First off, firefox is not part of KDE.
Firefox is Mozilla's product.
Secondly, I don't want advertisements at all anywhere in my operating system. They can stay the hell out.
I like linux because it sticks largely to a set of design principles. It is good because it's design is good. Things that suck are phased out, things are improved.
I'm sorry, but advertisements are an ulterior motive at best, and a surrender to mediocrity more likely.
Plus I don't give a damn about what companies want. Companies provide services and products. If I am interested, I will go look into what they have to offer, but largely I am uninterested in most of them. And I'm sorry, I don't want companies trying to invade my operating system. If I don't want your product, don't try to force it down my throat.
I know KDE is not an operating system, but I think if the case is that KDE is being motivated by companies, then KDE has become dead to me.
This isn't what he was referring to. This has nothing to do with your preference of who you like or don't. He was stating that if you are not able to name facts about a candidate (and simple and glaringly obvious ones -- like if Obama is a republican), then your vote should not be counted because it is determined that you don't know what you are doing.
Now I like the idea of doing that, but I also feel that it is a violation of a person's rights. You might vote for Obama just because you like the guy and know nothing about him. While an ill thought out move in the eyes of many, there is nothing illegal and nothing wrong about doing that. I don't feel that we should say I don't care that you like this person, you don't know anything about them and your voice doesn't matter. Therefore, I'm arguing in opposition to making people prove some sort of competency before voting, even though I wish people would be more competent.
One thing you need to change is that it's not
any old web developer, given a database of user information, would create a 1-click purchase system
it's
any old web developer, given a database of user information, and a massive commercial marketplace, would create a 1-click purchase system
Then, yeah, it is pretty obvious. You have to remind yourself that if you were working for Amazon, and its primary busy model was a huge online marketplace, then eventually it would have occured to you to save some time by offering a 1-click button.
Law school. If you'd like to confirm for yourself without coughing up $150k, you could just take your misguided ramblings to Wikipedia: License. From Wikipedia:
To license or grant license is to give permission. A license (also spelled licence) is the document demonstrating that permission. License may be granted by a party ("licensor") to another party ("licensee") as an element of an agreement between those parties. A shorthand definition of a license is "a promise (by the licensor) not to sue (the licensee)."
I think for the matter at hand, the shorthand definition is shorthand because it does not fully describe what a license is. For definitive purposes, the first 2 sentences are quite explicit.
As for the $150 K that you spent on law school, that is irrelevent. The law exists outside of the lawyers and legal battles. They are the end result of society's formation of that law. Nowhere have we established (in America, if you're looking for clarity) that you have to be a lawyer to inform someone of the law. We don't even state that you have to have a lawyer to defend yourself in court. Lawyers are just people who study the intricacies of the law, and (idealy) aide those who have to resolve a legal issue. To become a lawyer we have the bar association. To inform people of the law, you only have to have something to say.
Where do you get any of your cracked-out interpretations? Certainly nowhere that qualifies you to give them. Let me explain something to you, because your ego appears to be getting in the way: Only judges are given the power to interperet the law. Not even lawyers. Unless you are a judge, you have no more authority than the next person when it comes to your interpretation of the law.
Wow, well I'm really impressed with Brazil, and even more pissed off at my own country (USA). But people are people, regardless of their local or country, and this goes to show that our current US government needs some serious reform.
Oh it sure is nice not to be born with aids, especially when your mother got infected when pregnant. Or how about when the guerilla soldiers come to town and rape people. Or what about sheer ignorance of modes of transmittal. It sure is nice to live in a country that makes it very clear the dangers of aids, I'm not so sure Brazillians have that luxury.
It's a basic FACT among console gamers that if you're serious about your gaming experience you owe it to yourself to get an XBox or an XBox 360. Why? I like my PS2, and I consider myself to be a serious console gamer (until I got to college). And how is this a fact? Did I miss the memo on joining the console gamer's union or something? Are there statistics that allure to this somehow? I respect your opinion and enthusiasm for the Xbox, but I believe that you have assumed too much -- just because you can't see how the PS2 could be serious, you have decided that no one could see this as well. This is a common logical mistake.
Just because you think that you should pay money to listen to music, does not make complete harddrive encryption unintelligent. I believe that the people here who know what they are doing when encrypting their harddrive are probably a lot smarter than you think. Furthermore, given the ability to encrypt your harddrive, leave no evidence of anything, and pay nothing seems to be a more intelligible choice than throwing money at an obviously corrupt organization. -- That is, however, just my opinion.
A woman in full leathers with a helmet under her arm is probably into motorcycles, no matter how masculine you believe this pursuit to be. From this you could also draw a weaker correlation to what you think she might listen to, but since it is so much weaker, you're going to be wrong a large part of the time. This is much closer to my point, and I agree with you. It is futile to try and make assumptions based on such irrelevant and uncontrolable properties like race and gender. And to make assumptions when you could just ask, is also crap. =D
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think you might have missed my point: It is not only hazardous to one's own humanity, but it is quite prejudice to do these things.
Here is a link to a reply I made to a similar comment. It details why I made my post. I'm not racist, I try not to stereotype. I was trying to bring to light why it is futile to do so.
I bet they would, since should they give their code to the project leader under GPL, and then the project leader takes their code under GPL, and changes the license to X, he's in direct violation of the GPL. It would be ok if the entire project's code base were written solely by the project leader. In the likely event that it wasn't, the project leader doesn't own the copyright to the submitted code, and for him to use it in anything other than the GPL license given to him would be committing copyright infringement, which is illegal.
Yeah, but you got only about halfway there. The other half of the concept is that a lot of people do this and don't realize that they are doing this. That maybe if I pointed out to a person a possible way in which they might make assumptions (the experiment), they would recognize the behavior as something they do (the catalyst). Once they recognize it, they might feel compelled to stop it (the goal). It was not my point to show that they are prejudiced (almost everyone is in some sense), the goal was to encourage people to do something about it. Sometimes people need someone else to help them see a way forwards.
It is especially important to allow for the possibility that if a person were aware of their prejudice, they might not want to play the part of a racist. People can change, and people can grow. Once someone realizes that they have been subconsciously racist, they might try to root out that racism and allow their love of all people to start to grow.
This is just another possibility in the great expanse of what future we might look forward to seeing.
You fit in whatever category you believe yourself to belong to. I don't see it fit to label you.
My aim in my previous post, was not "these kinds of people won't like this kind of music." That would be stereotypical of me, and I don't believe it to be true. My aim was to show that given no information, someone who was trying to guess another person's music tastes using only their race and gender would likely avoid linking, for example, a hispanic male with Polish folk.
I was trying to point out that since this made up list of ours is complete conjecture, we only have our stereotypes to look to when we try to label people. Because we are drawing our guesses from a stereotype, we're not going to put on the list something that doesn't match a stereotype.
I wrote what I did in my previous post, not to encourage, but to show the huge flaw in trying to categorize people when you don't actually know anything about them. I posted what I did to help people realize that labeling people is a bad practice, and I understand that the great grandparent post might have been sarcastic, but I think that if my reply helps just one person avoid prejudices, then it was worth my time to write it.
I must also say, that I'm not perfect and sometimes I find myself being prejudiced too. I try to stop myself when I catch it, but I make mistakes as well. I don't want anyone to feel that I'm trying to talk down to them. I don't want anyone to feel that I believe myself to be better than them.
Should there be a race distribution? Does it help us out to always take everything and split it up and see how the blacks are different, how the hispanics are different, how the whites are different, etc? In your effort to try to split something up by race, you will subconsciously start to perceive differences simply because you are imposing a condition that requires you to find a difference. Take that away, and you might find that you don't start thinking of people in terms of race. You no longer have a need to discern their skin color for anything they do. Take it further and you could try to eliminate a gender bias as well. =D
When you no longer feel compelled to assign a gender and race to a person for anything about that person, you also might find yourself not assuming things about this person. For anything about a specific person that you do not know, would you subconsciously start to fill the knowledge gap by drawing what you don't know from a stereotype?
Try this...(and only as an experiment), for people you don't know that you come across in your day (people on the street, customers at your business, customers over the phone, etc), try and guess what kind of music they like. Use whatever information you have about them to discern their music tastes (obviously without clueing them in that your doing this). But after you've made your guess, write down their seen (or perceived over the phone) skin color, gender, and music preference you came up with. You will probably want to keep this list of yours out of sight, or in a password protected word document or something. Spreadsheet maybe?
At the end of a few days, go through your list and first divide people up by gender, and group the males together, and the female together. For each gender, make a subgroup for each race (whites, blacks, asians, etc.). After that, go through and write down the different kinds of music you assigned (Country, rap, gospel, etc), and then after that, go back and tally up how many black males like X, or how many white females like Y, and so on. I'm almost certain that one music taste in particular will have a majority in each group. Like you might see that you have far more black females listening to gospel than any other kind of music in that group.
You now have a successfully stereotyped gender and race bias for music tastes. You have asked no one what they actually like, just what you think they would like to listen to. Since you didn't actually ask anyone what they liked, your list is probably highly inaccurate. But because you took the time to classify these people according to their gender and race, and then see what music they liked, you have willfully imposed a condition that requires you to discriminate based on race and gender. Should you do this test, you might conclude that had you not first identified their race and gender, your assumptions about their music tastes would be absolutely anyone's wild guess, because without their race and gender, you know nothing about that person, including their music tastes.
Since you didn't have any actual information, how did you have any faith in your guess even being remotely close to accurate? What gave you any confidence in your judgment? Since you had no information about a person, you had to have taken some of your guesswork from a preconceived notion of what you learned in life. For example, you probably were not consciously aware of it, but you limited all the possible types of music a person could enjoy, from what people of that race and gender you know already like. I bet your list will not have these entries...
asian female -- salsa
black male -- yodeling
hispanic male -- polish folk
And you are probably thinking that those music tastes are absurd for those people, but do you think this because you have never heard or known an asian female to like salsa, a black male to like yodeling, or a hispanic male to like polish folk? Or do
If you didn't have your internet connection tommorrow, and were told that you were accused of being a thief, would you be like, "Well it wasn't that important." I think you might have failed to infer that 10 years ago (little internet), now (majority internet), will lead to a future world where to be denied internet access will be equivilent to being denied any use of a telephone, cellphone, or wireless communication device. I think you would be pretty pissed off. The internet has and will continue to become more and more important.
But I also agree with you that the internet does not feed you, clothe you, or provide a place to live. Those come from people, not machines, and we should not look away from those right next to us.
I like how you phrased that. I might start thinking about my initial, and subsequently, frustrating, maddening, and tremor causing =P plunge into Linux symbolic to quiting cigarettes cold turkey -- A real bitch until you get about six weeks into it. By then you've learned enough and kept your sanity mostly intact to keep your bearings away from cigarettes/microsoft.
And yes, Linux has been known to cause anxiety and tremors in people at times. =D
First off, Microsoft makes the OS, which can be hacked. So their efforts to make vista drm secure are undone due to the plastic nature of software. AMD is a hardware manufacturer, and should they put a limitation on the hardware, then, extreme effort asside, it will no longer be possible to circumvent drm, which will then make vista into a real bitch. So these things compound themselves once AMD places unmovable ground upon which drm will rest.
No, I don't think this problem will manifest itself in the form of some kind of apocalypse. But looking at what has happened, I am close to surrenduring my hopes in people to recognize antithetical "progress" in the form of computing technology. I do not resign my beliefs in people's good intentions though, but what isn't apparent or understood, is not readily objected to. This is the general public's nature. There is no blame nor attribution; it is simply the nature of any mass uncoordinated system. So I do think that this will go largely unprotested by the general public. You and I understand what this means, and I believe we both share a distaste for DRM -- and so it is up to people like us to recognize, avert, and warn whom and whatever when we see these things.
It is when we do nothing about it now, and left unadulterated, that one more freedom we enjoy starts fading into the dark. For a parallel, Disney has turned copyright into a terminal plague, ideas are not spread amongst the populace, there is legalistic locktight in the gears of society. Stagnation is evident, though not consolidated. Terminal, in the sense, that you and I will likely die before we are unrestricted to build off any idea that was published during our early childhood and forwards. And to what purpose is Shakespeare copyrighted? That who was responsible for any truely passionate creation, I'm sure of, views its lucritive side as an afterthought. Why does someone get to claim an idea first, and then prevent the rest of us (now), from utilizing it? Wait 75 years and let our grandkids use it? Why not now, or 3 years max? Can't we all realize that all of humanity needs to work together to better life around the world. It is futile to work individually, and due to its very nature, is the result of copyright law. That person, who had an idea, gets to exploit people for money, and take it to the grave. I don't have a problem with someone wanting to be able to make money off of their creation. The problem rests with the impossibility of others to take parts of it and, in turn, create even more. This will ultimately get us nowhere. The end of this world will not be marked by the rain of fire, but the slow rise of a beaurocratic sea of inhumanity.
This is my point -- our society has veered far from an actual path of enlightenment. Of course it can't be fixed in a day, but we should change our focus from capitalization and profit, to enriching the global quality of life. This trusted computing bullshit is an insulting slap in the face of what great and capable beings we could be.
Also, would you mind further explaining your point on the current market and legal climates? I'm not saying you don't have a point -- it's just that I don't understand your angle.
i know DRM is an issue/. folks like to get all worked up about, but this doesnt mean AMD is going to sneak into your house at night and wreck up the joint. No, not tonight, nor tommorrow. But how about in 5 years? If the general public is completely unaware of what DRM even is (likely), or better yet, unaware of the various flavors of "trusted computing" (most certainly), then they will go ahead and buy that new computer from Dell. When they try to copy a DRM'd source, and can't, who can they turn to for help? Dell. Is Dell the only source of computer knowledge? For them, I suspect that they would think it is.
Will this be the end of the commonly held belief that you can copy discs/songs/whatever, if the only place where the extremely computer illiterate masses can go is Dell? Yes. 5 years from now, the only choices of quality chips are shipped with "trusted computing" already built in. It got this way because millions of unaware people threw their wallets at Microsoft, Dell, and the MPAA -- who probably will not announce this to the masses, or advertise it as a new "feature". It does not matter if you don't plan on buying it now, but if you want to upgrade your computer someday, then say hello to a big steaming shitpile of 1984.
This is why it is important to address the issue now.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they should just wire C4 into the servers, and inspect the traffic. If an SQL injection is in the stream, detonate C4 charges.
Simple.
: D
Amateurs, the pros use telnet.
: D
First off, firefox is not part of KDE. Firefox is Mozilla's product. Secondly, I don't want advertisements at all anywhere in my operating system. They can stay the hell out.
I like linux because it sticks largely to a set of design principles. It is good because it's design is good. Things that suck are phased out, things are improved.
I'm sorry, but advertisements are an ulterior motive at best, and a surrender to mediocrity more likely.
Plus I don't give a damn about what companies want. Companies provide services and products. If I am interested, I will go look into what they have to offer, but largely I am uninterested in most of them. And I'm sorry, I don't want companies trying to invade my operating system. If I don't want your product, don't try to force it down my throat.
I know KDE is not an operating system, but I think if the case is that KDE is being motivated by companies, then KDE has become dead to me.
This isn't what he was referring to. This has nothing to do with your preference of who you like or don't. He was stating that if you are not able to name facts about a candidate (and simple and glaringly obvious ones -- like if Obama is a republican), then your vote should not be counted because it is determined that you don't know what you are doing.
Now I like the idea of doing that, but I also feel that it is a violation of a person's rights. You might vote for Obama just because you like the guy and know nothing about him. While an ill thought out move in the eyes of many, there is nothing illegal and nothing wrong about doing that. I don't feel that we should say I don't care that you like this person, you don't know anything about them and your voice doesn't matter. Therefore, I'm arguing in opposition to making people prove some sort of competency before voting, even though I wish people would be more competent.
2^64 seconds = 584,542,046,090 years, so about another 570,792,046,090 years.
lol, man that was funny
it's
any old web developer, given a database of user information, and a massive commercial marketplace, would create a 1-click purchase system
Then, yeah, it is pretty obvious. You have to remind yourself that if you were working for Amazon, and its primary busy model was a huge online marketplace, then eventually it would have occured to you to save some time by offering a 1-click button.
As for the $150 K that you spent on law school, that is irrelevent. The law exists outside of the lawyers and legal battles. They are the end result of society's formation of that law. Nowhere have we established (in America, if you're looking for clarity) that you have to be a lawyer to inform someone of the law. We don't even state that you have to have a lawyer to defend yourself in court. Lawyers are just people who study the intricacies of the law, and (idealy) aide those who have to resolve a legal issue. To become a lawyer we have the bar association. To inform people of the law, you only have to have something to say.
Where do you get any of your cracked-out interpretations? Certainly nowhere that qualifies you to give them. Let me explain something to you, because your ego appears to be getting in the way: Only judges are given the power to interperet the law. Not even lawyers. Unless you are a judge, you have no more authority than the next person when it comes to your interpretation of the law.
I accidentally modded you funny as my hand unexplicably spasmed on my way down to "Insightful". There is no undo except by reply =D
I think those might be on sale at BestBuy...I got my quantum computer off of ebay.
Wow, well I'm really impressed with Brazil, and even more pissed off at my own country (USA). But people are people, regardless of their local or country, and this goes to show that our current US government needs some serious reform.
Oh it sure is nice not to be born with aids, especially when your mother got infected when pregnant. Or how about when the guerilla soldiers come to town and rape people. Or what about sheer ignorance of modes of transmittal. It sure is nice to live in a country that makes it very clear the dangers of aids, I'm not so sure Brazillians have that luxury.
Just because you think that you should pay money to listen to music, does not make complete harddrive encryption unintelligent. I believe that the people here who know what they are doing when encrypting their harddrive are probably a lot smarter than you think. Furthermore, given the ability to encrypt your harddrive, leave no evidence of anything, and pay nothing seems to be a more intelligible choice than throwing money at an obviously corrupt organization. -- That is, however, just my opinion.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think you might have missed my point: It is not only hazardous to one's own humanity, but it is quite prejudice to do these things.
Here is a link to a reply I made to a similar comment. It details why I made my post. I'm not racist, I try not to stereotype. I was trying to bring to light why it is futile to do so.
I bet they would, since should they give their code to the project leader under GPL, and then the project leader takes their code under GPL, and changes the license to X, he's in direct violation of the GPL. It would be ok if the entire project's code base were written solely by the project leader. In the likely event that it wasn't, the project leader doesn't own the copyright to the submitted code, and for him to use it in anything other than the GPL license given to him would be committing copyright infringement, which is illegal.
Yeah, but you got only about halfway there. The other half of the concept is that a lot of people do this and don't realize that they are doing this. That maybe if I pointed out to a person a possible way in which they might make assumptions (the experiment), they would recognize the behavior as something they do (the catalyst). Once they recognize it, they might feel compelled to stop it (the goal). It was not my point to show that they are prejudiced (almost everyone is in some sense), the goal was to encourage people to do something about it. Sometimes people need someone else to help them see a way forwards.
It is especially important to allow for the possibility that if a person were aware of their prejudice, they might not want to play the part of a racist. People can change, and people can grow. Once someone realizes that they have been subconsciously racist, they might try to root out that racism and allow their love of all people to start to grow.
This is just another possibility in the great expanse of what future we might look forward to seeing.
You fit in whatever category you believe yourself to belong to. I don't see it fit to label you.
:)
My aim in my previous post, was not "these kinds of people won't like this kind of music." That would be stereotypical of me, and I don't believe it to be true. My aim was to show that given no information, someone who was trying to guess another person's music tastes using only their race and gender would likely avoid linking, for example, a hispanic male with Polish folk.
I was trying to point out that since this made up list of ours is complete conjecture, we only have our stereotypes to look to when we try to label people. Because we are drawing our guesses from a stereotype, we're not going to put on the list something that doesn't match a stereotype.
I wrote what I did in my previous post, not to encourage, but to show the huge flaw in trying to categorize people when you don't actually know anything about them. I posted what I did to help people realize that labeling people is a bad practice, and I understand that the great grandparent post might have been sarcastic, but I think that if my reply helps just one person avoid prejudices, then it was worth my time to write it.
I must also say, that I'm not perfect and sometimes I find myself being prejudiced too. I try to stop myself when I catch it, but I make mistakes as well. I don't want anyone to feel that I'm trying to talk down to them. I don't want anyone to feel that I believe myself to be better than them.
I hope that better explains my post
When you no longer feel compelled to assign a gender and race to a person for anything about that person, you also might find yourself not assuming things about this person. For anything about a specific person that you do not know, would you subconsciously start to fill the knowledge gap by drawing what you don't know from a stereotype?
Try this...(and only as an experiment), for people you don't know that you come across in your day (people on the street, customers at your business, customers over the phone, etc), try and guess what kind of music they like. Use whatever information you have about them to discern their music tastes (obviously without clueing them in that your doing this). But after you've made your guess, write down their seen (or perceived over the phone) skin color, gender, and music preference you came up with. You will probably want to keep this list of yours out of sight, or in a password protected word document or something. Spreadsheet maybe?
At the end of a few days, go through your list and first divide people up by gender, and group the males together, and the female together. For each gender, make a subgroup for each race (whites, blacks, asians, etc.). After that, go through and write down the different kinds of music you assigned (Country, rap, gospel, etc), and then after that, go back and tally up how many black males like X, or how many white females like Y, and so on. I'm almost certain that one music taste in particular will have a majority in each group. Like you might see that you have far more black females listening to gospel than any other kind of music in that group.
You now have a successfully stereotyped gender and race bias for music tastes. You have asked no one what they actually like, just what you think they would like to listen to. Since you didn't actually ask anyone what they liked, your list is probably highly inaccurate. But because you took the time to classify these people according to their gender and race, and then see what music they liked, you have willfully imposed a condition that requires you to discriminate based on race and gender. Should you do this test, you might conclude that had you not first identified their race and gender, your assumptions about their music tastes would be absolutely anyone's wild guess, because without their race and gender, you know nothing about that person, including their music tastes.
Since you didn't have any actual information, how did you have any faith in your guess even being remotely close to accurate? What gave you any confidence in your judgment? Since you had no information about a person, you had to have taken some of your guesswork from a preconceived notion of what you learned in life. For example, you probably were not consciously aware of it, but you limited all the possible types of music a person could enjoy, from what people of that race and gender you know already like. I bet your list will not have these entries...
And you are probably thinking that those music tastes are absurd for those people, but do you think this because you have never heard or known an asian female to like salsa, a black male to like yodeling, or a hispanic male to like polish folk? Or do
If you didn't have your internet connection tommorrow, and were told that you were accused of being a thief, would you be like, "Well it wasn't that important." I think you might have failed to infer that 10 years ago (little internet), now (majority internet), will lead to a future world where to be denied internet access will be equivilent to being denied any use of a telephone, cellphone, or wireless communication device. I think you would be pretty pissed off. The internet has and will continue to become more and more important.
But I also agree with you that the internet does not feed you, clothe you, or provide a place to live. Those come from people, not machines, and we should not look away from those right next to us.
I like how you phrased that. I might start thinking about my initial, and subsequently, frustrating, maddening, and tremor causing =P plunge into Linux symbolic to quiting cigarettes cold turkey -- A real bitch until you get about six weeks into it. By then you've learned enough and kept your sanity mostly intact to keep your bearings away from cigarettes/microsoft.
And yes, Linux has been known to cause anxiety and tremors in people at times. =D
Dunno, Ubuntu means Humanity unto others. Maybe we should link the words "primal" and "Humanity" together? It would make for an amusing time. =P
First off, Microsoft makes the OS, which can be hacked. So their efforts to make vista drm secure are undone due to the plastic nature of software. AMD is a hardware manufacturer, and should they put a limitation on the hardware, then, extreme effort asside, it will no longer be possible to circumvent drm, which will then make vista into a real bitch. So these things compound themselves once AMD places unmovable ground upon which drm will rest.
No, I don't think this problem will manifest itself in the form of some kind of apocalypse. But looking at what has happened, I am close to surrenduring my hopes in people to recognize antithetical "progress" in the form of computing technology. I do not resign my beliefs in people's good intentions though, but what isn't apparent or understood, is not readily objected to. This is the general public's nature. There is no blame nor attribution; it is simply the nature of any mass uncoordinated system. So I do think that this will go largely unprotested by the general public. You and I understand what this means, and I believe we both share a distaste for DRM -- and so it is up to people like us to recognize, avert, and warn whom and whatever when we see these things.
It is when we do nothing about it now, and left unadulterated, that one more freedom we enjoy starts fading into the dark. For a parallel, Disney has turned copyright into a terminal plague, ideas are not spread amongst the populace, there is legalistic locktight in the gears of society. Stagnation is evident, though not consolidated. Terminal, in the sense, that you and I will likely die before we are unrestricted to build off any idea that was published during our early childhood and forwards. And to what purpose is Shakespeare copyrighted? That who was responsible for any truely passionate creation, I'm sure of, views its lucritive side as an afterthought. Why does someone get to claim an idea first, and then prevent the rest of us (now), from utilizing it? Wait 75 years and let our grandkids use it? Why not now, or 3 years max? Can't we all realize that all of humanity needs to work together to better life around the world. It is futile to work individually, and due to its very nature, is the result of copyright law. That person, who had an idea, gets to exploit people for money, and take it to the grave. I don't have a problem with someone wanting to be able to make money off of their creation. The problem rests with the impossibility of others to take parts of it and, in turn, create even more. This will ultimately get us nowhere. The end of this world will not be marked by the rain of fire, but the slow rise of a beaurocratic sea of inhumanity.
This is my point -- our society has veered far from an actual path of enlightenment. Of course it can't be fixed in a day, but we should change our focus from capitalization and profit, to enriching the global quality of life. This trusted computing bullshit is an insulting slap in the face of what great and capable beings we could be.
Also, would you mind further explaining your point on the current market and legal climates? I'm not saying you don't have a point -- it's just that I don't understand your angle.
Will this be the end of the commonly held belief that you can copy discs/songs/whatever, if the only place where the extremely computer illiterate masses can go is Dell? Yes. 5 years from now, the only choices of quality chips are shipped with "trusted computing" already built in. It got this way because millions of unaware people threw their wallets at Microsoft, Dell, and the MPAA -- who probably will not announce this to the masses, or advertise it as a new "feature". It does not matter if you don't plan on buying it now, but if you want to upgrade your computer someday, then say hello to a big steaming shitpile of 1984.
This is why it is important to address the issue now.