But how do you know if a restaurant serves transfats?
This is a good point. I think the government's role should be the unbiased publication of factual research data (I support government funded research for everyone's quality of life), in simple layman's terms, of what impact a given activity can have on your health. Then you decide. If you decide to participate in an activity that is harmful, then along with all the claimed rights you have, you also have to accept the responsibilities.
Of course we have to ensure the government reports get as much (or more) press as the corporate advertising trying to convince you otherwise, similar to how the tobacco industry has to run ads showing details of the harmfulness of smoking.
No level of government should be deciding that legal products be banned due to health issues that may arise. They should provide facts. By the same token, people should not be able to live totally destructive lifestyles and expect the taxpayers to come in later and pick up the bill.
Too bad the founding fathers didn't add a Bill of Responsibilities along with the Bill of Rights.
Of course this is a humorous post, but I have to ask, what does a namespace construct provide that you don't have with JavaScript already?
to quote Wikipediaa namespace is an abstract container providing context for the items (names, or technical terms, or words) it holds and allows disambiguation of items having the same name (residing in different namespaces)
Couldn't you achieve the same thing by grouping variables (or functions) as attributes of an object prototype since JavaScript allows dynamically adding variables (or functions) to objects?
Wouldn't something like
namespace TopLevel { int count = 0; }; int count = 5; TopLevel::count = 1; cout << TopLevel::count << " is not " << count << eol;
be equivalent to
TopLevel = new function() { this.count = 0; } count = 5; TopLevel.count = 1; alert(' ' + TopLevel.count + ' is not ' + count);
Now granted, a namespace usually exists only once in a running context where as a JavaScript object can have multiple instantiations, but nothing would prevent the program from only creating and using one copy of the object to simulate the same environment.
Basically all this is syntactic sugar anyway. Object Orientation, Namespaces, Classes vs Prototypes, just different high level means of segregating data and grouping functions which are byte arrays in memory.
Not worried about looking like a newb, but thanks for the concern, since I've been designing systems, writing and selling software since 1981. And in all that time, I really don't recall an over abundance of the word elegant being used to describe software.
It just seemed that every single programming language discussion I've reviewed recently describes their preferred langauge/approach as the most elegant solution.
It just strikes me as the new l33t, but maybe it's just my age.
Not to pick on your post, but will someone please explain to me the recent need to describe software solutions as elegant?
I was researching over the weekend comparisons of the major web application platforms and languages and if I read its a more elegant approach once I read it a hundred times.
It appears elegant is the new buzzword amongst coders, but it doesn't appear to have any real meaning. Personally I like simple, clean, performant, comprehensible and maintainable as adjectives to describe software solutions.
Elegant is the word used to describe a well dressed, classy lady, not a solution to a software problem
Instead, Armitage says, he told Pakistan's top intelligence official on Sept. 12, 2001, that Pakistan would have to decide if it were "with us or against us" in the American effort to confront al-Qaida and the Taliban.
"It would be completely out of character for me to threaten the use of military force when I was not authorized to do so," Armitage says. "I don't command aircraft and could not make good on such a threat."
Think back to the 70's and 80's on the discussions of the Neutron Bomb.
One of its purported purposes was to kill people, but leave buildings standing. Then an occupying force could come in days later with infratructure intact.
Many argued the buildings would be unusable, but some thought it was viable.
So to answer your question, there would be people to use the infrastructure, just not the people that built it.
I recall from my high school days there was a situation in my hometown where a man left his wife and ran off with another younger woman to a different country.
They started running low on cash, so the man sent a letter to his wife telling her to sell his car (a nice one, Mercedes I believe) and send him the cash.
She advertised the car for $10. Folks thought it was a joke or misprint, but someone called up and bought the car for $10. A number of my friends said they'd seen the ad but ignored it thinking it was a misprint.
The man came back and tried to claim in court the sale was illegal. The court ruled his letter effectively gave his wife the power of attorney to do as she pleased, but it never set a minimum price. Also my home state was a community property state anyway so the court said she had her own rights to the car.
The man ended up with $10 and attorney's fees. The woman got everything else.
Most sales folks I know are on commission. Their base salary is not very high. They work to land the big money deals not so much to be the 'hero', but because that is where the bulk of their salary comes from.
If it so happens the deal is big enough, they may be able to buy a new BMW from the commission.
But if they don't land the deal, the don't make the money.
So basically they traded a guaranteed salary level for the chance to make more on commission. There's nothing stopping developers from asking their management for the same deal:
I'll take a pay cut if you give me a commission based on the sales of the units I deliver, less the operational costs.
Is it the fact that many aren't upset because the law is flawed or because they just didn't agree with the law in the first place so they are happy someone got off on a technicality? It's a subtle difference.
A law should be considered flawed when it unfairly criminalizes an activity. What is the flaw in the law as written? Why is it unfair?
I'm geniuninely asking as I have not personally seen the law so do not know how it is written. Is there something wrong with it, other than being semi-unenforceable?
I agree completely, why shouldn't a country expect anyone that wishes to move in learn the local language? Applying a speak only [insert your language here] on the streets would be dumb for tourists, but as an integral part of gaining citizenship, there is no reason for not learning the local language.
I recall some years back when I was in the Army stationed in Germany. I was in an intelligence unit (cue the oxymoron jokes about military intelligence) stationed alongside combat troops.
Many of us in my unit made concerted efforts to learn German and practiced when we could. Many of the ground forces had the attitude of we're here defending them (during the cold war), so I shouldn't need to learn their language.
Though I was never fluent, what I discovered was that if I made attempts to communicate in German, even though nearly all Germans spoke English, the people were generally friendlier than if I only spoke English. I had more than one store clerk or waitress laugh at my attempts (good naturedly) and switch to English and correct my speech. I found it very rewarding.
The US is at a big disadvantage in not emphasizing multi-language education as many European countries do. The US recently identified immigrants of Hispanic origin to be the largest minority group. Soon, English speakers will be out numbered by Spanish speakers. Would be nice if we were multilingual, but asking immigrants to learn English to gain US citizenship should be acceptable. Interstingly though, English was never codified as the official language for the US. It won by one vote over German during the founding so it was never enshrined in law.
Agree in sentiment that if the law is flawed, technicalities help prevent it being enforced.
But is this law fundementally flawed? If so, on what grounds? If not, then expect the technicality to be fixed.
Reading through the comments shows a number of competing needs. It got me to thinking about who exactly is asking for the various technologies. This is what I'm seeing.
In the beginning we had dumb terminals and centralized applications. The applications were stateful unless the terminal disconnected. Programmers liked this because there was platform to code to (whatever the application host was). Security and System admins liked it because all data was centeralized, everyone upgraded at the same time and security was also centralized. Users accepted it as it was the only way, but the text mode screens, timesharing issues and loss of work if the terminal dropped were annoying.
Then the GUI crowds hit and users were convinced they wanted more responsive and easier to use applications, so folks started using locally installed applications in a more detached mode. Programmers didn't mind this as it let the code for new platforms, but now they had to work with usability experts and deal with the problems the creep in when you don't know what someone has on their local machine that may cause incompatibilities with your application. System admins became PC Help Desk, going around cleaning up the mess caused by users doing their own installs, and security was based on locking the door where the PC was.
Then came the call for client server applications. Heavy responsive clients with stateful sessions talking to remote databases. The programmers world was still the same as in the standalone applications, only now they had to work with real DBAs to get database schemas created and they had to work more with security admins to connect the applications. System admins now had to support all those PCS and central servers and started having more problems due to resource issues as all these individuals were grabbing and holding resources on shared boxes. Security consisted of database logins, that most people were writing down on sticky notes connected to their monitors.
Then came HTTP and HTML. Static content was moved to stateless environments. Application programmers didn't really think about this environment except as a way to provide centeralized help pages. UI people thought they were actually programmers now. System admins were back to the centralized, lightweight server management, along with heavy client server admin and PC support tasks. Security folks were there to approve content.
Then came CGI in all its flavors (shell scripts, application servers, servlets, etc). Now we're back to programmers writing centeralized code that has to run on one platform, system admins still have stateless machines to manage, UI folks are now thought of as the application programmers since they provide the HTML interface that access the CGI code, and security folks now have a bigger headache making sure the CGI code is properly checked for security vulnerabilities.
Notice the users haven't been mentioned in the last couple of entries. Developers and system folks have been playing with technologies, but the users have just been taking it. Now users are flexing their muscles again and they want to go back to the days of responsive, more easy to use applications.
So what do we do? We take the technologies we have all become very familiar with and try to force it to meet these needs. Unfortunately the technology was never really intended for this usage.
All of this leads to my question, Who really wants what? Well, as I see it
Users: Responsive, graphical, easy to use applications
Programmers: Latest technologies, fewer target platforms, new programming models
Usability Team: consistency in operation, common look and feels, responsive systems
Security: centeralized security, reduced (if not eliminated) code vulnerabilities, centralized auditing and logging of usage
System Admins: Centarlized code deployment, reduction in system resource usage
So if there is a decreased importance on delivering excellence, then where exactly do these components come from? Won't they need to be excellent in order to be used in mundane systems?
This is just like the whole outsource debate. If you outsource all your low level development because we don't need a staff of junior developers when we can pay others to do it, then exactly where do the architects and system designers come from who are supposed to design what the outsourced staff builds? It certainly isn't from any college I'm aware of.
Without experience building software (which you get as a junior developer) it's hard to be a software designer.
Re:Are Vista ribbons Lotus-1-2-3 menu rehash?
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the link.
From the brief bit I saw, didn't seem to be much of an improvement to me. So they eliminated drop down menus and instead take over the top couple of inches of realestate in the window and replace all the contents in that area when you select a new tab.
For me that is a little worse. I tend to configure my editing windows as large as possible, by removing toolbars I don't use frequently and keeping only those buttons I do use, in every mode.
Now it would seem I'll have to adjust each tab seperately. Won't know until I actually touch the real product, whenever my organization decides to drop down the money to upgrade.
Are Vista ribbons Lotus-1-2-3 menu rehash?
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 1
Ok, let me preface with the fact I've not seen the Vista UI yet, but when the article talked about the ribbon interface that changes based on what component had control, all I could think of was the old Lotus interface that didn't have drop down menus, but replaced the main bar with the sub-options depending on what you were doing.
First off let me preface by agreeing with you that a slightly thicker client model makes sense over the web application model.
That said, however, I don't think that will necessarily solve the problem. Most HTML form based code is already being intercepted by Java servlets and processed by Java, meaning the developers are taking the form fields and dumping them straight into SQL (for SQL injection issues). So moving to a different client isn't going to change that problem, the fields will just be captured in a different way.
Now, if the new client had higher levels of field validation built in (intelligent input widgets that blocked most strange characters unless specifically directed to allow them), that would help.
Many large companies use the concept of a 360 review, where managers are reviewed by all their direct reports and some of their peers. These types of reviews are generally anonymous questionnaires, so individuals are not directly connected to comments.
Make a friendly suggestion to your HR department that they should consider adopting this practice as it offers many benefits and helps employees feel more part of the company since they have a voice, albeit an anonymous one.
I've seen a few ineffectual managers moved out of their roles based on 360 feedback.
So if the students put copyright notices on their work before they turn it into the school, and the school and Turnitin.com make copies, the students should ask the **AA lawyers to help them fight this piracy. They could make the claim that they are being taught piracy in school, which means it isn't their fault they are taking music.
Speaking of TCL, why is it that it gets so little attention? With starkits TCL has the ability to simply create a single file executable, that doesn't require a local installation of a heavy VM.
It offers the scripting abilities people seem to want, is fairly easy to learn, has a nice set of available libraries.
Why does it seem to get overlooked? To me the startkit capability puts it head and shoulders above all the other scripted/interpreted languages since for little more than a meg in size I can have, as an example, a complete webserver in a single file that only requires a file copy to install.
What you will ultimately have to produce is a CBA (cost/benefit analysis) to support your position. Just having the management try to use the software will not do it.
To get cost, you will first need to define your strategy for implementing a User Centered Design model. Does this mean bringing in actual users to work with the designers or using a usability lab? In the former you may need to pay a user for being part of the team, in the latter you might get volunteers to test but you'll have to pay for the lab. Additionally you'll need to determine cost in increased developer labor and testing.
Then you have to produce the benefit portion. Consider things like:
Is your customer base migrating to a competitor more frequently than previously? Has customer service interviewed any to find out why?
Review support call logs from the current and previous versions. How many of them were resolved by the support desk explaining a sequence of steps versus how many required new code changes?
Do you solicit regular customer feedback and if so, review those messages for usability issues
A big one to consider, government regulations on usability. Do you try to sell your product into any government (local/state/federal) settings? If so, you'll eventually have to meet certain requirements there.
Once you have assembled your CBA, and can articulate your approach, you'll be in a much better position to present. Don't even worry about whether it affects your job specifically, that is not what will sell it.
A company's upper management, when faced with a decision will tend to lean toward the cheaper appearing solution. Unless you can substantiate a CBA, then cost alone will generally drive the decisions.
Heard a blurb on NPR this week or last from a tech historian of sorts. He made mention of something regarding the IBM licensing of DOS I had not heard before. According to this fellow, Microsoft didn't convince IBM to license the software, instead IBM was trying to feel it's way around after the 1972 antitrust case and they weren't certain they would be allowed to own the software.
If that is true, than Bill Gates really wasn't that shrewd a businessman, as that was IBM's plan all along.
The other day while driving to work I heard a reporterette on NPR discussing the rumor of Google buying Napster. She was trying to say how it would be a good thing for Google to offer free music.
During the report, she said that Google could do so without using DRM, an anti-hacker technology.
Granted, NPR may not have the most technically savvy folks, but if they are calling digital rights management a counter measure to hacking, and enough people believe it, then you can bet it will take hold. After all, only hackers wouldn't want an anti-hacking measure built into their computers, right?
Slashdot Mirror
But how do you know if a restaurant serves transfats?
This is a good point. I think the government's role should be the unbiased publication of factual research data (I support government funded research for everyone's quality of life), in simple layman's terms, of what impact a given activity can have on your health. Then you decide. If you decide to participate in an activity that is harmful, then along with all the claimed rights you have, you also have to accept the responsibilities.
Of course we have to ensure the government reports get as much (or more) press as the corporate advertising trying to convince you otherwise, similar to how the tobacco industry has to run ads showing details of the harmfulness of smoking.
No level of government should be deciding that legal products be banned due to health issues that may arise. They should provide facts. By the same token, people should not be able to live totally destructive lifestyles and expect the taxpayers to come in later and pick up the bill.
Too bad the founding fathers didn't add a Bill of Responsibilities along with the Bill of Rights.
Of course this is a humorous post, but I have to ask, what does a namespace construct provide that you don't have with JavaScript already?
to quote Wikipedia a namespace is an abstract container providing context for the items (names, or technical terms, or words) it holds and allows disambiguation of items having the same name (residing in different namespaces)
Couldn't you achieve the same thing by grouping variables (or functions) as attributes of an object prototype since JavaScript allows dynamically adding variables (or functions) to objects?
Wouldn't something like
be equivalent to
Now granted, a namespace usually exists only once in a running context where as a JavaScript object can have multiple instantiations, but nothing would prevent the program from only creating and using one copy of the object to simulate the same environment.
Basically all this is syntactic sugar anyway. Object Orientation, Namespaces, Classes vs Prototypes, just different high level means of segregating data and grouping functions which are byte arrays in memory.
Thank you for this, I had coffee coming out of my nose when I read it.
But I have to ask, how do you know your pet rock is a she?
Not worried about looking like a newb, but thanks for the concern, since I've been designing systems, writing and selling software since 1981. And in all that time, I really don't recall an over abundance of the word elegant being used to describe software.
It just seemed that every single programming language discussion I've reviewed recently describes their preferred langauge/approach as the most elegant solution.
It just strikes me as the new l33t, but maybe it's just my age.
Not to pick on your post, but will someone please explain to me the recent need to describe software solutions as elegant?
I was researching over the weekend comparisons of the major web application platforms and languages and if I read its a more elegant approach once I read it a hundred times.
It appears elegant is the new buzzword amongst coders, but it doesn't appear to have any real meaning. Personally I like simple, clean, performant, comprehensible and maintainable as adjectives to describe software solutions.
Elegant is the word used to describe a well dressed, classy lady, not a solution to a software problem
</rantOn>That wasn't Powell, it was supposedly Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, and he denies saying it.
From the NPR Story"
Instead, Armitage says, he told Pakistan's top intelligence official on Sept. 12, 2001, that Pakistan would have to decide if it were "with us or against us" in the American effort to confront al-Qaida and the Taliban.
"It would be completely out of character for me to threaten the use of military force when I was not authorized to do so," Armitage says. "I don't command aircraft and could not make good on such a threat."
Think back to the 70's and 80's on the discussions of the Neutron Bomb.
One of its purported purposes was to kill people, but leave buildings standing. Then an occupying force could come in days later with infratructure intact.
Many argued the buildings would be unusable, but some thought it was viable.
So to answer your question, there would be people to use the infrastructure, just not the people that built it.
for all these tears of legal harrassment
Interesting keyboard slip.
I recall from my high school days there was a situation in my hometown where a man left his wife and ran off with another younger woman to a different country.
They started running low on cash, so the man sent a letter to his wife telling her to sell his car (a nice one, Mercedes I believe) and send him the cash.
She advertised the car for $10. Folks thought it was a joke or misprint, but someone called up and bought the car for $10. A number of my friends said they'd seen the ad but ignored it thinking it was a misprint.
The man came back and tried to claim in court the sale was illegal. The court ruled his letter effectively gave his wife the power of attorney to do as she pleased, but it never set a minimum price. Also my home state was a community property state anyway so the court said she had her own rights to the car.
The man ended up with $10 and attorney's fees. The woman got everything else.
Most sales folks I know are on commission. Their base salary is not very high. They work to land the big money deals not so much to be the 'hero', but because that is where the bulk of their salary comes from.
If it so happens the deal is big enough, they may be able to buy a new BMW from the commission.
But if they don't land the deal, the don't make the money.
So basically they traded a guaranteed salary level for the chance to make more on commission. There's nothing stopping developers from asking their management for the same deal:
I'll take a pay cut if you give me a commission based on the sales of the units I deliver, less the operational costs.
Ask and see how they respond.
Is it the fact that many aren't upset because the law is flawed or because they just didn't agree with the law in the first place so they are happy someone got off on a technicality? It's a subtle difference.
A law should be considered flawed when it unfairly criminalizes an activity. What is the flaw in the law as written? Why is it unfair?
I'm geniuninely asking as I have not personally seen the law so do not know how it is written. Is there something wrong with it, other than being semi-unenforceable?
I agree completely, why shouldn't a country expect anyone that wishes to move in learn the local language? Applying a speak only [insert your language here] on the streets would be dumb for tourists, but as an integral part of gaining citizenship, there is no reason for not learning the local language.
I recall some years back when I was in the Army stationed in Germany. I was in an intelligence unit (cue the oxymoron jokes about military intelligence) stationed alongside combat troops.
Many of us in my unit made concerted efforts to learn German and practiced when we could. Many of the ground forces had the attitude of we're here defending them (during the cold war), so I shouldn't need to learn their language.
Though I was never fluent, what I discovered was that if I made attempts to communicate in German, even though nearly all Germans spoke English, the people were generally friendlier than if I only spoke English. I had more than one store clerk or waitress laugh at my attempts (good naturedly) and switch to English and correct my speech. I found it very rewarding.
The US is at a big disadvantage in not emphasizing multi-language education as many European countries do. The US recently identified immigrants of Hispanic origin to be the largest minority group. Soon, English speakers will be out numbered by Spanish speakers. Would be nice if we were multilingual, but asking immigrants to learn English to gain US citizenship should be acceptable. Interstingly though, English was never codified as the official language for the US. It won by one vote over German during the founding so it was never enshrined in law.
Agree in sentiment that if the law is flawed, technicalities help prevent it being enforced. But is this law fundementally flawed? If so, on what grounds? If not, then expect the technicality to be fixed.
Reading through the comments shows a number of competing needs. It got me to thinking about who exactly is asking for the various technologies. This is what I'm seeing.
Notice the users haven't been mentioned in the last couple of entries. Developers and system folks have been playing with technologies, but the users have just been taking it. Now users are flexing their muscles again and they want to go back to the days of responsive, more easy to use applications.
So what do we do? We take the technologies we have all become very familiar with and try to force it to meet these needs. Unfortunately the technology was never really intended for this usage.
All of this leads to my question, Who really wants what? Well, as I see it
So if there is a decreased importance on delivering excellence, then where exactly do these components come from? Won't they need to be excellent in order to be used in mundane systems?
This is just like the whole outsource debate. If you outsource all your low level development because we don't need a staff of junior developers when we can pay others to do it, then exactly where do the architects and system designers come from who are supposed to design what the outsourced staff builds? It certainly isn't from any college I'm aware of.
Without experience building software (which you get as a junior developer) it's hard to be a software designer.
Thanks for the link.
From the brief bit I saw, didn't seem to be much of an improvement to me. So they eliminated drop down menus and instead take over the top couple of inches of realestate in the window and replace all the contents in that area when you select a new tab.
For me that is a little worse. I tend to configure my editing windows as large as possible, by removing toolbars I don't use frequently and keeping only those buttons I do use, in every mode.
Now it would seem I'll have to adjust each tab seperately. Won't know until I actually touch the real product, whenever my organization decides to drop down the money to upgrade.
Ok, let me preface with the fact I've not seen the Vista UI yet, but when the article talked about the ribbon interface that changes based on what component had control, all I could think of was the old Lotus interface that didn't have drop down menus, but replaced the main bar with the sub-options depending on what you were doing.
Can anyone say if the ribbon model is similar?
First off let me preface by agreeing with you that a slightly thicker client model makes sense over the web application model.
That said, however, I don't think that will necessarily solve the problem. Most HTML form based code is already being intercepted by Java servlets and processed by Java, meaning the developers are taking the form fields and dumping them straight into SQL (for SQL injection issues). So moving to a different client isn't going to change that problem, the fields will just be captured in a different way.
Now, if the new client had higher levels of field validation built in (intelligent input widgets that blocked most strange characters unless specifically directed to allow them), that would help.
Many large companies use the concept of a 360 review, where managers are reviewed by all their direct reports and some of their peers. These types of reviews are generally anonymous questionnaires, so individuals are not directly connected to comments.
Make a friendly suggestion to your HR department that they should consider adopting this practice as it offers many benefits and helps employees feel more part of the company since they have a voice, albeit an anonymous one.
I've seen a few ineffectual managers moved out of their roles based on 360 feedback.
So if the students put copyright notices on their work before they turn it into the school, and the school and Turnitin.com make copies, the students should ask the **AA lawyers to help them fight this piracy. They could make the claim that they are being taught piracy in school, which means it isn't their fault they are taking music.
Speaking of TCL, why is it that it gets so little attention? With starkits TCL has the ability to simply create a single file executable, that doesn't require a local installation of a heavy VM.
It offers the scripting abilities people seem to want, is fairly easy to learn, has a nice set of available libraries.
Why does it seem to get overlooked? To me the startkit capability puts it head and shoulders above all the other scripted/interpreted languages since for little more than a meg in size I can have, as an example, a complete webserver in a single file that only requires a file copy to install.
What you will ultimately have to produce is a CBA (cost/benefit analysis) to support your position. Just having the management try to use the software will not do it.
To get cost, you will first need to define your strategy for implementing a User Centered Design model. Does this mean bringing in actual users to work with the designers or using a usability lab? In the former you may need to pay a user for being part of the team, in the latter you might get volunteers to test but you'll have to pay for the lab. Additionally you'll need to determine cost in increased developer labor and testing.
Then you have to produce the benefit portion. Consider things like:
Once you have assembled your CBA, and can articulate your approach, you'll be in a much better position to present. Don't even worry about whether it affects your job specifically, that is not what will sell it.
A company's upper management, when faced with a decision will tend to lean toward the cheaper appearing solution. Unless you can substantiate a CBA, then cost alone will generally drive the decisions.
I believe the title was 'Silent Running'. 'Soylent Green' was a different movie with Charton Heston "Soylent Green is People!".
Heard a blurb on NPR this week or last from a tech historian of sorts. He made mention of something regarding the IBM licensing of DOS I had not heard before. According to this fellow, Microsoft didn't convince IBM to license the software, instead IBM was trying to feel it's way around after the 1972 antitrust case and they weren't certain they would be allowed to own the software.
If that is true, than Bill Gates really wasn't that shrewd a businessman, as that was IBM's plan all along.
The other day while driving to work I heard a reporterette on NPR discussing the rumor of Google buying Napster. She was trying to say how it would be a good thing for Google to offer free music.
During the report, she said that Google could do so without using DRM, an anti-hacker technology.
Granted, NPR may not have the most technically savvy folks, but if they are calling digital rights management a counter measure to hacking, and enough people believe it, then you can bet it will take hold. After all, only hackers wouldn't want an anti-hacking measure built into their computers, right?