argue that there is no need for more than a 3-dimensional space of colors and that a very careful and well-defined conversion to CMYK will be sufficient. That is a reasonable argument, but it is not what the Photoshop users claim.
Slashdot Mirror
GTK and other toolkits (except perhaps WxWindows) that are ported to OS/X do NOT use the "AppKit" by any normal definition of "use". At least GTK (and FLTK which I am writing) use Quartz and thus are implemented just like AppKit. Perhaps others use AppKit to create windows but they certainly draw their own graphics inside them, claiming that such a program "uses" AppKit would be like claiming all web pages use AppKit because when Safari displays them they are inside an AppKit window.
Sounds pretty good. Pratically speaking, the ballot boxes would more likely be tamper-evident rather than tamper resistant. I would think an actual transmitter on the box would be impractical, and ones that break due to accidents would keep all the ballot police so busy they may not see any real fraud. A GPS recorder inside the box does sound like an excellent idea.
Um, Clinton DID win the popular vote. Unless you mean he got less than 50% but that is true of lots of presidents. The only elections where the Electorial vote disagreed with the popular vote was 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
First: I don't at all believe there was any kind of fixing. I also strongly believe that we need machines with paper ballots.
But your comment is wrong. That county does matter if you are fixing the vote. The presidential vote for the state is the total tally for the entire state. 100 extra votes in a democratic preceint are just as valuable as 100 extra votes in a republican one. They add an equal amount to the state total. What really matters is that the state is close so that the extra votes switch which way it goes. It is also possible that the very populated Dade county is the best place to hide a vote fix: if you went to a highly Republican county and with only 400 democrats, and lowered (or raised) the democrat vote by 100, it would be pretty obvious, but nobody would notice if there were 100,000 Democrats and Republicans. You want to hide it in the greatest tally for both parties. The big cities, despite being prodominantly Democrat, are so populous that they also contain more Republicans than the rural counties, thus making them the best place to hide vote fixing.
Now *states* that are not close are a different matter. Then it is pretty useless to try to fix the election. Fixing extra Democrat votes in California, or extra Republican ones in Texas, is a waste of time and money and very unlikely, because anybody smart and powerful enough to be able to fix an election would be too smart to waste the effort there when they can do it elsewhere. Oddly enough such meaningless election fixing claims are being spewed out by no-nothings on both sides of the political spectrum.
Damn right a Democrat in the right place can fix the election using these voting machines as well as a Republican!
All those idiots (including dozens of posters here) that say "this is those liberal silly Democrats whining because they lost" should wake up and realize this is not a left/right issue!
Then again, I feel these posts may be an attempt by those interested in having a fixable election trying to kill any reform by trying to make people believe it is an issue only for "crazy liberal conspiracy theorists".
You have thouroughly misunderstood what is meant by "paper receipt".
The voter does NOT take it with them. They confirm it says what they wanted to vote for and then insert it into a ballot box at the polling place.
Obviously a receipt the voter takes with them allows voter coercion just like you showed. It basically means there is no secret ballot, which I think may actually be a constitutional law (?) so it would be illegal in the USA.
No the votor cannot get a paper receipt showing how they voted. This would allow vote coercion (ie "show me the receipt showing you voted for my candidate or you are fired from your job"). Also I would suspect such receipts would not be very valuable for recounts since they could be forged rather easily, and votors would lose lots of them.
Only if they all get quail shotguns. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair.
Your code becomes non-free when the other company, with much more publicity and ability to distribute the program, modifies it in such a way that your original version does not interoperate, thus reducing the value and utility of your code to zero.
That is NO DIFFERENT that running two 128mb and one 32mb OpenGL applications at the same time today. It works. There is nothing special that one of the programs is a window manager. VM in the OpenGL textures has been there for YEARS and years and years, it does not matter if it is an idea that just occurred to Microsoft (and it didn't, they also have had it for a long time).
You seem to be very confused, or are trying to troll.
In fact both Vista and these X things are abandoning any idea of having "both" 2D and 3D. This does not mean they are "combining" them as you claim, instead they are simply using 3D at all times. Rendering a rectangle that is parallel to the screen surface is a "3D" operation but it looks 2D.
There is absolutly no reason why using OpenGL for the compositing does not mean it can't be used by applications. You may be confused by Microsoft's direct attempts to make sure OpenGL is broken on Windows, if it were not for that it is equivalent to the ability to run a direct-x program inside a window on Vista, which is possible as I'm sure you know. GL use by programs and Window managers at the same time existed on SGI systems in 1988. It's true that X and Windows were both badly screwed up and thus killed progress by what looks like 25 years, but things are gradually climbing out of that hole.
The obvious answer today is to be similar to Windows. However there is a bit more history, all X programs I have ever seen, including the first ones, would attach the controls to the window displaying the document, and Windows actually copied this design.
An OS/X style menubar does not work with point-to-type. Despite detractors, point-to-type is such a huge improvement in speed and usability of multiple windows that people accostomed to it will NOT give it up.
Putting the menubar into the window title would be a good idea and would reduce screen usage, but this can only be done practically if the "window manager" is eliminated and programs draw their own borders. Unfortunately there is a huge fear that the users will be "confused" by window borders that don't all draw exactly pixel identical to each other, despite the fact that every X and Windows game and media player does this already and the users are not complaining.
Yes, the reason there is no write support is due to a lack of information from Microsoft.
It's not due to lazyness, as you seem to be implying. In fact probably about 100 times as much work has gone into attempting to reverse-engineer NTFS than would be required to get it to read/write with documentation.
No, SDMI is different, in that there was an easy test (whether or not the player worked) to tell if it was removed. The hope is that these guys will get some brains and realize that if the "watermark" prevents a player from working it will be removed/defeated, not because there is now an incentive, but because now there is a trivial test for a pirate to do to see if they succeeded (ie try playing it).
"watermark" is supposed to mean it is invisibly small. A player that does not play things with the wrong watermark is an amplifier that removes the invisiblitiy. It is then not a "watermark". Any such player should be kept under close lock and key, not sold to the masses at Walmart.
I think the scheme will work, but you are saying the exact thing that will kill it. The existence of a watermark should have *NO* effect on whether a machine will play it. If a $100 device from BestBuy will detect a watermark, then a pirate will be able to *easily* remove/change it, because they now have a reliable and simple and cheap test to see if the watermark is there!
If instead the only way to detect a watermark is to put it in a carefully protected machine in the RIAA's basement with a secret program on it, then there is no way any pirate will remove it successfully.
Unfortunately some pin head in management will not realize this and will insist that the watermark have some effect on players, thus defeating the only scheme that will really work for them. Of course they have proven to be idiots over and over again, and they will continue, so I'm sure this will happen.
The HP2100A, with 5 teleltypes and a high-speed photocell paper tape reader. It had 32K words (16 bits per word) of core memory and ran the Dartmouth Basic system.
You think you are being funny, but you accurately described a real, viable method of creating computer programs, called genetic programming, or neural nets, or a number of other names. These programs have created better algorithims in a shorter time than human "intelligent designers". The problem is that they can only work if a test for fitness can be written easily, ie if the fitness test is more complicated than the algorithim itself, which is true of something like word processor, it is not possible to use this. Evolution works because "not dying before reproducing" is a rather simple test.
You all-so-clever attempt to reverse the Galileo debate is so wrong it is laughable. Both of the models of the planets assummed (by that time) that they are earth-sized bodies moving in circles at constant speeds, and that the bodies are lit by the sun, and the idea that anything other than the sun and moon orbited the earth was abandoned hundreds of years earlier. The difference in the models is a more of a simplification by changing the coordinate system, actual tests to see if the earth was moving involving parallex of nearby stars was not possible until the 19th century. Epicycles were not used to fix the earth-centered model, they were in fact used in *both* models, due to the assumption that all things moved in circles and not ellipses. If ellipses are allowed the earth-centered model can be made to work perfectly, since it just rotates the heliocentric model about the earth.
Anti-evolution is more like saying "there are anomolies in the helio-centric idea, which proves that the planets don't move at all!". Of course you are so blinded by illogic that you don't see this at all. But trust me, it is true. I know you are also going to accuse me of being close-minded, which is pretty funny.
Just to be fair, I don't think Bush claimed he finished his National Guard duty. This guy really claimed he did something he didn't.
Yes, Adobe PDF files with restrictions *are* DRM. I was misled by your original description, I'm still certain that the inability to "publish" a document is not DRM. But not allowing print, or save-without-signature, in a program that otherwise could do these functions is a form of DRM. Using Adobe's software is an easy way to get such restrictions assumming a non-hostile environment (and since you were mostly talking about people making mistakes, this sounds like what you are trying to do).
Yes but I still claim that is protections/capabilities, not DRM. The reason no unauthorized software was allowed and print-screen was disabled on the machines is because you don't really have DRM, and thus adding such software would make it trivial to get around some of the restrictions.
DRM is an attempt to make these things work even if the end user is allowed to completely replace the machine with something of their own. I'm certain the best your system can do is prevent them from seeing the diagrams at all. That is not DRM. DRM would make it so the person's replacement machine can see the diagrams but still cannot print them.
Anything done on the central server (such as not allowing "publishing" of a document) is not DRM. If some sinister agents broke in and replaced the central server with their own machine, I'm quite certain they would then be able to "publish" things if they wanted to. It is far more practical for you to just put a lock on your central server room than to try to implement an actual working DRM.
According to Wikipedia, Stepehn Schneider said this in 1971, not 1976. The 1976 paper was a retraction of this.
...it insists on maintaining the shock effect of the dramatic...rather than the reality of the discipline: we just don't know enough to chose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling- or when.
Personally I remember quite clearly that the popular consensus was for the world to heat up, though usually the cause was not CO2 but particulates and water vapor condensing. This was highly influenced by the Venus probes in the 1960's that revealed just how hot the surface of Venus was, caused by the greenhouse effect. I vaguely remember a few people claiming that it would get colder, but that was considered the fringe theories (most of the quotes supposedly trying to prove "global cooling" being popular are quoting these articles that were precisely designed to counter popular belief. The biggest of these was the "nuclear winter" scenarios of around 1979, which I remember being attacked by the right because they disagreed with the "everybody knows it will make the world warmer", and defended as it being a short-term effect verses the longer term pollution effects. If "global cooling" was every a popular theory it was before 1960, I have certainly seen popular sci-fi from that period that worried about the return of the ice age and how we would fight it.
Just having lived that time and been exposed to popular beliefs (taught by liberal teachers and popular press) I have to challenge any claim that there has been a change in consensus. I very much remember it being claimed that it would be warmer, and that the few who challenged this were considered fringe.
Quote from Wikipedia:
In 1971 Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138-141). This paper used a 1-d radiative climate model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:
However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.
Carbon dioxide was predicted to have only a minor role. However, the model was very simple and the calculation of the CO2 effect was incorrect by a factor of about three--a fact soon recognised.
In 1976 Schneider wrote The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival in which he said:
One form of such pollution that affects the entire atmosphere is the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas.... Human activities have already raised the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 10 percent and are estimated to raise it some 25 percent by the year 2000. In later chapters, I will show how this increase could lead to a 1 Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) average warming of the earth's surface... Another form of atmospheric pollution results from... atmospheric aerosols... there is some evidence that atmospheric aerosols may have already affected the climate. A consensus among scientists today would hold that a global increase in atmospheric aerosols would probably result in a cooling of the climate; however, a smaller but growing fraction of the current evidence suggests that it may have a warming effect.
In 1977 Schneider criticized a popular science book (The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age) that predicted an imminent Ice Age, writing in Nature:
For your own image you could do anything you want.
However I could imagine some sort of GPL image that includes a PSD file, and if you then edit it in photoshop to a new version and want to send your result to anybody, you have to include your modified PSD file.
Though this runs into problems with what the "commonly used format for working" is. You could very well never write a PSD file while using PhotoShop, just saving your new result as a jpeg file, and quitting. This means no PSD file is available to represent your changes. But somebody else who wanted to further modify your image could very well start with the jpeg file and may not think anything is wrong. Others may say that the lossy compression threw away too much of the original PSD file. It is hard to say whether just the image fulfills the GPL requirements.
You are describing normal permission controls for documents. That is not DRM. I'm quite certain somebody viewing your documents could take a screen shot, or save the image as a new file, or actually make the car from the wrong diagrams. What they can't do is accidentally (or on purpose) overwrite the correct information with the wrong one in your central database, or somehow convince somebody else that a certain drawing is the correct one. That is permissions/capabilities that have been around for 40 years.
Confusing DRM with normal permissions is one of the many ways of confusing the issue so that people don't realize what it is. Getting rid of DRM has nothing to do with letting anybody who wants to see all documents.
A digital image starts out as an RGB and is edited that way, but it must be converted to CMYK before it can be sent to an imagesetter for four-color printing. This isn't a "good thing to have."
Actually that is wrong, what you are describing is what Gimp does, or what printer drivers do when transferring an RGB input to a CMYK output.
What is missing is to actually store and paint the 4 values for CMYK. Mathematically you cannot convert these 4 values to 3 and recover the original 4, thus any image editor that stores RGB cannot reproduce all possible CMYK settings. Photoshop does this and Gimp does not.
Everything else discussed such as color management or pantone, etc, is missing the real problem. You can argue that there is no need for more than a 3-dimensional space of colors and that a very careful and well-defined conversion to CMYK will be sufficient. That is a reasonable argument, but it is not what the Photoshop users claim.