If that suggests/implies it'll eventually work on Linux with HTML5/extensions on Chrome browser, I can live with that.
It doesn't in the slightest.
You end up looking like a zealot
Rejecting flawed schemes that do nothing to accomplish the intended goal is zealotry?
If you want to get rid of DRM, you need to show them that it's not necessary.
It isn't necessary. It has already failed and will always fail. The problems is those who demand it the most are engaging in magical thinking and, like the most common magical thinkers, believe in DRM with blind faith.
These people are the reason DRM exists in the first place.
DRM is about enforcing decaying business models and exerting control well past the point of sale (or eliminating the "sale" completely and moving towards perpetual rentership. See DivX.
Actually that would still be HTML5. That's why adding ECE to HTML5 is stupid: it solves none of the problems of Flash plugins while opening the door for a multitude of similar DRM plugins, each with its own, unique attack surface.
That's what happens when you're hamstrung by Microsoft. Even now Windows is terrible with high DPI screens unless you restrict yourself to Windows Store environment applications. No one can move forward until Microsoft feels they're good and ready. And Microsoft isn't likely to fix the problems on the desktop.
I was being slightly glib about it, given how long you went on about yourself. But feel free to blow it completely out of proportion.
again probably because you're an asshole
You've descended into base insults. Good to see there's no hope for an actual discussion.
there is no consensus
This is the key point here. You cite ESR and, unfortunately, he's the only person you can cite. Nothing resembling a consensus exists with respect to the idea that someone who is self-taught gets more respect than someone with a degree. Never mind ignoring the notion that someone who was self-taught could also earn a degree.
Yet somehow it seems to be the basis for the unspoken point of "we shouldn't teach programming in schools." Which I can only surmise is your point.
A simple analysis shows that this is very hard in practice, severely limiting the whole point of running free software."
No it doesn't. The whole point of running free software is knowing that I can rebuild the binary (even if the end result isn't exactly the same) and, more importantly, freely modify it to suit my needs rather than being beholden to some vendor.
This logic could be used to justify not teaching virtually any subject. The irony here being that computers impact our lives more than anything else these days, yet people on Slashdot will argue against educating kids in how they are controlled.
It's nice that you're happy to pat yourself on the back here, but I'm failing to see your point. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't do this?
In the hacker community, the self-taught hacker is often better respected than his academically-shaped peer, and the reason has nothing to do with a disrespect of education, but rather an implicit understanding that you just don't learn as well unless you're interested in the material and follow your own path through it.
People who are interested in the material will do well regardless. Saying that those who are self-taught and not "academically-shaped" get more respect is, at best, wishful thinking or egotism.
At least now he has contact with the outside world. In a US prison he'd most certainly be held in isolation and maybe, just maybe, allowed to see his lawyer.
Like requiring git commit -a, which for Mercurial would just be hg commit as a sane person would expect. Git fans spout a bunch of drivel about "staging area" to justify it, but it can't be justified.
Why can't it be justified? Not every change needs to be committed, I've had running debug changes that have never been committed because they don't need to be, and the staging area lets me ensure only the necessary changes get checked in. It also lets me prevent them from ever being a part of any commit, so I don't have to filter them out later.
What about its UI is awful? Is it because it is command line based that makes it awful?
I think the real problem is that people approach Git thinking it's like SVN, and when the SVN way of doing things doesn't work they get frustrated and proclaim it to be awful.
HOWEVER, it can be turned on remotely and is a part of the E911 regulations pushed to help find incapacitated victims after 9/11.
Dubious. I only know of one phone phone that connected the GPS to the baseband and it was designed with European regulations in mind. Looking at the E911 information on Wikipedia, the GPS requirements are loose enough that triangulation via cell tower would suffice.
[There is a reason the baseband radio chip in your phone has closed, binary-blob firmware -- whether or not the OS itself is FOSS. We wouldn't want the masses to be able to disable remote activation, would we? Or let them start changing frequencies and power levels.]
This sounds more like unfounded paranoia, if you ask me.
We? On the contrary, they were made for us in favor of others. The DMCA, for instance, violates the 1st Amendment. But it was rammed through despite that.
You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
I seem to recall that argument having been ridiculed recently, that it would not work against a minimally sane populace nor would it be more dangerous than an actual fire alarm going off (other than people telling you to shut up.)
Your freedom to murder is limited to situations when you are defending your own life.
This isn't relevant to the discussion. Not once has killing people ever been mentioned as an essential liberty. Nice straw man though.
We make compromises in the extent of all of our rights.
Rather, the extents are compromised and violated for whatever short term expedience serves those in power.
This does not mean they do not exist/are worthless.
Sure it does. It just means their lifespan is limited unless you push back and reclaim them.
We are willing to accept a justice system that is imperfect with the understanding that it advances the greater good.
A justice system that regularly violates and cuts back essential rights under the claim that doing so will provide increased security is not merely imperfect, but fatally flawed and will in no way "advance the greater good." It will lead to a consolidation of power in the hands of those in said government and nothing more.
You are advocating eliminating the justice system so that we can insure that no one is wrongly convicted or receives a punishment that is not commensurate with their crime.
I did? Or are you just utterly mad. Keep in mind that the quote (possibly paraphrased) "I would rather see a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" came from the same group of men that Franklin stood with.
I'm am going to appeal to reason.
Which would be an improvement.
As a citizen of this country you have agreed to compromise on all of your freedoms. In return you can be confident in a certain degree of safety at any given time.
Oops, you just failed. You've missed the mark on the topic here, which was the essential freedoms noted in the constitution and bill of rights. Abrogation of those does nothing what so fucking ever to guarantee me a "certain degree of safety."
The crux of the quote - that a freedom once diminished is useless. This is not true and not inveresly proportional to any other concept..
How so? Seriously. If you impinged upon the First Amendment how is it not useless? Once you find an exception to it, you can keep cutting it back further and further and argue, endlessly, that it doesn't actually infringe. We have this problem right now.
We can neither survie without freedom nor would do we perish when our freedoms are diminished.
These statements are mutually exclusive.
Are you saying that we should not suspend the freedoms of those who transgress against the concepts upon which our society is founded?
Are you seriously suggesting that all convictions are both correct and just?
Who are you to decide what crimes are "tragically pathetic" what defines a "decent lawyer" and how long a sentence is "very scary".
A citizen of this nation. What nation is irrelevant, because the laws of every nation should be subject to scrutiny by its citizens. Or are you going to appeal to authority here?
Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.
By that logic, you could say that the NSA is internally engaging in seditious action towards the American people with this program. Of course, Snowden isn't being seditious either as he's simply provided evidence of their highly questionable activities.
Benjamin Franklin opened other people's mail for intelligence purposes during the Revolutionary War.
We did during WWII as well, and the director of the office was very, very happy the day he shut it down. War time is different from the day-to-day, and this is not war time.
Are essential liberties being given up, and which ones?
Certainly. Private details about our associations and communications are being seized blindly by the government without warrant. If they are not outright violating the 4th Amendment, then they are working around it so effectively as to neutralize it.
Permanently?
Only if we let it go unchecked and let it become accepted.
Because no liberty is essential and all safety is temporary
Care to clarify this? Are you saying that no one needs any freedom at all?
Right now 1% of the U.S. population is incarcerated.
Yes, and it's shameful.
Temporarily being deprived of liberty to ensure the essential safety of the general public.
A weak claim, given how many people have been exonerated, are in for tragically pathetic crimes that don't actually need to be (such as people convicted under drug charges,) or are simply serving time because they couldn't get a decent lawyer and accepted a plea-bargain for 5 years instead of the very scary 30 they were threatened with.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't in the slightest.
Rejecting flawed schemes that do nothing to accomplish the intended goal is zealotry?
It isn't necessary. It has already failed and will always fail. The problems is those who demand it the most are engaging in magical thinking and, like the most common magical thinkers, believe in DRM with blind faith.
DRM is about enforcing decaying business models and exerting control well past the point of sale (or eliminating the "sale" completely and moving towards perpetual rentership. See DivX.
Actually that would still be HTML5. That's why adding ECE to HTML5 is stupid: it solves none of the problems of Flash plugins while opening the door for a multitude of similar DRM plugins, each with its own, unique attack surface.
What part of the GPLv3 implies that he's "[trying] to take everyone else's stuff."
Not me. It's the usurper that throws the Free out of Linux in favor of whatever Google wanted.
Because the best thing for the Linux world is for everything that existed before Android to become second class citizens.
How about: "All I want is the screen."
That's what happens when you're hamstrung by Microsoft. Even now Windows is terrible with high DPI screens unless you restrict yourself to Windows Store environment applications. No one can move forward until Microsoft feels they're good and ready. And Microsoft isn't likely to fix the problems on the desktop.
I was being slightly glib about it, given how long you went on about yourself. But feel free to blow it completely out of proportion.
You've descended into base insults. Good to see there's no hope for an actual discussion.
This is the key point here. You cite ESR and, unfortunately, he's the only person you can cite. Nothing resembling a consensus exists with respect to the idea that someone who is self-taught gets more respect than someone with a degree. Never mind ignoring the notion that someone who was self-taught could also earn a degree.
Yet somehow it seems to be the basis for the unspoken point of "we shouldn't teach programming in schools." Which I can only surmise is your point.
No it doesn't. The whole point of running free software is knowing that I can rebuild the binary (even if the end result isn't exactly the same) and, more importantly, freely modify it to suit my needs rather than being beholden to some vendor.
This logic could be used to justify not teaching virtually any subject. The irony here being that computers impact our lives more than anything else these days, yet people on Slashdot will argue against educating kids in how they are controlled.
I would readily tell him so. However you're appealing to authority here. And you completely ignored my question.
It's nice that you're happy to pat yourself on the back here, but I'm failing to see your point. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't do this?
People who are interested in the material will do well regardless. Saying that those who are self-taught and not "academically-shaped" get more respect is, at best, wishful thinking or egotism.
At least now he has contact with the outside world. In a US prison he'd most certainly be held in isolation and maybe, just maybe, allowed to see his lawyer.
Why can't it be justified? Not every change needs to be committed, I've had running debug changes that have never been committed because they don't need to be, and the staging area lets me ensure only the necessary changes get checked in. It also lets me prevent them from ever being a part of any commit, so I don't have to filter them out later.
What about its UI is awful? Is it because it is command line based that makes it awful?
I think the real problem is that people approach Git thinking it's like SVN, and when the SVN way of doing things doesn't work they get frustrated and proclaim it to be awful.
Dubious. I only know of one phone phone that connected the GPS to the baseband and it was designed with European regulations in mind. Looking at the E911 information on Wikipedia, the GPS requirements are loose enough that triangulation via cell tower would suffice.
This sounds more like unfounded paranoia, if you ask me.
I see someone is making up enemies in their head.
We? On the contrary, they were made for us in favor of others. The DMCA, for instance, violates the 1st Amendment. But it was rammed through despite that.
I seem to recall that argument having been ridiculed recently, that it would not work against a minimally sane populace nor would it be more dangerous than an actual fire alarm going off (other than people telling you to shut up.)
This isn't relevant to the discussion. Not once has killing people ever been mentioned as an essential liberty. Nice straw man though.
Rather, the extents are compromised and violated for whatever short term expedience serves those in power.
Sure it does. It just means their lifespan is limited unless you push back and reclaim them.
A justice system that regularly violates and cuts back essential rights under the claim that doing so will provide increased security is not merely imperfect, but fatally flawed and will in no way "advance the greater good." It will lead to a consolidation of power in the hands of those in said government and nothing more.
I did? Or are you just utterly mad. Keep in mind that the quote (possibly paraphrased) "I would rather see a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" came from the same group of men that Franklin stood with.
Which would be an improvement.
Oops, you just failed. You've missed the mark on the topic here, which was the essential freedoms noted in the constitution and bill of rights. Abrogation of those does nothing what so fucking ever to guarantee me a "certain degree of safety."
Anti-nationals? Making up terminology here or something?
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeealllyyy??
People who hate the US? Such as?
What makes someone an "anti-national?" Can you tell me? Or is this another extreme right "people we don't like, for whatever reason" code-word?
How so? Seriously. If you impinged upon the First Amendment how is it not useless? Once you find an exception to it, you can keep cutting it back further and further and argue, endlessly, that it doesn't actually infringe. We have this problem right now.
These statements are mutually exclusive.
Are you seriously suggesting that all convictions are both correct and just?
A citizen of this nation. What nation is irrelevant, because the laws of every nation should be subject to scrutiny by its citizens. Or are you going to appeal to authority here?
Good point. I like this bit:
By that logic, you could say that the NSA is internally engaging in seditious action towards the American people with this program. Of course, Snowden isn't being seditious either as he's simply provided evidence of their highly questionable activities.
And this is supposed to validate what?
Irrelevant. This has been going on since before Obama was in office; even then he can be very, very wrong and has been on many occasions.
I have. You seem to have a logical short where you go "if the government does it then it's absolutely OK."
Huh? How is that in any way a message? I mean, other than the hateful, ignorant one you've conjured up?
Can you explain your stance in a less angry, more rational manner?
Really? So you're going to argue that the NSA is in the right here too? How is his logic "troll level?"
I don't. I hope he's found untouchable and the head of the NSA goes to Federal Prison.
Benjamin Franklin opened other people's mail for intelligence purposes during the Revolutionary War.
We did during WWII as well, and the director of the office was very, very happy the day he shut it down. War time is different from the day-to-day, and this is not war time.
Certainly. Private details about our associations and communications are being seized blindly by the government without warrant. If they are not outright violating the 4th Amendment, then they are working around it so effectively as to neutralize it.
Only if we let it go unchecked and let it become accepted.
Care to clarify this? Are you saying that no one needs any freedom at all?
Yes, and it's shameful.
A weak claim, given how many people have been exonerated, are in for tragically pathetic crimes that don't actually need to be (such as people convicted under drug charges,) or are simply serving time because they couldn't get a decent lawyer and accepted a plea-bargain for 5 years instead of the very scary 30 they were threatened with.
Anything can be declared to be "classified." All that means is how the information is to be handled, regardless of the validity of the information.