skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Because Adobe will be writing a closed-source module distributed in a binary form, you'll end up with the exact same situation as with plugins IMHO.

Only a subset of the available OS and processor architectures will be supported.

Flash was designed years ago and even though everyone wants it to die, we're still feeling its pain.
Designing a similar solution in 2014 is just asking for trouble for the next 10-20 years IMO.

Oh, and you're giving up the opportunity/right to audit the code that runs on your devices.
That's true, things that sound simple on the surface often turn out to be pretty complex in implementation. I think that the number of people making purchases without cell phones on them is converging towards zero and will be there soon, so I think it's safe to think about these systems now.

What about implementing a 2FA system for larger purchases (online or off), implemented in an app on the consumer's phone like google authenticator or sms? Swipe your card at checkout, if amount is > $XX (or otherwise suspicious according to current models), prompt the buyer for a one-time code from SMS or an app. I use the same system when logging into gmail, my bank account, etc - I'd have no problem (and would even welcome) a similar system when using plastic. It's at least a lot more convenient than having the txn declined and your card disabled until you call their security hotline. This way, thieves would need to steal your card and your phone to cause damage.
Rule number one of Grunt: "If you can npm it, you soon will be able to Grunt it(or Gulp it for that matter)"
think this is really cool. Do you support compressed DNG? I used that a lot when moving raw files across the internet, comes out a lot smaller while still retaining 12bit raw

The next part - processing the debayered pic on the browser. I like ACR a lot, the highlight recovery is the best I've seen.. plans?
Intro++ to Go Interfaces
you are right, I haven't stated my point correctly.

The missing point is that of the market demand. DRM is out there, it's too late. It will be used anyway, with flash\silverlight or what have you.

So, this demand should be answered, using flash is no overhead for the site, but rather a bad thing for the end user. not implementing DRM isn't hurting the sites wants it, at that point, it only hurts the end users. so implementing it is the right decision.
I liked Ubuntu's approach where they asked you on startup if you want to install/enable proprietary packages like Flash or some graphics drivers.

Is it tough for Mozilla to prompt the user to do something similar with DRM stuff on first run? i.e. Telling them these are the features not supported by Mozilla in principle but are a) implemented to be in compliance with standards and b) required if you choose to use services like Netflix.

That way I would still have the option to run a DRM free browser (and voluntarily not use websites that require DRM).
Wreckage Off Haiti May Be Christopher Columbus's Santa Maria
Interesting and thanks for sharing. I've been using https://gaenserich.github.io/hostsblock/
Apple disabled Flash for "security reasons." You can certainly read in politics, but the reason they gave was that it was the #1 attack vector on Macs and they had no way of securing it. And more importantly, nearly everybody else was on Apple's side in this fight. Other browser makers had problems with Flash too. Mac users largely hated Flash because it had terrible performance on that platform. Even Adobe was cooling off toward Flash as it became more and more clear that it wouldn't work on mobile platforms.

Mozilla's position here is not at all similar to Apple's position then, so their options are not the same.
If you won't tell me what it is/what it does, why would I give you my information? 'Keep your family life centered'? What does that even mean?
There is nothing closed being put into the standard.
This seems unlikely, and in fact, Firefox has been moving in the opposite direction with other binary components (Flash, Java, Silverlight). Newer builds of Firefox require you to explicitly confirm that you'd like to allow <site> to execute plugin code. I doubt this will change any time soon.

I'd rather have a (albeit stupid) DRM executable that only performs encryption/decryption than Flash, Java, or Silverlight, which are the current solutions for this. All three of these offer APIs for doing things other than decrypting DRM content, and these APIs have been proven time and time again to be vulnerable to attack, no matter how much time is spent trying to sandbox them properly.
Will Elon Musk fund a Nikola Tesla museum?
Running your scroll within requestAnimationFrame isn't what makes the scrolling smooth, its the scroll multiplier which does it, making sure that deltas (or changes) in the y-position are normalized down into what will eventually be a zero, but over time. By constantly updating the future scroll position by running in through the equation and then applying it to your container whenever the user scrolls, you'll achieve a nice ease, which can then be dispatched to each of your parallax layers.

Here, I've just pushed an example to Github and Firebase. Feel free to check it out and let me know if you have any questions:

https://smoothscroll.firebaseapp.com/

https://github.com/damassi/smooth-scroll-example
Yes, but: I made that decision in 1992, when the ROI calculation was very different. If given the choice right now I would probably not go to college without a scholarship covering most costs, as the financial costs of going are much higher, and the opportunity costs of not going are much lower.
I applied for the discount and they asked for my graduation date. I presume that they will remove the discount after the given year. Not sure about the permanent positions, though.

Edit: Github approved my discount and gave me a coupon for 2 years (even though I will graduate later than that).
If enough people want it, then yes.
Why doesn't the article address the elephant in the room: the websites that make private information available are at fault here, Google is only the proverbial messenger. I'm all for the right to be forgotten, but the problem should be addressed at the source.
it seems, given the existence of a market for commercially archiving/indexing ala lexisnexis, this means that europeans will have the right to be forgotten by their neighbours (using google), but not by their neighbour's lawyers (using lexis/etc). they might be subject to the same rules, but most of the time people don't know these services and so are not going to request it. weird ruling.

p.s.: also read James Ball @ the guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/right-t...
Apple also did this for performance and usability reasons. And when Apple did it, there were no smartphone alternatives that provided a sufficiently good Flash experience.

And before you say Android had Flash, I had an Android device that could run Flash in 2011. It was a pretty useless feature.
Wow that's wonderful. I can't wait until the police start playing that track at demonstrations.
Mozilla has explicitly said the DRM plugin won't run without user consent.

How this prompt exactly looks isn't clear to me, but it seems like you're getting the option you want today.
The comments give reason to believe this isn't the cause, but my first instinct was that NaN cannot be equal to NaN as it isn't clear what the object represents. As Mike C states in his answer: "Another way to look at it is that NaN just gives you information about what something ISN'T, not what it is."

But is this an effective way of looking at the question? In reality what you're trying to do is not compare a NaN to another NaN, you're actually attempting to check if both objects are NaN. This hurts my brain.
I doubt netflix looses much business because they require silverlight to watch.

On the contrary, making DRM tech more accessible to developers will only help young startups build platforms that are "content provider friendly". This will promote competition in the online entertainment space and ultimately drive prices down.

I'm no fan of DRM but I see the value it serves. Just like advertising. I don't see why everybody is making such a fuss about this when we already have a wide proliferation of plugin-based DRM. Why are people complaining that it is moving towards an even more open layer?
They still have my trust, but I feel like I just heard by girlfriend cheated. And yes--I have no life. I never thought I would care about stuff like this, but I do.
What does this mean for the TOR project? Will they have to bundle an old version of Firefox without the proprietary DRM component?
Don't try to standardize it first; work with Mozilla and Chrome, add an experimental API, and then take the resulting API to WHATWG (preferred) or W3C for standardization.
I don't buy your definition for greed, but even so this case doesn't fit.

Copyright law provides for the difference between a one-time and perpetual license for content. Clearly, viewing content multiple times is more valuable than watching it once, and thus is appropriate for price differentiation.

The fact that the company could take less profit by marking both as the same low price is irrelevant.
Lightroom is Adobe, not Autodesk.

That said though, there's a reason these products exist and there are people who need them.
There was an issue with https/drakma, but I believe that was fixed in a recent version and you can now use https/drakma. (Previously http only).
https://www.haiku-os.org/community/forum/so_i_got_bored_whil...
I chose yes, but I really only have sporadic bouts of regret triggered by a specific event: not being able to grok things. Whenever I cannot wrap my head around a CS concept, I blame my postponement of my degree. Whatever it may be, I feel like I would have learned it at university. If I would have finished, I probably wouldn't have learned most of those things, but at least I wouldn't have that nagging feeling every time.
It sounds to me like she doesn't know that 'cloud' is just the internet.
> But a book is not a movie. You can't take your physical book and let 500 people read it simultaneously.

So what? Because you can make 500 copies doesn't justify using an unethical police state approach which DRM implies (i.e. treating all users as criminals by default). DRM is unethical by definition, because it's an overreaching preemptive policing. One would reject all DRM on the same ethical grounds one would reject police state approach to society.

That's besides the fact that DRM doesn't prevent any piracy, since it's broken practically right away and subsequent pirates never deal with it. Therefore this argument of copies is completely irrelevant to justify it.

> Because of the extreme ease of reproduction + distribution, coupled with the near zero chance of being caught, is a strong incentive to violate IP law.

Again, DRM has no effect on easiness of illegal reproduction (see above). It has nothing to do with incentives or fear of being caught. It's the same with or without DRM.

> What you said has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the validity of limited-time licensing of the right to view content.

I disagree. If you have some point to present for the benefit of the discussion, address what I expressed above, otherwise we just affirm our disagreement.

> Not only that, but if you did remove all limitations (and restricting access to the duration of your membership is, of course, a limitation), then there would be no reason for people to stay Netflix members for longer than it takes to download and save all the movies they want to watch for the next few months.

Even that out with a fee per file. That would prevent downloading the whole catalog at once.

> Because it's better than nothing.

No, it's worse than nothing, because it cripples usability for legitimate users while having no effect on pirates.

> New content is pirated pretty fast, sure, but stuff doesn't stay easily available forever

On the contrary. Once it's pirated by the first pirates which scrape DRM, it becomes easily available practically forever for the rest of the pirates.

> Without DRM, if I have a friend with a Netflix subscription, I can just ask him to grab a few movies and send them to me.

Too much hassle for potential pirates when they can access the same with just a few clicks through P2P networks. The scale of such copying can't compare. Pirating through P2P is waay more massive than any potential copying from friends. DRM doesn't make piracy neither more risky nor more scary. According to some, DRM actually only increases piracy (see an interview with CD Projekt Red).

> Granted, DRM solutions do not work particularly well.

They work - to cripple the product for users who pay for it. Plus they work for whatever shady reasons those who push for those solutions came up with. They surely don't work for stopping any piracy.
A few years ago there was a cost involved for switching to the iPhone. The only reason why you see this the other way round is that "no Flash" is now established (at least for mobile). On the other hand: no DRM in browser cannot be considered as established - so we are at the same point where the iPhone was some years ago.
Show HN: Massolit – online education in literature and the arts
Recently my organization locked down GitHub admin access and moved all access requests to a custom in-house app that uses the GitHub API. I found it mildly annoying at the time. Suddenly I am not the least bit annoyed.
The web is finished.

On to the next thing!

(I'm sooo glad my web writings are in plain text files rather than in other people's mysql databases)
It implements quite a lot of CL.

But it generates a static application. only a simple eval, no compile, no compile-file, no load, most code information is gone, etc. etc.

If the code makes use of various dynamic features of CL, then it won't run. Thus you have to port/write to a static variant of CL. But that's the purpose: small, static, efficient applications.
It is the wrong choice.

It's the same BS I remember reading on slides from graphics card vendors excusing some other way of selling the user down the river.

Content can adapt to reach their customers. Bend here and the web itself is under threat.

Mozilla needs a social contract like Debian, since it seems clear they can't rely on leadership for backbone.
So what you do is you use the DRM API to negotiate a way to transfer a decryption key to a secure hardware module in the consumer's device. Having the source code to the Firefox component doesn't give you access to the firmware or keys stored in the module. (Yes, you can hack hardware. But it's way more expensive.)
New York Attorney General Issues New Subpoena to Airbnb
I don't think DRM really prevents anyone from watching video. There are plenty of alternative options. For example, for popular films, one option would be not to use the streaming video service but instead purchase a DVD. Another alternative is to use a platform that supports the desired DRM-laden streaming video service. A more difficult approach would be to reverse engineer the DRM software and reimplement it for the chosen unsupported platform. So it's not ultimately limiting, at most it's a small inconvenience.

The same arguments apply to the issue of backups. It would be highly unusual for the only copy of a media product to be only accessible via a DRM-encumbered streaming video service.

I do see your point on the lack of trust though. In this case, hopefully Mozilla's sandboxing approach would go some way towards mitigating that. And the inevitable disassembly of whatever closed-source binary they release.
Has anyone found where you can get the Adobe CDM binary blob?
Ok, great. Go fuck yourself Mozilla. Now what?

What real alternative did they have? Unlike RMS, Mozilla have always played with a more pragmatic strategy. If you want to win this war, you need to educate users. Being that only a handful of people out there actively care about privacy issues and platform openness, you need to produce a compelling product first and foremost, and then push your agenda on top of that. If Mozilla were to not implement EME, they'd cripple their own capacity to reach those users, and the war would be as good as lost.
Is Applying Early Decision to College for Rich Kids?
> Basically its somewhere in between compiled languages and high level languages.

High level languages and compiled languages are pretty orthogonal. A language being interpreted/running on a VM# is not a prerequisite for being at a certain level or higher.

# And someone will complain that these are implementation details, not something to do with the abstract specification of the language itself.
Yea, it's pretty easy to get a good new domain. You can use pre-registration on sites like name.com and they basically compete with bigger companies on your behalf. The second a new domain name becomes available, they do everything in their power to be the winning registrar and get you the domain name you pre-registered.

A place like Domainsales.com is probably putting in pre-registrations on a lot of registrars, which increases their chance of winning the name because they then have multiple registrars trying to acquire the same domain name for them.
can't agree with you more here
Name.com doesn't have a fee. If you don't get the name you pre-register, you get a full refund.
Forks of Firefox such as the TOR browser bundle can simply not include or disable the wrapper if they wish, since it is a standalone component.
As far as I am concerned, video should be delivered to vlc via httpstreaming.

then, no browser involved.
Watch Netflix, the champion of "HTML5 DRM", go back to a plugin in order to use P2P streaming within the next 18 months.
So long as you're still consuming it you're still propagating the resulting culture, and encouraging other people to pay for it. Not everyone is in a position where they can so easily choose to flaunt the law.

It's best to support liberally licensed things and other alternatives; then your friends and family can share in them without taking the bigger step of choosing to ignore the law.
Mozilla was never "ayatollah of open web and open source". If it has been, firefox would have never been available on Windows, like some people at the time argued.

Google did well technically on Chrome, but investing a huge amount of marketing dollars (like bundling chrome with other nice things like toolbars) didn't hurt them.
ayatollah of open web and open source

That's FSF. And guess what? Everyone hates it! [0]

Nicest thing about Mozilla is that they have a great balance of ideology and being practical.

[0] Of course not everyone, specially not me. But you get my point.
What would be the signifigance of the COLA-adjusted terms?
I see the original returned to market, under the name Flappy Bird: New Season. (Canadian App market)
does it have anything to do with:

1. CA is a more of socialized state
2. CA has more diverse population, to get it straight, more Hispanic and blacks?

or something else?
Nice, I used your blog post while I was researching how to get everything up and running in January-ish.

The project is definitely exciting and fun to play with. The on-device repl is showcased well in this video.
Defense in numbers - there can be more plugins than there can be browsers. Creating a new plugin is much easier than creating a new web browser.

Besides, fewer people have installed the ad block than those who have browsers. This make for smaller incentive to develop workarounds, compared to situation where everyone has some sort of block.
If I want to watch Netflix I use a different browser. I don't need to use the same browser for everything online, and I especially don't enable Silverlight in my primary browser.
Rails, the 'Enterprise' and how software works in the 'real world'
A browser 1% of the internet uses is a browser nobody can use. We already have extensive problems with mobile sites being tuned to only work against webkit - or even worse, only work against safari - if Firefox's share drops into the single percentage points because things like Netflix, Farmville and Youtube don't work, due to the exclusion of proprietary web features like plugins and H264, it will become so insigificant that web developers don't even consider it during development.
Did you seriously just equate closed source graphics drivers to slavery?
> The fact that a market is free doesn't mean that producers can't sell on the terms they want.

Copyright laws stand in the way of a free market. If there was a free market anybody could make a copy of some content and sell it (perhaps they would have to pay parts of the profit to the original owners, but nevertheless anybody would basically allowed to sell what they want: that's what a free market is about).
The proposal has an inherent opt-out choice. Content providers provide media within DRM containers, users can choose if they get the media or not.

It's not like anybody can force you to watch the last Hollywood stuff.
Elon Musk’s Gigafactory: It’s Tesla’s next big move.
CAs are already preparing as well.

GlobalSign for example: https://www.globalsign.eu/ssl-information-center/transitioni...

And generally: https://casecurity.org/2014/01/30/why-we-need-to-move-to-sha...
Yes, my point exactly. Battle is lost. There's too much at stake here to cripple the long term for a moral victory.
It's open source - actually open source. If they make the CDM on by default, you change a bool in the .cpp file and recompile it.

Really, come on. You should understand this. Firefox isn't like Chromium, where the 'blessed' Google version, Chrome, has dozens of important features sitting behind proprietary black boxes - the Firefox you download off Mozilla's website is something you could literally compile yourself. I've compiled Firefox dozens of times, sometimes with in-development patches for things like gamepad support added in.

Your fear is pure paranoia.
Pretty sure it means it will run by default, and you'd have a to be part of a minority group on HN to know that you can even do that in Firefox.
The only redeeming feature is that AT&T is giving a discount for the service. I suspect they'd run in to more lawsuits about their monopoly status if they forced that decision on all consumers.

However, the plugin companies aren't in an ambiguous situation at all: someone who requests the page is explicitly requesting it to use the content to run a program which renders an image from it, and is under no contractual obligation (from merely making an HTTP request) to view the entirety of the content. They can neither complain that it's being processed (the browser inherently does that, to make an image from the text), and they can't complain that the end-user is failing to uphold their end of an agreement.

Because it's a user chosen process, and because of how content on the internet is relayed, there's no reason that the plugins are on any kind of shaky ground. (One notable exception would be interacting with dynamic content to bypass a paywall. There likely are other exceptions, but these come down to bypassing some kind of mechanism, not merely failing to load or render a particular portion of the sent content.)
Bullshit. Sometimes you're forced to either do something shitty or be competitively displaced by actors that will do it anyway. Do you really want Mozilla to fall on their sword and leave us with worse alternatives? I don't understand how you could be upset with Mozilla about this. The decision is basically being made for them.
So if you publish the DOI as a part of a paper, and then later improve the code in the Github repo (but of course not in the archived snapshot), is there some way that the people who follow the DOI could also find the improvements?