The difference is that I'm talking about general concepts and you're moving the goalposts and picking out specific implementations to try and construct a semantic argument.
DRM implementations inevitably lead to imcompatability. The difference between theory & practice is perfectly relevant in the real world.
If you legislate against DRM-capable players, all you do is create yet another level of incompatibility and confusion in the market, forcing consuemrs to go out and buy more hardware and hardware manufacturers to change their products (again).
No, you get exactly the same result as if you legislate against DRMd content. You'll end up without DRMd content or players preceeded by a period of incompatibility and confusion in the market.
I'm not talking about the DRM in itunes/wmp that prevents you copying media content, but the DRM in the OS that prevents you from copying the OS itself.
DRM is an attribute of the media,
DRM is in both the media & the player. Pointing at one or the other is stupid.
Even the worst case scenarios aren't exactly that catastrophic, at least not for us in the 1st world, and will be, if anything, just a minor inconvience.
Are you fucking stupid? Have you heard of the Stern report? 20% shrinkage of the world economy a 'minor inconvenience?
Using a biased source to purport another source to be biased is pretty hypocritical.
Why do you say real climate is biased? They don't seem to be:
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.
I have heard people describe realclimate as biased again and again, without a shred of evidence to back it up. Do you have any evidence? Or are you basing real climate being biased on truthiness?
One conclusion both sources make is that Greenpeace applies different criteria to different companies and seems to be targeting Apple due to the company's visibility.
Errrr, I didn't read that conclusion in the Business week article. Can you please explain how Greenpeace is applying different criteria to different companies?
The article you linked to was fluff. To summarize, it says "I feel Apple is green, Steve Jobs is a vegeterian and Michael Dell eats meat. Why is Apple ranked so low?"
It's quite simple why Apple's on the bottom of the list. All the other companies have done something to green up. Sony Erricson's eliminated PVC & BFRs. Dell's adopted a worldwide takeback policy & committed to a date for elimination of PVC & BFRs. Lenovo's also got a takeback policy & reports on recycling as a percentage of sales (as opposed to Apple's "just trust us" policy.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that I'm talking about general concepts and you're moving the goalposts and picking out specific implementations to try and construct a semantic argument.
DRM implementations inevitably lead to imcompatability. The difference between theory & practice is perfectly relevant in the real world.
If you legislate against DRM-capable players, all you do is create yet another level of incompatibility and confusion in the market, forcing consuemrs to go out and buy more hardware and hardware manufacturers to change their products (again).
No, you get exactly the same result as if you legislate against DRMd content. You'll end up without DRMd content or players preceeded by a period of incompatibility and confusion in the market.
Which would be what, exactly ?
Media. I guess my original post was clear enough. Your reply however led me to believe that you didn't understand that an OS is both player & content.
A DRM-capable player, however, can play both DRM-encumbered and regular media.
The way zune can play ITMS songs? The way ipods can play playsforsure content? I think the issue is not as simple as you think.
Attacking DRM via the players is like trying to kill the Hydra by chopping off its heads.
Not if it's done through legislation.
While DRM is a form of incompatibility this does not mean that every form of incompatibility is DRM.
Encrypted binaries that check hardware before allowing decryption is not incompatibility.
Apple makes Mac OS X for their own hardware which is not just a generic PC.
Yes.
If vmware where to emulate a real intel Mac, Mac OS X would run on it. However... vmware does not, so Mac OS X does not.
No, you have no understanding at all what the issues are here. Here's a cluestick to beat yourself with before posting in future.
You misunderstood my post.
I'm not talking about the DRM in itunes/wmp that prevents you copying media content, but the DRM in the OS that prevents you from copying the OS itself.
DRM is an attribute of the media,
DRM is in both the media & the player. Pointing at one or the other is stupid.
but Apple only provides DRM-free versions of their operating system.
Really? Apple sells a version of OS X that I can run under vmware? I guess the osx86 project can shut down now.
It also proposes a ban on DRM technology
The article only mentions music - what about software? Would Apple and Microsoft have to provide DRM-free versions of their operating systems?
Interesting - maybe I can use this new feature to get first post? ;-)
The UN, the EU, and the Arab League say it's not a problem.
Got anything to back that up with (all parties, not just the arab league)? Or are you talking out of your ass?
That's not a problem with linux, but a problem with one user's perception of Gentoo. The GP even explicitly made that clear:Considering that was the introduction to the statement you quoted, I'm not quite sure how you missed it.
Nice to see we agree on something.
now, if subscribers could post more than 1 comment every 10 minutes, it might be appealing.
I can post more than 1 comment every 10 minutes. Subscriber or not. Perhaps try trolling less?
Even the worst case scenarios aren't exactly that catastrophic, at least not for us in the 1st world, and will be, if anything, just a minor inconvience.
Are you fucking stupid? Have you heard of the Stern report? 20% shrinkage of the world economy a 'minor inconvenience?
That's not even a worst case scenario.
what's the point in subscribers being able to see future articles if any old regular member can just go and look at the firehose?
The firehose is full of shit - like journals. resubmitted stories, etc.
I guess you can make the same argument about future articles, but at least there's less crap to wade through...
Why do you say real climate is biased? They don't seem to be:
I have heard people describe realclimate as biased again and again, without a shred of evidence to back it up. Do you have any evidence? Or are you basing real climate being biased on truthiness?
find that all Intel CPUs contain BFRs. Do those commitments about eliminating BFRs mean those company like DELL
How about Apple stop using BFRs in their portable line? Nokia & Sony/Ericsson mangaged to.
Oooooooh right. We should only compare Apple to Dell.
That business week article is the same article the OP posted - just syndicated on a different website. Do you read the threads you're responding to?
Roughly drafted? Sorry. They have no credibility after being busted spamming digg
One conclusion both sources make is that Greenpeace applies different criteria to different companies and seems to be targeting Apple due to the company's visibility.
Errrr, I didn't read that conclusion in the Business week article. Can you please explain how Greenpeace is applying different criteria to different companies?
"The Economist magazine has an article on Flying wind farms. Mind you, we're not talking about ordinary, terrestrial windmills here.
You're kidding? Flying wind farms aren't ordinary, terrestrial windmills? You learn something new every day!
but I still wouldn't choose to allow my money to fund the militaristic policies of the Chinese state.
I wouldn't buy a computer then (or just about anything else).
You do realise that Apple PCs are made in exactly the same Chinese factories as other PCs? Using the same cheap 60-hours-a-week-isnt-overtime labour?
The article you linked to was fluff. To summarize, it says "I feel Apple is green, Steve Jobs is a vegeterian and Michael Dell eats meat. Why is Apple ranked so low?"
Read Greenpeace's report here.
It's quite simple why Apple's on the bottom of the list. All the other companies have done something to green up. Sony Erricson's eliminated PVC & BFRs. Dell's adopted a worldwide takeback policy & committed to a date for elimination of PVC & BFRs. Lenovo's also got a takeback policy & reports on recycling as a percentage of sales (as opposed to Apple's "just trust us" policy.
Star Wars is fantasy, not science fiction.
Yeah! And I want to know why LOTR wasn't on the list?
Is there a market for super efficient cars that look like tampons with wheels?
Wait till fuel hits $15/G & there'll be a market for super efficient cars that look like penises with wheels.
So to you, a man is a hypocrite when he speaks out against something, and works to change it?
Of course not, I think someone's a hypocrite when they speak out against something whilst allowing it to happen within their own company(ies).
There is no way to legally get a standalone, retail copy of Mac OS X (Intel) for AppleTV
What if I bought a family pack of licenses to tiger from Apple?
It's taken out of context.
By me or the NYT? (or both I guess)
Steve was lying about Apple's preference for no DRM to man up and apologize here in this thread.
I said Jobs was hypocritical for arguing against DRM while Apple seems happy to dish DRM out to its customers.
If it's not true, well, there's always another day.
Judging by the fact that you're not willing to login, I'd say it's going to be another day....