This allows the distributors to lock users into using their web based media player
What, rather than lock users into their binary application, or their existing binary web plugins? DRM online video wasn't going to somehow magically stop existing if Mozilla didn't do this, all this DRM standard is doing is moving as much as (currently) possible of the existing DRM mess into web standards.
I really don't see what the fuss is, Firefox already actively supports closed source DRM in the form of binary plugins like Flash. To me this is at least no worse, and at most much better due to the sandboxing of the plugin and more limited API; A binary plugin like Flash has access to your entire machine and is a massive security risk, these DRM plugins are designed to be sandboxed to only be able to do decoding and nothing else.
Ah of course I was thinking just in the consumer space, even then tho are there 3D printers specifically locked to certain material cartridges, or is it just that no-one else makes resin / powder with the right material properties for the printer? Is it just a contractual thing where companies must buy x amount of refill material from the company etc?
'We're making a printer that, rather than just being able to load in proprietary materials, you can load in any material you want. You can formulate your own polymers and experiment with those.
Is UV hardening resin really any less proprietary than ABS filament spool? I don't think there are any 3D printers that require truly proprietary (in that you must get them from the OEM) are there?
Since your reading comprehension is so bad let me explain, if everyone around you owned smart guns it would prevent you from doing anything stupid with their gun
Chief among those worries: the safety mechanism will fail when it's needed most. If you're relying on a weapon for defense, the last thing you want is another avenue for failure
Fail when it's needed most? Isn't the *actual safety mechanism* needed the most when a child has the gun (300 people in the US shot and killed by children under 6), or another family member pulls the trigger on someone in an angry rage, or even themselves (guns kept in a home increase the suicide rate for all family members and 75% of teenage gun suicides are with other's weapons stored in family homes).
How many of these preventable deaths stopped per one person whose smart gun doesn't fire in self defence makes it worthwhile?
You could even say the same thing about keeping a gun unloaded and locked in a safe, what's the point of doing that if your gun isn't going to be under your pillow "when you need it the most" ?
Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority
Wasn't the main evidence against a northern path the fact that the plane would have to have flown over some (unlike Malaysia) heavily monitored airspace?
FYI if you want to use open source in a closed source / commercial project then often you do have to pay for it, depending on the licence it's open sourced under.
Of course, but it always bothered me when these hypothetical questions have such rigid choices and certain outcomes so I refuse to answer them as a straight A or B choice because that's not what I'd do if faced with a similar situation in real life. It's probably just being facetious but never mind:)
In all these run-away train changing the points questions my answer would always be to switch the points while the train is going over them, or leave the points half set, to cause the train to derail and so have a good chance of saving everyone.
Until 100% of cars on the road are self driving, it would seem to me that the best response would be to simply slam the breaks without changing course. Trying to purposefully swerve into another car could cause the human drivers (even cars not involved in the crash) to also swerve and possibly cause even more collisions.
Microsoft is losing the battle for online advertising, so they are instead trying to poison the market. In MSIE 10 and 11, the "do not track" is on by default, which means the user never actually made a decision to set it
It's on by default, but it is also part of the setup questionnaire when you first start up Windows 8 so it's not like the user isn't presented with the choice...
But then, how do you keep it secure enough to prevent accidents but ready enough to actually use in a self defence situation? If you can't access your gun in time why is that any better than the possibility of a dead battery etc?
This debate is rapidly devolving to a consideration of how much money people are willing to spend to inflict massive casualties. Terrorists like McVeigh can do a lot with a relatively low budget. I will note that ANFO and Ryder trucks are legal to own, and yet this has happened only once.
You're right it is relatively easy to make high explosive, but in that case why not sell it ready made? Is that making it too easy?
Were you aware that three of those miniguns that Jesse Ventura used in The Predator are legally in private citizens' hands? Does that worry you? What if I told you that their going price is well over $100k
Maybe because there are only a dozen or so in existence that are legal for citizens to own? Would you be comfortable if these were mass produced and sold more affordably?
This debate is rapidly devolving to a consideration of how much money people are willing to spend to inflict massive casualties.
I will happily give you that for someone smart and determined enough they can create casualties whatever restrictions you place, but my point is how easy should we make it for people to do that? How low should the barrier to entry for creating mayhem be? Should it be higher than it is now to prevent things like opportunistic mass shootings etc.?
That is stupid anit-gun logic. By that logic, you would be happier to have no police force than to have a bunch of cops gang raping you. Or you would be happier to have no job at all than be stuck in your office while the building burns down. Or, you would rather that a grocery store not exist in your neighborhood than to get botulismfrom one of their products.
That makes absolutely no sense. How does having a gun that only shoots for you but has a small chance of failing equate to any of those things? That's some asinine pro-gun logic right there.
On the other hand, if your son is depressed enough to shoot himself, having a length of rop and rafters, or even kitchen knives is just about as dangerous.
If someone is entering your house with a gun, they are doing it to do you bodily harm. If you happen to be a huge man well versed in martial arts, then you likely don't want anyone armed.
Who said you need a modern battle tank? You can get demilitarized T-55s for less than $50,000. They're infinitely more accessible to a single person than a warship in your example, which would need a fortune to own and a considerable crew to run it.
But then, even if you think a live round capable tank isn't realistic for someone wishing to do harm to own, what about shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles? What level of military equipment do you allow in private citizens hands? Everything?
Besides, if someone *really* wants to inflict mayhem, they will build a Killdozer
Well, it didn't actually kill anyone though did it.
But if you have children how would you juggle keeping a gun accessible enough to actually use in self defence but not accessible enough for your children to easily access it?
I've never had the desire to own a gun, nor do I see the appeal.
I sincerely hope that if you ever have occasion to regret your irresponsibility, that there is someone smarter than you at hand who is prepared to defend your life.
Then I got married, and now my gun stays at the range, where we go and fire it once in a blue moon. Now that I think about it, I have not touched it since last August.
All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch.
Ok, so you'd rather have no gun at hand at all than a gun you can safely keep at home?
First off, I will give my standard libertarian disclaimer that I don't care what you do as long as you don't try to compel me to do what you think is best. So, fair enough you believe you have no use for a firearm anymore. Great, just don't try to prevent me from owning and using firearms for my own protection.
Serious question though, should people be allowed to privately own tanks with live shells? Where is the line drawn between allowing people to own dangerous items and items being too dangerous to be allowed widespread private ownership due to the potential on infringing on others' right to life?
How about if an intruder is pointing that gun at you? Or if your depressed son is pointing it at his own head? In those situations you'd wish the gun had just gone beep.
Slashdot Mirror
This allows the distributors to lock users into using their web based media player
What, rather than lock users into their binary application, or their existing binary web plugins? DRM online video wasn't going to somehow magically stop existing if Mozilla didn't do this, all this DRM standard is doing is moving as much as (currently) possible of the existing DRM mess into web standards.
I really don't see what the fuss is, Firefox already actively supports closed source DRM in the form of binary plugins like Flash. To me this is at least no worse, and at most much better due to the sandboxing of the plugin and more limited API; A binary plugin like Flash has access to your entire machine and is a massive security risk, these DRM plugins are designed to be sandboxed to only be able to do decoding and nothing else.
Ah of course I was thinking just in the consumer space, even then tho are there 3D printers specifically locked to certain material cartridges, or is it just that no-one else makes resin / powder with the right material properties for the printer? Is it just a contractual thing where companies must buy x amount of refill material from the company etc?
'We're making a printer that, rather than just being able to load in proprietary materials, you can load in any material you want. You can formulate your own polymers and experiment with those.
Is UV hardening resin really any less proprietary than ABS filament spool? I don't think there are any 3D printers that require truly proprietary (in that you must get them from the OEM) are there?
Since your reading comprehension is so bad let me explain, if everyone around you owned smart guns it would prevent you from doing anything stupid with their gun
Chief among those worries: the safety mechanism will fail when it's needed most. If you're relying on a weapon for defense, the last thing you want is another avenue for failure
Fail when it's needed most? Isn't the *actual safety mechanism* needed the most when a child has the gun (300 people in the US shot and killed by children under 6), or another family member pulls the trigger on someone in an angry rage, or even themselves (guns kept in a home increase the suicide rate for all family members and 75% of teenage gun suicides are with other's weapons stored in family homes).
How many of these preventable deaths stopped per one person whose smart gun doesn't fire in self defence makes it worthwhile?
You could even say the same thing about keeping a gun unloaded and locked in a safe, what's the point of doing that if your gun isn't going to be under your pillow "when you need it the most" ?
source for gun statistics
They'd have to have flown over Bangladesh, Myanmar completely undetected, and even once they're there India keeps its airspace very well monitored.
Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority
Wasn't the main evidence against a northern path the fact that the plane would have to have flown over some (unlike Malaysia) heavily monitored airspace?
FYI if you want to use open source in a closed source / commercial project then often you do have to pay for it, depending on the licence it's open sourced under.
Of course, but it always bothered me when these hypothetical questions have such rigid choices and certain outcomes so I refuse to answer them as a straight A or B choice because that's not what I'd do if faced with a similar situation in real life. It's probably just being facetious but never mind :)
In all these run-away train changing the points questions my answer would always be to switch the points while the train is going over them, or leave the points half set, to cause the train to derail and so have a good chance of saving everyone.
Until 100% of cars on the road are self driving, it would seem to me that the best response would be to simply slam the breaks without changing course. Trying to purposefully swerve into another car could cause the human drivers (even cars not involved in the crash) to also swerve and possibly cause even more collisions.
Microsoft is losing the battle for online advertising, so they are instead trying to poison the market. In MSIE 10 and 11, the "do not track" is on by default, which means the user never actually made a decision to set it
It's on by default, but it is also part of the setup questionnaire when you first start up Windows 8 so it's not like the user isn't presented with the choice...
But then, how do you keep it secure enough to prevent accidents but ready enough to actually use in a self defence situation? If you can't access your gun in time why is that any better than the possibility of a dead battery etc?
This debate is rapidly devolving to a consideration of how much money people are willing to spend to inflict massive casualties. Terrorists like McVeigh can do a lot with a relatively low budget. I will note that ANFO and Ryder trucks are legal to own, and yet this has happened only once.
You're right it is relatively easy to make high explosive, but in that case why not sell it ready made? Is that making it too easy?
Were you aware that three of those miniguns that Jesse Ventura used in The Predator are legally in private citizens' hands? Does that worry you? What if I told you that their going price is well over $100k
Maybe because there are only a dozen or so in existence that are legal for citizens to own? Would you be comfortable if these were mass produced and sold more affordably?
This debate is rapidly devolving to a consideration of how much money people are willing to spend to inflict massive casualties.
I will happily give you that for someone smart and determined enough they can create casualties whatever restrictions you place, but my point is how easy should we make it for people to do that? How low should the barrier to entry for creating mayhem be? Should it be higher than it is now to prevent things like opportunistic mass shootings etc.?
That is stupid anit-gun logic. By that logic, you would be happier to have no police force than to have a bunch of cops gang raping you. Or you would be happier to have no job at all than be stuck in your office while the building burns down. Or, you would rather that a grocery store not exist in your neighborhood than to get botulismfrom one of their products.
That makes absolutely no sense. How does having a gun that only shoots for you but has a small chance of failing equate to any of those things? That's some asinine pro-gun logic right there.
On the other hand, if your son is depressed enough to shoot himself, having a length of rop and rafters, or even kitchen knives is just about as dangerous.
That's simply not true. Gun suicide attempts are vastly more successful than other methods.
If someone is entering your house with a gun, they are doing it to do you bodily harm. If you happen to be a huge man well versed in martial arts, then you likely don't want anyone armed.
Having a gun in your home makes you statistically less safe.
And in the context of smart guns suicides are one of the most important statistics, because they account for the vast majority of deaths and they are often carried out by other members of a gun owner's family.
A gun in the home raises the suicide risk for everyone: gun owner, spouse and children alike.
So smart guns are an easy win to prevent suicides in a gun owning households. Oh, sorry, did logic ruin your talking point?
Who said you need a modern battle tank? You can get demilitarized T-55s for less than $50,000. They're infinitely more accessible to a single person than a warship in your example, which would need a fortune to own and a considerable crew to run it.
But then, even if you think a live round capable tank isn't realistic for someone wishing to do harm to own, what about shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles? What level of military equipment do you allow in private citizens hands? Everything?
Besides, if someone *really* wants to inflict mayhem, they will build a Killdozer
Well, it didn't actually kill anyone though did it.
But if you have children how would you juggle keeping a gun accessible enough to actually use in self defence but not accessible enough for your children to easily access it?
I've never had the desire to own a gun, nor do I see the appeal.
I sincerely hope that if you ever have occasion to regret your irresponsibility, that there is someone smarter than you at hand who is prepared to defend your life.
The really smart people know that owning a gun makes you statistically more likely to be a victim of gun violence.
Then I got married, and now my gun stays at the range, where we go and fire it once in a blue moon. Now that I think about it, I have not touched it since last August.
All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch.
Ok, so you'd rather have no gun at hand at all than a gun you can safely keep at home?
First off, I will give my standard libertarian disclaimer that I don't care what you do as long as you don't try to compel me to do what you think is best. So, fair enough you believe you have no use for a firearm anymore. Great, just don't try to prevent me from owning and using firearms for my own protection.
Serious question though, should people be allowed to privately own tanks with live shells? Where is the line drawn between allowing people to own dangerous items and items being too dangerous to be allowed widespread private ownership due to the potential on infringing on others' right to life?
Someone else has your gun... *click* you're still alive. Done
Your son has your gun... *click* he's still alive. Done.
Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles.
Bullshit, guns kill almost as many people in the USA as cars do:
Road deaths in 2010: 32,885
Gun deaths in 2010: 31,076
How about if an intruder is pointing that gun at you? Or if your depressed son is pointing it at his own head? In those situations you'd wish the gun had just gone beep.