>DRM allows other entities (who do not necessarily even have a cognizable privacy claim) to control how you use books and the like after they have been sold. Particularly invasive DRM may, besides restricting your freedoms to use these items in novel ways may also intrude directly into your sense of privacy.

I worked at a major movie download/streaming company for many years, I know all about that type of business DRM situation.

If you don't like DRM, THEN DON'T BUY IT FROM THEM. If you do buy it from them then you are supporting their business model. Nobody at corporate HQ cares if geeks want "freedom" to move the content around from device to device which they purchased under specific terms of use. Restrictive DRM measures are in place to monetize the content as much as possible and extract as much money as possible from the average consumer (non-geeks).

Someone will still pay for it, and DRM serves its purpose.

Newsgroups also serve a purpose, as do VPNs, and Tor, and encryption, and exploits, and open wifi connections, etc.

>this is because you cannot comprehend the concept of privacy You do not know me, you cannot make this statement with any credibility. You sound like a troll. I love Truecrypt, and I also love money. I've never used facebook or twitter or any social sites except slashdot and a few others. You don't really expect you have any privacy here, do you? DRM serves a useful purpose for people who have content to sell. From my point of view, people who think DRM is a horrible idea usually have unrealistic views of the world, and a sense of entitlement.

I love how slashdotters all want privacy and encryption but DRM is somehow bad.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(Doctor_Who) Time Lords used to have 13 lives." In Death of the Doctor (a 2010 The Sarah Jane Adventures serial), the Eleventh Doctor responds to a question from Clyde Langer by saying he can regenerate "507" times. Early news reports, before the episode was broadcast, suggested he would say there is no limit to the number of regenerations.[11] Writer Russell T Davies explained in an interview with SFX that the line was not intended to be taken seriously and is instead a commentary. He insisted that the "thirteen lives" rule was too deeply entrenched in the viewer consciousness for his throwaway line to affect it.[12]

They have Model B, but no Model A. I want a Model A because I plan to use the device as an embedded controller and I will likely code my own assembly or C code, no need for a linux stack. So, where can I get a $25 Model A in the USA?

Can you get a 50mm machine gun, or does anyone in the public need one? NO. And I'm very happy that is the case. Your rights to own such a thing are already limited, and for good reason.

You are nuts if you think any type of assault weapon need to be sold to citizens.

You are nuts if you think by restricting access to certain types of weapons THAT SERVE NO PURPOSE BUT MASS MURDER is somehow going to lead to restricting all of your rights.
Good riddance to these weapons, we do not have any need for them in this society.

If you are getting headaches from using a computer, you have more serious issues than the color of a webpage. You should really get that checked out.

The internet, and computer applications as a whole do not give people headaches because of the color schemes used. If this were the case, computers would be labeled with warning stickers - "May cause headaches". This is simply not the case. You are straining so hard to try to make an erroneous point. Just because you get headaches from a specific color scheme on a screen does not mean the rest of us do. I've been staring at computer screens 12+ hours a day for the last 30 years and I've never once had a headache that I thought was induced by the default colors of the applications open on my screen.

Developers aren't "forcing their own color schemes", they use color schemes that are widely accepted as being productive and useful and that work for the majority of people using their products. Catering to an edge case only makes the job that much more difficult if they have to satisfy the functional requirements as well as make it work with any color choice the user wants. It's absurd.

>It should be expected in fact

What kind of rock do you live under? You really expect users to tweak the colors of a webpage?? I think you are giving too much credit to the vast majority of users that make up the internet. Not everyone is an uber-nerd. Nobody really cares about changing the color of every webpage, or even a single webpage. The vast majority of users simply do not care or even know that it is possible, and would never think twice about doing it.

>Any designer can create a webpage that looks good when a user tweaks the colors.

Here you are just being plain crazy. Have you ever worked with a designer?? Have you ever created a webpage? It sure doesn't sound like it.

>Another mediocre experience is when I have to use another persons computer who has Ctrl and Capslock in the place modern keyboards assume. I always change that to the way the FSM intended.

Now you're just babbling, or trolling.

A mediocre experience would be what OP has written about his edge case - "but have to constantly tweak it so that certain elements and transparent images are visible." The fixation on custom colors is what is creating the mediocre experience, not the web page that was designed to look a specific way. No designer can create a web page that will look good when a user tweaks the background color and other colors. It just isn't going to turn out well.

Sometimes being different is difficult. You are an edge case, and a very insignificant one at that.

If you want your own color schemes in everything then you're gonna have a bad time. Software and webpages aren't created for your edge case, these things are created for people who don't have a color scheme preference.

Learning to "go with the flow" will get you better mileage than trying to make everything bend to your edge case.

"I mean, if i copied 200 gig across 3 drives in a jbod raid, could i plug just one drive in to access the information on another machine? Suppose my laptop only has 2 usb ports and i do not have a hub plus i'm running a different OS, does this mean i can't look for information on the set?"

This falls outside of what OP is requesting. He just wants to backup 24TB of data onto multiple USB drives.

USB can support up to 127 devices connected to a single host controller, so with a few hubs OP could connect all the drives he'd need for the back up all at once. I've run my own drives via external USB for a time, probably around 8TB of various sized drives using cheap USB-to-SATA adapters ($3.00 on ebay), and cheap 7-port USB hubs ($5.00 on ebay). It's not the fastest solution but it never gave me a problem. It was an experiment to see how many drives I could hook up with cheap Chinese parts. I had it running for a year before I started switching things over to USB3.

"the asteroid would need to be split at almost the exact point that it could feasibly be detected at 8 billion miles, the students said"

The distance from the earth to the sun is only 92 MILLION miles. I think their estimate of 8 billion miles is probably a little bit off.. and maybe so is the rest of their math.

YOU are a ridiculous twat. Wow, just wow...... surely, Iran is really going to design nuclear weapons on an IPAD. Give me a break!!!! Seriously?!?! Is that what you think? You are a waste of electrons.

Chrome's auto-update killed our business that relies heavily on SVG. They introduced a bug to their SVG code that made our product unusable, and since we were relying on chrome-frame for IE, it didn't affect just our chrome users. Fortunately it was fixed within a month but that was a month of hell for us.

Sounds like Facebook spent $200,000 fixing their security holes that he found. Security through obscurity is not security. In light of his 'tax-registered security company' status, and past efforts with Yahoo, I think the judge in this case made the wrong decision.