I agree that TC is coming. However I don't see HTML 5 DRM standardization as the primary method to propagate it since the capability already exists.
The thing that will make it more common is the natural attrition of older hardware. Almost all new hardware has some form of TC built-in. When it reaches a point where content providers are able to keep a significant portion of their subscribers, you'll see TC based DRM being required. Unfortunately our choice of OS has no real bearing on the outcome since the lion's share of desktop consumers use Microsoft Windows and that OS is already friendly to TC.
I also view hardware based DRM as more open-source friendly (well as friendly as DRM can get) since it can be treated as a black box that is already present on the computer. No need to distribute it and in theory it should make the players available on more OSs running on certain hardware platforms. Basically the software would have to use the appropriate API to access it.
Anyway, my point is that you are fearing the wrong item. Personally I see nothing wrong with DRM for subscription based content. It's when it prevents my viewing of content that I purchased (non-subcriber based content) I think it can be too excessive. Especially when it only seems to deter the honest folks.
If you are worrying about the 30 seconds to wash your hands then how much time were you really planning on spending with the actual patient?
Rushing is where mistakes are made. Measures that try to see as many patients in the shortest amount of time are asinine. If the medical center has more patients than it can care for in a certain amount of time then they should hire more medical staff.
Maximizing profits at the expense of patients is inexcusable.
Ron Paul DID NOT go to "The UN" for this, he went to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, whose JOB it is to settle disputes like this.
WIPO is a UN agency. So technically Ron Paul did go to the "UN".
There is nothing hypocritical about this. WIPO would exist absent the UN for this purpose.
So what? If my grandma had balls, she'd be called grandpa. You are fabricating a lot of conjecture to defend his hypocrisy. Despite his insistence that the free market is the cure for all of his issues, he resorted to using a government agency to solve his "problem". Not only was it a government agency, it was an UN agency.
A free market solution would involve paying the $250,000 for the site (which seemed to be a fair value considering how much mass advertising goes for during an election), or creating a different web site like campaignforliberty.org. Looks like he wanted his cake and eat it too.
One thing is sure: this process does not violate the laws of thermodynamics".
Because it has nothing to do with thermodynamics!
First law of thermodynamics - Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
Second law of thermodynamics - in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.
They are the ones setting up the mayor and the ones selling the video. Regardless of the authenticity if the government enticed you into breaking the law and filmed it, it's called entrapment which is inadmissible as evidence. However if some enterprising drug dealers entice you into breaking the law and film it somehow it's okay.
Actually Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt lobbied for a one-time tax holiday so they could repatriate their income earned overseas without losing a large portion of it in taxes. Congress didn't like the idea. Congress is putting on a dog-and-pony show to chastise Apple but doesn't seem to mind giving extremely profitable corporations like Exxon tax subsidies.
There is simply nothing MS did that wouldn't have been done anyway and likely better had Gates not been at the right place at tghe right time with money in his pocket.
Which brings us back to the beginning of the thread where the assertion was that Microsoft impeded the advancement of computers. I asserted that there is no proof of such a thing. If someone else had came out with a popular OS (due to timing or whatever) we would be arguing about their name instead of MS, which is the basis of my "the market did consolidate but the winner isn't the one the poster liked."
You claimed that the bulk of the Apple DOS functionality was provided by MS BASIC. I refuted that.
The library calls that provided FP support and other things were provided by AppleSoft BASIC.
Or did you not notice that the 4K TRS-80 was no longer seen as adequate even before the IBM PC was available.
Yet the TRS-80 Color Computer (aka CoCo) lived on through the 80s and still have an active community today.
Without the hacker's end-run, modems wouldn't have existed.
I doubt that. Modems are old technology and had heavy use outside of the home market. I used them to send telexes back in the day. I ran a BBS back in the late 80's and I wouldn't confuse FidoNet with the modern internet. GEnie was pretty novel at the time. Prodigy (Sears + IBM), Compuserve, and AOL were an okay data service but they controlled what was offered to their users. It was the communications act of 1991 that broke their strangle hold and gave us the more free form internet we have today.
True, but AppleSoft BASIC, which came in the ROM of Apple II+ and later, brought floating point libraries and higher resolution graphics.
What do you mean "most of the functionality was provided by it"? DOS obviously refers to the *disk* interaction, and BASIC has none of that.
You assume that all the functionality required by the software at the time was solely provided by the DOS. AppleSoft BASIC being in ROM provided some functions to programs that called them (like the aforementioned FP routines). A practical example being that unlike the Franklin which didn't survive the lawsuit, the Laser was a "clean room" clone of the Apple II+. The feature that made Vtech's Laser compatible was their ability to license AppleSoft BASIC directly from MS. This was important since, despite most commercial programs were not in BASIC, they did take advantage of some functions provided by the ROM including AppleSoft routines.
The BASIC interpreter provided by MS could be dumped out of the Apple entirely as long as you loaded something such as integer basic to provide a command prompt. More advanced users could use the machine language monitor. MS BASIC provided BASIC, the rest was Apple's doing.
It could but it wasn't. Mentioning that by coincidence that Apple licensed the BASIC from Microsoft does not diminish Apple's work by one iota.
MS had nothing to do with the design of the PC or the follow-on XT, AT, and various AT386 machines...
I did not say that MS designed the original PC. However, I do believe that, as the platformed aged, MS did influence the subsequent designs of the platform. The demand generated by the MS Windows upgrade machine gave Intel enough revenue to continue investing more R&D into the platform. You don't honestly believe that the x86 platform survived solely by some technological advantage?
As far as the net goes, DARPA did some really good work, but it became our communications structure mostly due to hackers (in the old sense of the word) doing an end-run around ma-bell.
The '91 did more to increase access to the internet than any supposed work by a few hackers...
I agree that I may have made a too general of a statement. Apple II did have expansion slots and there were plenty of third-party accessories for that platform. Coincidently, Apple DOS made use of a licensed version of Microsoft BASIC and most of the functionality was provided by it.
The x86 clones and CP/M machines were unique in that the manufacture wasn't creating a turnkey system completely in-house. Tandy, Commodore, Atari, and Apple made the OS for their systems while the clones depended on a third-party. I worked for a company that sold Kaypros and Osbornes. These CP/M based systems were available around the same time, but they were expensive and couldn't compete with the big five manufacturers and didn't have the cache of being compatible with the IBM machines found at work.
The x86 platform's popularity attracted the most hardware improvements and the platform grew into 64 bits. Contrast that with the other 8-bit systems that are relegated to being footnotes in computer history.
Anyway the main point is that we had to wait around for the government to finally make an effort to improve our communication infrastructure before we could reach the level of computing we have today.
I was under the impression that the consolidation was the good thing you attributed to MS. If that was, indeed, your point, claiming that it would happen without MS means they did not contribute to that end as much as you gave them credit, hence my point. If that was not your point, then I didn't get what was.
Your assertion is that Microsoft somehow set back computing by a decade. I've yet seen any evidence proving this assertion. My point is that Microsoft hastened the consolidation of the personal computer market. I never claimed that it would not have happened without Microsoft. The concept that the market would do anything on its own is silly since consolidation implies a market winner. Again market consolidation took place and you aren't happy with who came out on top. Don't misinterpret my telling of historical events as my approval of the outcome. It is what it is.
I refer you to what "Monopoly [wikipedia.org]" means (hint - mono is Greek for "single").
I'm well aware of what a monopoly is and don't see how this is relevant. I never even used the word monopoly. Straw man argument aside, Microsoft was a dominate player in the personal computer field and used its dominate position to influence the personal computer market. Apple and Google are dominate players in their markets as well. Apple saw the potential in the smart phone market and took an early and very dominate lead. Google using its resources from being the dominate web company has become the other dominate member of this smart phone market. Apple defined what was expected from a smart phone and Google is refining it. The current smart phone market is basically iOS, Android, and other.
Juvenile ad hominem insult aside, 2013 minus 1995 gives us almost two decades, while you were trying to claim that my "a decade" statement was too much. If anything, it was too little.
Let me elaborate on why I find your assertion that Bill Gates using his company Microsoft to "set the computer world back at least a decade" not even applicable.
In order to get where we are today, two things had to take place:
Advances in hardware - Microsoft and Intel (aka Wintel) created demand for more powerful computers with more RAM, large hard drives, and better graphics by adding features to the Windows OS and marketing them to the consumer. Unlike personal computers prior to its introduction, PC clones encouraged third-party hardware manufacturers which open the door for ATI, Nvidia, Crucial, Hitachi, WD, and others to sell their devices directly to the consumer. This thriving market resulted in the powerful computing devices we have today.
Advances in communications - I believe the lion's share of the "delay" was due to governmental constraints and a monopoly that existed outside of personal computing. It took the eventual breakup of AT&T and the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (aka the Gore Bill) to get to the current state of computing.
If your definition of the current state of computing includes a open and competitive market for operating systems then that delay was due to the retarding of growth in communications and not any particular software company.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that TC is coming. However I don't see HTML 5 DRM standardization as the primary method to propagate it since the capability already exists.
The thing that will make it more common is the natural attrition of older hardware. Almost all new hardware has some form of TC built-in. When it reaches a point where content providers are able to keep a significant portion of their subscribers, you'll see TC based DRM being required. Unfortunately our choice of OS has no real bearing on the outcome since the lion's share of desktop consumers use Microsoft Windows and that OS is already friendly to TC.
I also view hardware based DRM as more open-source friendly (well as friendly as DRM can get) since it can be treated as a black box that is already present on the computer. No need to distribute it and in theory it should make the players available on more OSs running on certain hardware platforms. Basically the software would have to use the appropriate API to access it.
Anyway, my point is that you are fearing the wrong item. Personally I see nothing wrong with DRM for subscription based content. It's when it prevents my viewing of content that I purchased (non-subcriber based content) I think it can be too excessive. Especially when it only seems to deter the honest folks.
Seriously? Right now you run an install program to install silverlight and flash. What prevents them from using TC hardware now? Nothing.
If you are worrying about the 30 seconds to wash your hands then how much time were you really planning on spending with the actual patient?
Rushing is where mistakes are made. Measures that try to see as many patients in the shortest amount of time are asinine. If the medical center has more patients than it can care for in a certain amount of time then they should hire more medical staff.
Maximizing profits at the expense of patients is inexcusable.
Nothing prevents that from happening now. I see nothing scarier about having the DRM plugin mechanism standardized.
Warrants are for the police. Verizon could just say okay and disconnect your service.
Awesome movie reference. The Landmaster was the ultimate ATV, of course I was a kid but it was cool.
Actually you may want to read up on it.
First is energy conservation, second is in a closed system the potential energy will be less than the initial state (a.k.a. entropy).
WIPO is a UN agency. So technically Ron Paul did go to the "UN".
So what? If my grandma had balls, she'd be called grandpa. You are fabricating a lot of conjecture to defend his hypocrisy. Despite his insistence that the free market is the cure for all of his issues, he resorted to using a government agency to solve his "problem". Not only was it a government agency, it was an UN agency.
A free market solution would involve paying the $250,000 for the site (which seemed to be a fair value considering how much mass advertising goes for during an election), or creating a different web site like campaignforliberty.org. Looks like he wanted his cake and eat it too.
First law of thermodynamics - Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
Second law of thermodynamics - in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.
Why should we give $200,000 to drug dealers?
They are the ones setting up the mayor and the ones selling the video. Regardless of the authenticity if the government enticed you into breaking the law and filmed it, it's called entrapment which is inadmissible as evidence. However if some enterprising drug dealers entice you into breaking the law and film it somehow it's okay.
There is NetRexx and Open Object Rexx.
Actually Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt lobbied for a one-time tax holiday so they could repatriate their income earned overseas without losing a large portion of it in taxes. Congress didn't like the idea. Congress is putting on a dog-and-pony show to chastise Apple but doesn't seem to mind giving extremely profitable corporations like Exxon tax subsidies.
Which brings us back to the beginning of the thread where the assertion was that Microsoft impeded the advancement of computers. I asserted that there is no proof of such a thing. If someone else had came out with a popular OS (due to timing or whatever) we would be arguing about their name instead of MS, which is the basis of my "the market did consolidate but the winner isn't the one the poster liked."
Was suppose to be "NOT hot either."
Also I would call 20 (68 F) to 25 (77 F) hot either.
Except 30C to 35C isn't that dangerous. That's normal springtime to summertime temps where I live.
The library calls that provided FP support and other things were provided by AppleSoft BASIC.
Yet the TRS-80 Color Computer (aka CoCo) lived on through the 80s and still have an active community today.
I doubt that. Modems are old technology and had heavy use outside of the home market. I used them to send telexes back in the day. I ran a BBS back in the late 80's and I wouldn't confuse FidoNet with the modern internet. GEnie was pretty novel at the time. Prodigy (Sears + IBM), Compuserve, and AOL were an okay data service but they controlled what was offered to their users. It was the communications act of 1991 that broke their strangle hold and gave us the more free form internet we have today.
True, but AppleSoft BASIC, which came in the ROM of Apple II+ and later, brought floating point libraries and higher resolution graphics.
You assume that all the functionality required by the software at the time was solely provided by the DOS. AppleSoft BASIC being in ROM provided some functions to programs that called them (like the aforementioned FP routines). A practical example being that unlike the Franklin which didn't survive the lawsuit, the Laser was a "clean room" clone of the Apple II+. The feature that made Vtech's Laser compatible was their ability to license AppleSoft BASIC directly from MS. This was important since, despite most commercial programs were not in BASIC, they did take advantage of some functions provided by the ROM including AppleSoft routines.
It could but it wasn't. Mentioning that by coincidence that Apple licensed the BASIC from Microsoft does not diminish Apple's work by one iota.
I did not say that MS designed the original PC. However, I do believe that, as the platformed aged, MS did influence the subsequent designs of the platform. The demand generated by the MS Windows upgrade machine gave Intel enough revenue to continue investing more R&D into the platform. You don't honestly believe that the x86 platform survived solely by some technological advantage?
The '91 did more to increase access to the internet than any supposed work by a few hackers...
And blocking it is a bad thing?
True. However I believe that Linux users make up a large portion of LibreOffice's base.
If the efforts actually merge back together, it is more likely that LibreOffice would join Apache/OpenOffice and not the other way around.
LibreOffice comes pre-packed in most Linux distributions. If you want OpenOffice you have to download it from Apache.
I agree that I may have made a too general of a statement. Apple II did have expansion slots and there were plenty of third-party accessories for that platform. Coincidently, Apple DOS made use of a licensed version of Microsoft BASIC and most of the functionality was provided by it.
The x86 clones and CP/M machines were unique in that the manufacture wasn't creating a turnkey system completely in-house. Tandy, Commodore, Atari, and Apple made the OS for their systems while the clones depended on a third-party. I worked for a company that sold Kaypros and Osbornes. These CP/M based systems were available around the same time, but they were expensive and couldn't compete with the big five manufacturers and didn't have the cache of being compatible with the IBM machines found at work.
The x86 platform's popularity attracted the most hardware improvements and the platform grew into 64 bits. Contrast that with the other 8-bit systems that are relegated to being footnotes in computer history.
Anyway the main point is that we had to wait around for the government to finally make an effort to improve our communication infrastructure before we could reach the level of computing we have today.
Your assertion is that Microsoft somehow set back computing by a decade. I've yet seen any evidence proving this assertion. My point is that Microsoft hastened the consolidation of the personal computer market. I never claimed that it would not have happened without Microsoft. The concept that the market would do anything on its own is silly since consolidation implies a market winner. Again market consolidation took place and you aren't happy with who came out on top. Don't misinterpret my telling of historical events as my approval of the outcome. It is what it is.
I'm well aware of what a monopoly is and don't see how this is relevant. I never even used the word monopoly. Straw man argument aside, Microsoft was a dominate player in the personal computer field and used its dominate position to influence the personal computer market. Apple and Google are dominate players in their markets as well. Apple saw the potential in the smart phone market and took an early and very dominate lead. Google using its resources from being the dominate web company has become the other dominate member of this smart phone market. Apple defined what was expected from a smart phone and Google is refining it. The current smart phone market is basically iOS, Android, and other.
Let me elaborate on why I find your assertion that Bill Gates using his company Microsoft to "set the computer world back at least a decade" not even applicable.
In order to get where we are today, two things had to take place:
Advances in hardware - Microsoft and Intel (aka Wintel) created demand for more powerful computers with more RAM, large hard drives, and better graphics by adding features to the Windows OS and marketing them to the consumer. Unlike personal computers prior to its introduction, PC clones encouraged third-party hardware manufacturers which open the door for ATI, Nvidia, Crucial, Hitachi, WD, and others to sell their devices directly to the consumer. This thriving market resulted in the powerful computing devices we have today.
Advances in communications - I believe the lion's share of the "delay" was due to governmental constraints and a monopoly that existed outside of personal computing. It took the eventual breakup of AT&T and the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (aka the Gore Bill) to get to the current state of computing.
If your definition of the current state of computing includes a open and competitive market for operating systems then that delay was due to the retarding of growth in communications and not any particular software company.