I take it then that it didn't, and probably never would, occur to you that they might simply be conducting reconnaissance to see if an attack is feasible?
Because we must always assume the worst, and therefore we should overreact and assume a state of perpetual paranoia?
You do know that Al Qaida agents have been caught more than once doing that?
Really? Got anything to back that up?
May I assume then that you don't bother to check both ways before crossing the street since that would be "giving in to fear" of being hit by a car?
Ah yes, because driving oneself into a state of paranoia such that we must live in constant suspicion of our neighbors is equivalent to making no cars are traveling down the street.
perhaps drinking water from the toilet wouldn't bother you because you refuse to "live in fear" of disease? And insurance? Doesn't that just show you are living in fear of an accident? Apparently in your world, people don't do things that are prudent, they only act out of fear. Pity that.
Mockery does not counter the point that the MPL3 was chosen explicitly because it preserved the copyleft nature. Said same contributors may be unwilling to shift to the Apache license for precisely that reason.
How is Firefox on the decline? I use it on all of my primary systems and it's as snappy as ever. In fact it's so good that I find Chrome offers no advantages and lacks useful tools like Noscript.
I doubt they will be able to get them to go from the MPL3 to the Apache license. The transition from LGPL -> MPL3 maintained the copyleft nature of the license, going to Apache would eliminate it. I suspect it would be significantly more difficult to get people to agree to that.
how could you distinguish damage caused by Oracle from damage caused by the LibreOffice fork?
You can't. But it was Oracle's project to act on and they decided to be as uncooperative as possible, even more so than Sun. So LibreOffice was born and much progress was made in spite of Oracle. Then Oracle decided to dispense with it and carelessly tossed it aside to Apache.
You don't have to alter the First Amendment. What you need to do is fix Corporate Law that explicitly identifies them as not being people. Then, you should grant corporations every right they have, rather than implicitly giving them every right that actual people have.
Entities whose existence is purely a result of government actions should not be able to pervert the course and actions of said same government. Otherwise you end up with the disaster we have now.
I didn't see the the part where they allow CDMs to be able to take over parts of the media stack as well as just decrypt.
I didn't see any restrictions whatsoever on CDMs. And they obviously can't allow the browser to touch uncompressed, decrypted data or someone will find a way to trivially dump it to disk.
that is still an improvement from not being able to run any CDM on OS/X or linux, ever because they don't implement COM which ActiveX relies on.
I thought about it a bit, and what I now expect to happen is that Apple, Google, and Microsoft will deliver CDMs for their platforms, and people will use them. Anyone not running Windows, iOS/OS X, or Android/Chrome OS will suddenly find the internet to be a very hostile place.
Unless the CDM hands off the actual decryption process to a lower level API like a TPM.
Except TPMs are horribly slow. There's a reason that Intel implemented AES in hardware.
Flash doesn't play content through the standard media elements
Oh so instead of using one tag you get to use another. Such a huge improvement. Not that any browser/OS other than those blessed by Hollywood will ever be able to use the tag at this rate.
Decoding a video frame would be the responsibility of the media element itself, not the CDM.
The CDM can impose all sorts of requirements on the host system, such as demanding things like PVP and PAP. That's one reason I expect there to be virtually no CDMs available for Linux.
There's no reason whatsoever that you couldn't have an open source DRM system, for example.
Of course, so long as you adopted the weakest meaning of the phrase "open source." But no DRM system in practice is open due to the need to hide secrets.
This should be enabled in the HTML standard, even if the plugins have to be platform specific.
Why?
It's only going more in this direction in the future.
Then things will only get worse.
have a cousin who works for a major news agency to remain unnamed here, and there is a movement afoot in the news world to investigate DRM for protecting online news content. There is a realization that they cannot keep giving it away forever.
So destroy web browsers and force them to betray their users and treat them as criminals?
DRM is a big thing now though in terms of what is wanted going forward.
Fuck them. People are bitching on this site about end users having entitlement complexes, what about media companies that feel entitled to have end user's systems betray their owner for the sake of their bottom line.
Either the Web has to keep up, or it will become less and less relevant to modern computing.
Or maybe it'll become more like it was originally, before the commercial interests started moving in and tried to turn it into TV 2.0.
More than 1/3 of current internet traffic is DRMd video streams. It's a core part of the internet.
Internet != Web.
The web is just a subset of the internet.
And it will be done in the browser, the question is will it be done to a standard.
Why will it be done in the browser? Why must it? Why must browser vendors be subject to the demands of hostile media entities?
If you long for the glory days of IE6, by all means drag us back to a place where the big players just ignore the W3C again - that was just so much fun the last time.
On the contrary, EME will reintroduce those days by causing people to make stupid assumptions about what CDMs the users have available and anyone not on those platforms or using those browsers will just be told "upgrade your browser or OS to $modern OS! Made for $BROWSER/$OS!" Just like in the bad old days of IE6.
Could you please explain why it's necessarily true that these proprietary binary blobs won't exist for certain platforms?
Because they're lazy? They don't see the cost of implementing it being worth the return? Because the platform vendor failed to negotiate a deal with $service for royalties in exchange for access to their EME module? Because the platform doesn't implement top-to-bottom walled garden "the user is the enemy" security policies?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and Ancient Aliens might not be entirely fabricated.
Ok, so no one can say. Good to see that posting unsubstantiated, politically biased bullshit is now a staple of Slashdot comments.
Really now? Where in the legislation does it say that the IRS has the right to access health records?
Because we must always assume the worst, and therefore we should overreact and assume a state of perpetual paranoia?
Really? Got anything to back that up?
Ah yes, because driving oneself into a state of paranoia such that we must live in constant suspicion of our neighbors is equivalent to making no cars are traveling down the street.
You're completely fucking off base.
Nonsense.
Apple and Microsoft will happily comply. After all, they've already take away the end-user's control of their mobile devices.
Mockery does not counter the point that the MPL3 was chosen explicitly because it preserved the copyleft nature. Said same contributors may be unwilling to shift to the Apache license for precisely that reason.
Come back when you have a real response.
Of course this means that they're TERRORISTS out to kill people, and not just stupid people tresspassing.
The important thing here is that you adapt to the state of perpetual fear that you're supposed to live in.
How is Firefox on the decline? I use it on all of my primary systems and it's as snappy as ever. In fact it's so good that I find Chrome offers no advantages and lacks useful tools like Noscript.
I doubt they will be able to get them to go from the MPL3 to the Apache license. The transition from LGPL -> MPL3 maintained the copyleft nature of the license, going to Apache would eliminate it. I suspect it would be significantly more difficult to get people to agree to that.
You have a history of telling people what to do. How about you take the initiative and resolve the licensing conflicts between the two projects?
Blame Oracle, they catalyzed the split.
You can't. But it was Oracle's project to act on and they decided to be as uncooperative as possible, even more so than Sun. So LibreOffice was born and much progress was made in spite of Oracle. Then Oracle decided to dispense with it and carelessly tossed it aside to Apache.
Did they? We'll never know, because Congress moved to shield the collaborators from any sort of legal action.
Such as?
You don't have to alter the First Amendment. What you need to do is fix Corporate Law that explicitly identifies them as not being people. Then, you should grant corporations every right they have, rather than implicitly giving them every right that actual people have.
Entities whose existence is purely a result of government actions should not be able to pervert the course and actions of said same government. Otherwise you end up with the disaster we have now.
I didn't see any restrictions whatsoever on CDMs. And they obviously can't allow the browser to touch uncompressed, decrypted data or someone will find a way to trivially dump it to disk.
I thought about it a bit, and what I now expect to happen is that Apple, Google, and Microsoft will deliver CDMs for their platforms, and people will use them. Anyone not running Windows, iOS/OS X, or Android/Chrome OS will suddenly find the internet to be a very hostile place.
Except TPMs are horribly slow. There's a reason that Intel implemented AES in hardware.
Oh so instead of using one tag you get to use another. Such a huge improvement. Not that any browser/OS other than those blessed by Hollywood will ever be able to use the tag at this rate.
I see you've decided to make these media companies an authority to which you appeal.
Unless you're a patent troll shell company, and price the licensing fees well below that of actually pursuing the court case.
The CDM can impose all sorts of requirements on the host system, such as demanding things like PVP and PAP. That's one reason I expect there to be virtually no CDMs available for Linux.
Of course, so long as you adopted the weakest meaning of the phrase "open source." But no DRM system in practice is open due to the need to hide secrets.
Why?
Then things will only get worse.
So destroy web browsers and force them to betray their users and treat them as criminals?
Fuck them. People are bitching on this site about end users having entitlement complexes, what about media companies that feel entitled to have end user's systems betray their owner for the sake of their bottom line.
Or maybe it'll become more like it was originally, before the commercial interests started moving in and tried to turn it into TV 2.0.
Any given CDM is. Unless you expect a Windows binary to run on OS X or Linux.
Yes it is. Oh sure, you could make it open source but you'll never get the sources for one that does anything useful.
Much like how flash does now, where it's given a spot on the page but is otherwise independent of the browser.
Zero improvement.
It must be wonderful to have such dominance in the market that no matter how bad you fuck up, you won't truly be punished for it.
Internet != Web.
The web is just a subset of the internet.
Why will it be done in the browser? Why must it? Why must browser vendors be subject to the demands of hostile media entities?
On the contrary, EME will reintroduce those days by causing people to make stupid assumptions about what CDMs the users have available and anyone not on those platforms or using those browsers will just be told "upgrade your browser or OS to $modern OS! Made for $BROWSER/$OS!" Just like in the bad old days of IE6.
Because they're lazy? They don't see the cost of implementing it being worth the return? Because the platform vendor failed to negotiate a deal with $service for royalties in exchange for access to their EME module? Because the platform doesn't implement top-to-bottom walled garden "the user is the enemy" security policies?