Not be a troll, that skin is yucky... Seeing it reminds me of old IE which seems so amateur:(
I agree; but after installing it all complaints about the "slow interface" of Mozilla seems to disappear. Mozilla doesn't actually run any faster with the skin, but for some reason, the comfort of standard Win32 widgets seems to put the mind at ease (if you're used to Windows). I don't think I've even seen IE6 yet, so I can't really comment on it's interface;) My Windows 2000 keeps wanting me to upgrade to IE6 for some reason, though, but since I never even use IE....
I've found that a lot of the "heavy" button feeling that is generated by Mozilla is psycological in nature. IE's button response times are often slower than Moz's; try out the IE skin for mozilla:
Am I the only person who is sick of computers requiring such obscene amounts of power? Newer machines have fscking radiators on them for $DIETY's sake; what's next? A heat-pump that sits outside my house to keep the environment nice and warm? In 1995, 250W was a nice, big power supply. Then, 300W, and now 500W comes along -- other consumer electronics are becomming more efficient (monitors, televisions, refridgerators, air conditioners, etc.), but computers just keep wasting more and more power.
For those wondering about lessig's mention of the Ayn Rand thing:
From: Ayn Rand Institute Media davidh@aynrand.org
Date: Mon Oct 7, 2002 8:10:04 PM US/Eastern
To: Op-ed.list@heroic.aynrand.org
Subject: WOULD-BE INTELLECTUAL VANDALS GET THEIR DAY IN THE SUPREME COURT
Op-Ed from the Ayn Rand Institute
WOULD-BE INTELLECTUAL VANDALS GET THEIR DAY IN THE SUPREME COURT
Those who are spearheading the current legal challenge to the copyright
law favor intellectual cannibalism masquerading as creativity and free
speech.
By Amy Peikoff, J.D.
In 1998 Congress, pursuant to its Constitutional power to
determine the duration of federal copyright protection, passed a law
extending the term of that protection by 20 years. This law brought
United States copyright protection in line with that already afforded
in
Europe. In addition, as the average life expectancy in the United
States
now exceeds 70 years, the law brings copyright protection in line with
the legal vehicle for the posthumous control of tangible property--the
law of testamentary trusts, which bases the term of such control on a
human lifespan.
Despite the reasonableness of this law, Stanford professor
Lawrence Lessig is spearheading a legal challenge to it, culminating in
his argument before the Supreme Court this Wednesday. Lessig, who seems
to have become, in the words of New York Times writer Amy Harmon, "a
rock star for the digital liberties set," is expected to argue that the
law is "overly restrictive of the free-speech rights of would-be users
of copyrighted material that previously would have been in the public
domain."
In recent decades we have already seen the "right to free
speech" extended to mean the "right" to be provided with a free
platform
for one's speech. Anyone who dares to be successful enough to own a
property where the public enjoys gathering--e.g., a shopping mall--is
for that reason compelled to allow people to speak on that property.
"Free" speech thus means: free of any need to earn one's own physical
instrumentalities or audience, or even to pay for the right to borrow
someone else's achievements.
Lessig would have the Supreme Court extend this perversion of
free speech to mean: free of any need to pay for the borrowing of
someone else's greatest achievement: original thought. Or worse: free
of
any need sufficiently to digest that original thought so as to be able
to put it into one's own words. Appropriating and parroting the
creation
of others is now, according to Lessig, "free speech."
Lessig and his allies try to downplay what they are doing by
making it an issue of finances. They say things like, "the copyright
law
used to restrict only big business, which is fine--but now it restricts
anyone who has access to the Internet." "Only 2 percent of works
protected by copyright," they go on, "create a regular stream of income
for their creators." Translation: only a small minority of "non-little"
people will be hurt by repealing this law, so why not do it? This
attack
on money, success and big business--no doubt another symptom of the
"Enron" era--is shameful and Marxist. How is the Court, as Lessig
demands, to "balance the interests" of original thinkers against those
for whom "creativity" consists of cannibalizing--and even
vandalizing--the products of others' thought?
The government is expected to argue--properly--that the Supreme
Court cannot arbitrarily impose a definition of "limited times." In
other words, the power to set an appropriate time period for copyright
protection lies with Congress. Congress has clearly been reasonable in
its exercise of that power.
The other main argument offered by supporters of the 1998 law
is
that, in the long run, the law will promote creative work, and thus the
national welfare, by offering higher profits to those who invest in it.
This argument--based on the "public good" standard--is intellectually
bankrupt and doomed to failure. Opponents simply counter that more
creativity will be fostered by allowing people to obtain and build upon
existing works. Many "conservatives," such as Milton Friedman, use the
same "public good" standard to argue that the incremental economic
payoff provided by the 1998 law is not significant enough to encourage
creativity.
Anyone who raises the standard of the "public good" in this
context had better be ready to have his rights in any field adjudicated
according to the latest iteration of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian
calculus. In practice, this means according to the premises,
preferences, and whims of the judge sitting before him.
An artist or intellectual is often not only or even primarily
concerned to reap the monetary benefits of his works; in addition, he
wants to be sure that the integrity of the work is protected against
mutilation as long as possible. This is especially true if the work
conveys an important artistic or philosophic message. If those in the
"digital liberties set" plan to have a field day with others' works of
creative genius--bastardizing them into whatever fragments they find
appealing, adding any distorting content they choose, then blasting the
results all over the internet--what is the point of trying to convey to
the world one's own vital viewpoint? What is the reward offered for
trying painstakingly to create one's vision of truth or of the ideal
universe, and to invite readers to share in it, if our nation's highest
court gives Lessig's gang a formal sanction to practice intellectual
vandalism on the finished product?
Amy Peikoff, J.D., is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in
Irvine, CA. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand,
author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
While those are clearly not as good as native ports, their holistic approach seems to work much from an economical point of view than, for instance, Loki's.
Actually, I've found that they are even better than native ports. Some of my Loki games will not run on my current system due to glibc changes and such (most have patches available). WineX, OTOH, gives me a single package to update in order to update all my games to my current system packages. In addition, the games do not run any slower; I played Jedi Knight II and WarCraft III under WineX exclusively -- I notcied some slowdowns under WC3 on a certain level (tons of animation), so I tried it out under Windows and it was the same situation. I really like WineX, and I highly recommend it; Besides, wouldn't it be the ultimate insult for Win32 becoming known as the "video game compatibility layer" for future systems?:)
There is no server version of XP yet (AFAIK, outside of beta). Microsoft actually reccomended that you take out multi-user servers and replace them with their 10-tcp-connection-limit desktop operating system? Is this some sort of cruel joke?
Re:UT2k3 - linux impressions
on
UT2003 LiveCD
·
· Score: 2
Under linux I get very choppy sound and an almost-kinda-sorta-playable slideshow after setting all the options to their min
That's what we like to call Mesa software rendering.
You may want to actually install the NVidia accelerated drivers before you go to publish your results.;)
While that tutorial gets you quite a bit for XUL coding, the overall documentation for Mozilla is sparse. I've been working on a bug for a couple weeks now, and in the process I've learned a lot of how Mozilla works, but I've had to do it the hard way. I use a lot of find and grep to trace conceptual maps of data flow and how Moz keeps track of certain things. There need to be at least one comprehensive reference manual (I wouldn't mind paying $100 for it!) so that I don't waste 8 hours to figure out which abstract method of what class implements the proper method for me to get a char* out of some object. There are tons of books on Qt, Gtk, Cocoa, Carbon and Win32. There aren't really any out there for Mozilla.
Tha kuro5hin article is either very old, or intentionally inaccurate. All TCPA software will be open-source (if the Hollings bill goes through), including Palladium. There is no need for a "trusted binary-only Linux distribution" because public-key encryption needs no obfuscation. In essense, half of your machine will reside on dotNet servers, run by Microsoft. You'll be able to unplug from the network and still use all your applications for a few days, but slowly things will expire. Applications will refuse to run. Documents will refuse to allow read privileges.
It's like Bladerunner. Your entire computer will be hard-wired to self-destruct unless the calm, reassuring Palladium dotNet servers are telling it that everything is O.K. Changing the system clock will not be allowed, in fact, your computer will automatically set the clock to Microsoft's time using a public-key server so that you can't fake the DRM controls out.
The beauty of Palladium and the TCPA is that it can all be done in open-source. Microsoft Palladium will be open-source as well (senator Hollings thought that would make us all happy). You will still be unable to circumvent the system because a good chunk of it resides on a remote machine, and it will go all the way down to the CPU on your local box (hence this news story).
Welcome to the future, where you have to get permission to run computer instructions. The penalty for "hacking" this system is $500,000 and 5 years in prison. That's right. If you figure out a clever way to play an MP3 file on your TCPA machine, you're eligible for more time than a drunk driver that killed someone is.
No, I think that instead, you'll see things like the following begin to appear on the box-ends:
System Requirements
Pentium or Athlon 700Mhz
3D Video Card with 32MB RAM
256MB RAM
Microsoft Windows 98 / 2000 / XP
or
Transgaming WineX 2.5
If WineX becomes popular enough, the game developers will make certain that their games work with it before they ship. This would wrest control away, not towards Microsoft. WineX could be the tool that breaks the trend. Of course, don't expect and Microsoft-branded games to do this; but I wouldn't be surprised if 3rd party developers take a look at WineX and think to themseleves "hmm, it would only take an extra month to certify my game with this and then all the Linux/BSD crowds could buy my game".
Actually, it won't increase at all. If computation time increases according to data size, no matter how insignificantly, it is not O(1)
There is a constant in there; big-oh measures the growth rate of an algorithm, not the actual time it takes to run. So, yes, it could take longer as the number of processes go up -- but that function would need to be linear. In other words: a O(1) algroithm isn't guaranteed to ever complete when presented with an infinite set of problems.
While the waste is transported to Yucca from nuclear power stations, it will pass within 2 miles of 90% of the US population -- it will be in your backyard too.
You'll recieve higher doses of radiation by standing along the road to protest than you will from the shipment itself, especially if you live at a high elevation. The containment canisters can handle 90 mile-per-hour head-on (ie, 180MPH) collisons with no damage to the internal canisters (which can also take quite a beating).
There is also a possibilty that any waste that leaks from the mountain will contaminate an aquifer which provides water to millions.
Where does the aquifer run? Underneath the site? I wasn't aware of this -- it would be incredibly shortsighted if what you say is true.
Nobody in my circle of aquaintences use banks anymore; it's all credit unions. They are run locally, you can call up the general manager and there are *way* too many of them for any company to try and push passport off on all of them. There is no oligopoly in the banking world.
after 9/11 hundreds of arabs were put in prison -- without charge.
Not in America, they weren't (as much as you'd gleefully love that assertion to be true, no doubt)
jose is in prison -- without charge
Well, you've spent one of your two cases in that statement. Yes, he is in prison without charges, and you can rest assured that it'll be remedied soon either through derision for Ashcroft or formal charges. Now, how many Chinese are in prison for political "dissidence"? How many are just dead for the same thing, without even taking up arms against their country?
if i want to advocate killing americans, that's my right. i'm no enemy combatant until you can prove that i'm an enemy combatant.
Actually, advocating murder can be a criminal offense if it's specific enough...
Bill Maher makes joke about 9/11 tero's, result: show canceled.
This could have had several factors bearing down on it, but let's take your assertion at face-value. A show depends on people to partake; if a comment incesnses a significant portion of the audience (which this did) then the show isn't going to do so hot. Taking the show off the air (what you call censorship) would be the prudent thing to do. The important thing to note here is this: no western agency has forbid Maher from running his own website or other news outlet (what I would call censorship).
Judges rule pledge unconstitutional, result: recieve death threat while congress recites socialistesque pledge upon capitol steps.
The death threats are actually illegal, and they should investigate that avenue. Personally, I agree with the judges' decision to ban "under god" from the PoA, and I think the impetus for the withdrawl was from the DNC who are looking out for re-election this fall. Still, I wouldn't call this censorship. Censorship would be if the judge s were removed for this lone infraction (and in China they would be in prison or worse for trying to dictate pledges of allegence...)
Some big news channel owner notes that the jews are killing more palestinians than vice-versa, result was scandal+ near removal of the channel from some places
I assume you're talking about the CNN/Israel thing. The last time I checked, Israel was a democratic representative, and the people of Israel control their government (there are even several arabs in the knesset; which is more than can be said of the PA...). This is probably your best example of censorship, but I'd still hesitate to compare it to anything that happens in China. Isreal (rightfully?) feels that CNN is always on the side of Palestine, and Ted Turner has bluntly said so several times (not that he has much influence at CNN anymore, but still). I can understand it, even if I don't agree with it. Still, in the end, CNN remains in Israel, and AFAIK they haven't changed their format at all.
Perhaps you could give some examples of what you're referring to. Are you talking about the 'closet conservative' who can't talk about Rush Limbaugh's latest show for fear of losing out on the next promotion in his liberal workplace? (or vice-versa, the gun control advocate who can't voice an opionion for fear of her NRA boss' retaliation; take your pick)
The type of extreme reaction provoked from you demonstrates very well the self-censorship im talking about
What's wrong with self-censorship? I censor all sorts of things from my life all the time. I don't listen to NSYNC. I don't read astrology books. I don't listen to scientologists. I don't pay attention to the next version of Windows; etc.
You only start to have problems when other people censor you. Sometimes it's justified by societal norms (eg, Nazi paraphanelia in France, "hate speech" in the Netherlands, vulgarity in school), sometimes it's justified for security's sake (death threats, shouting 'fire' in a theatre). And, yes, sometimes it is completely unjustified (DMCA/WIPO laws) and needs to be changed. The difference between China and the west (including the USA) is the degree to which these things happen. People who equate censorship in China with censorship in the west really come off as ignorant because there is a magnitude of difference there.
On the other hand, I don't mean this as a "yay, the west is perfect" posting either; we need to be viligant and stop injustices where possible. The/. crowd has done an admiral job of doing just that WRT the DMCA (or the WIPO dejour of your country, if you don't live in the USA). But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater -- life with liberty and freedom is something we should strive for everywhere, and celebrate where it does exist.
But Microsoft's plan is to lobby Congress, probably under the veil of another media group (like RIAA), to mandate that all computers sold in the US will required hardware and software compliance with DRM. It would not be impossible, in this new era under UCITA, for them to attempt a retroactive mandate, where even the computer you currently own has to get a PCI/ISA card and a OS "upgrade" to add DRM compliance, especially if you make it illegal to connect to the internet without DRM compliant gear. The Information Super Highway Patrol will pull you over and make you recite the ASCII character set backwards or get a knock on the door from your local jurisdiction officials for a little "inspection" with all kinds of probably cause. Of course it's a stupid idea for all kinds of good reasons, but that's never stopped lobbyists or ambitious politicians in the past.
Perhaps you are correct, but you must admit that it _would_ require governmental mandates in order for Palladium to come off "successfully". Look at how long it's taken WIPO to permiate the world's governments (many still haven't ratified it!); by the time another 10 years have passed since mandated DRM (they haven't even started yet) ripping video will be as common as ripping audio is today. People will take for granted that they can record digital television to their hard disks without breaking the law.
I just don't see it happening. We still have to be on the lookout for schills like Senator Hollings, but we were hardly lacking support in opposition to his whoring legislation (I even read an op-ed piece in Sound+Vision decrying the rights of digital artists!). In short: people won't put up with this, people are not all ignorant boobs, and people ultimately control the government -- despite what the government would have you believe.
This isn't going to be the case with an already existing product (PC's). They're already cheap, and purchased by the masses who don't do the research don't know what they're buying or what it can really be used for. If you're in the market for a PC and don't really know what you want/need or what's available, you're going to end up with the latest windows. PC's don't have a small niche well informed market to insolate the users, the way DVD players did back in the day.
But their Macintosh-using friends (c'mon, everyone knows at least one of them) will be constantly singing praises such as "_my_ computer doesn't tell me that those media files are protected". The same will be true for guru PC users; you know, cousin "Joe" who disseminates advice to everyone will tell people to avoid certain computers like the plauge. The DRM machines may very well be established, and Dell (Gateway, HP, blah) may very well exclusivly sell DRM boxes -- but the small guys won't and the savvy buyers won't, and those people have a bunch of influence.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree; but after installing it all complaints about the "slow interface" of Mozilla seems to disappear. Mozilla doesn't actually run any faster with the skin, but for some reason, the comfort of standard Win32 widgets seems to put the mind at ease (if you're used to Windows). I don't think I've even seen IE6 yet, so I can't really comment on it's interface ;) My Windows 2000 keeps wanting me to upgrade to IE6 for some reason, though, but since I never even use IE....
http://mozillako.hypermart.net/ieskin/
After installing it, you'll be surprised at how much "faster" mozilla seems.
That depends on what you mean by "lookalikes".
Am I the only person who is sick of computers requiring such obscene amounts of power? Newer machines have fscking radiators on them for $DIETY's sake; what's next? A heat-pump that sits outside my house to keep the environment nice and warm? In 1995, 250W was a nice, big power supply. Then, 300W, and now 500W comes along -- other consumer electronics are becomming more efficient (monitors, televisions, refridgerators, air conditioners, etc.), but computers just keep wasting more and more power.
A link that re-posted it? How would that help?
Actually, I've found that they are even better than native ports. Some of my Loki games will not run on my current system due to glibc changes and such (most have patches available). WineX, OTOH, gives me a single package to update in order to update all my games to my current system packages. In addition, the games do not run any slower; I played Jedi Knight II and WarCraft III under WineX exclusively -- I notcied some slowdowns under WC3 on a certain level (tons of animation), so I tried it out under Windows and it was the same situation. I really like WineX, and I highly recommend it; Besides, wouldn't it be the ultimate insult for Win32 becoming known as the "video game compatibility layer" for future systems? :)
There is no server version of XP yet (AFAIK, outside of beta). Microsoft actually reccomended that you take out multi-user servers and replace them with their 10-tcp-connection-limit desktop operating system? Is this some sort of cruel joke?
That's what we like to call Mesa software rendering.
You may want to actually install the NVidia accelerated drivers before you go to publish your results. ;)
While that tutorial gets you quite a bit for XUL coding, the overall documentation for Mozilla is sparse. I've been working on a bug for a couple weeks now, and in the process I've learned a lot of how Mozilla works, but I've had to do it the hard way. I use a lot of find and grep to trace conceptual maps of data flow and how Moz keeps track of certain things. There need to be at least one comprehensive reference manual (I wouldn't mind paying $100 for it!) so that I don't waste 8 hours to figure out which abstract method of what class implements the proper method for me to get a char* out of some object. There are tons of books on Qt, Gtk, Cocoa, Carbon and Win32. There aren't really any out there for Mozilla.
It's like Bladerunner. Your entire computer will be hard-wired to self-destruct unless the calm, reassuring Palladium dotNet servers are telling it that everything is O.K. Changing the system clock will not be allowed, in fact, your computer will automatically set the clock to Microsoft's time using a public-key server so that you can't fake the DRM controls out.
Welcome to the future, where you have to get permission to run computer instructions. The penalty for "hacking" this system is $500,000 and 5 years in prison. That's right. If you figure out a clever way to play an MP3 file on your TCPA machine, you're eligible for more time than a drunk driver that killed someone is.
Batteries.
Lots of them.
With lots of chemical pollution.
Unless they're planning on lots of dangerous fly-wheels (windmills feeding flywheels)... As the cliche goes, you never get something for nothing.
Oh, and there's the mechanical maintenance headaches of Lots Of Moving Parts.
System Requirements
If WineX becomes popular enough, the game developers will make certain that their games work with it before they ship. This would wrest control away, not towards Microsoft. WineX could be the tool that breaks the trend. Of course, don't expect and Microsoft-branded games to do this; but I wouldn't be surprised if 3rd party developers take a look at WineX and think to themseleves "hmm, it would only take an extra month to certify my game with this and then all the Linux/BSD crowds could buy my game".Pentium or Athlon 700Mhz
3D Video Card with 32MB RAM
256MB RAM
Microsoft Windows 98 / 2000 / XP
or
Transgaming WineX 2.5
You're right. I have 3.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141279
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.go to hotmail
2.choose create new account
3.
Actual Results: unable to sign up
Expected Results: message telling me to use netscape 4.0 or higher or IE
There is a constant in there; big-oh measures the growth rate of an algorithm, not the actual time it takes to run. So, yes, it could take longer as the number of processes go up -- but that function would need to be linear. In other words: a O(1) algroithm isn't guaranteed to ever complete when presented with an infinite set of problems.
You'll recieve higher doses of radiation by standing along the road to protest than you will from the shipment itself, especially if you live at a high elevation. The containment canisters can handle 90 mile-per-hour head-on (ie, 180MPH) collisons with no damage to the internal canisters (which can also take quite a beating).
There is also a possibilty that any waste that leaks from the mountain will contaminate an aquifer which provides water to millions.
Where does the aquifer run? Underneath the site? I wasn't aware of this -- it would be incredibly shortsighted if what you say is true.
Nobody in my circle of aquaintences use banks anymore; it's all credit unions. They are run locally, you can call up the general manager and there are *way* too many of them for any company to try and push passport off on all of them. There is no oligopoly in the banking world.
Not in America, they weren't (as much as you'd gleefully love that assertion to be true, no doubt)
jose is in prison -- without chargeWell, you've spent one of your two cases in that statement. Yes, he is in prison without charges, and you can rest assured that it'll be remedied soon either through derision for Ashcroft or formal charges. Now, how many Chinese are in prison for political "dissidence"? How many are just dead for the same thing, without even taking up arms against their country?
if i want to advocate killing americans, that's my right. i'm no enemy combatant until you can prove that i'm an enemy combatant.Actually, advocating murder can be a criminal offense if it's specific enough...
This could have had several factors bearing down on it, but let's take your assertion at face-value. A show depends on people to partake; if a comment incesnses a significant portion of the audience (which this did) then the show isn't going to do so hot. Taking the show off the air (what you call censorship) would be the prudent thing to do. The important thing to note here is this: no western agency has forbid Maher from running his own website or other news outlet (what I would call censorship).
The death threats are actually illegal, and they should investigate that avenue. Personally, I agree with the judges' decision to ban "under god" from the PoA, and I think the impetus for the withdrawl was from the DNC who are looking out for re-election this fall. Still, I wouldn't call this censorship. Censorship would be if the judge s were removed for this lone infraction (and in China they would be in prison or worse for trying to dictate pledges of allegence...)
I assume you're talking about the CNN/Israel thing. The last time I checked, Israel was a democratic representative, and the people of Israel control their government (there are even several arabs in the knesset; which is more than can be said of the PA...). This is probably your best example of censorship, but I'd still hesitate to compare it to anything that happens in China. Isreal (rightfully?) feels that CNN is always on the side of Palestine, and Ted Turner has bluntly said so several times (not that he has much influence at CNN anymore, but still). I can understand it, even if I don't agree with it. Still, in the end, CNN remains in Israel, and AFAIK they haven't changed their format at all.
Perhaps you could give some examples of what you're referring to. Are you talking about the 'closet conservative' who can't talk about Rush Limbaugh's latest show for fear of losing out on the next promotion in his liberal workplace? (or vice-versa, the gun control advocate who can't voice an opionion for fear of her NRA boss' retaliation; take your pick)
What's wrong with self-censorship? I censor all sorts of things from my life all the time. I don't listen to NSYNC. I don't read astrology books. I don't listen to scientologists. I don't pay attention to the next version of Windows; etc.
You only start to have problems when other people censor you. Sometimes it's justified by societal norms (eg, Nazi paraphanelia in France, "hate speech" in the Netherlands, vulgarity in school), sometimes it's justified for security's sake (death threats, shouting 'fire' in a theatre). And, yes, sometimes it is completely unjustified (DMCA/WIPO laws) and needs to be changed. The difference between China and the west (including the USA) is the degree to which these things happen. People who equate censorship in China with censorship in the west really come off as ignorant because there is a magnitude of difference there.
On the other hand, I don't mean this as a "yay, the west is perfect" posting either; we need to be viligant and stop injustices where possible. The /. crowd has done an admiral job of doing just that WRT the DMCA (or the WIPO dejour of your country, if you don't live in the USA). But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater -- life with liberty and freedom is something we should strive for everywhere, and celebrate where it does exist.
Perhaps you are correct, but you must admit that it _would_ require governmental mandates in order for Palladium to come off "successfully". Look at how long it's taken WIPO to permiate the world's governments (many still haven't ratified it!); by the time another 10 years have passed since mandated DRM (they haven't even started yet) ripping video will be as common as ripping audio is today. People will take for granted that they can record digital television to their hard disks without breaking the law.
I just don't see it happening. We still have to be on the lookout for schills like Senator Hollings, but we were hardly lacking support in opposition to his whoring legislation (I even read an op-ed piece in Sound+Vision decrying the rights of digital artists!). In short: people won't put up with this, people are not all ignorant boobs, and people ultimately control the government -- despite what the government would have you believe.
But their Macintosh-using friends (c'mon, everyone knows at least one of them) will be constantly singing praises such as "_my_ computer doesn't tell me that those media files are protected". The same will be true for guru PC users; you know, cousin "Joe" who disseminates advice to everyone will tell people to avoid certain computers like the plauge. The DRM machines may very well be established, and Dell (Gateway, HP, blah) may very well exclusivly sell DRM boxes -- but the small guys won't and the savvy buyers won't, and those people have a bunch of influence.