- set up a machine between your Xbox and router to do a packet capture
- disconnect every other device on the network (not necessary, but will reduce background "noise" from unrelated traffic)
- fire up the Xbox with the Kinect unhooked, and let it run for a bit, keeping an eye on the packets (I don't know much about Xbox networking, but I would guess anything transmitted outside port 80 would be suspect)
- hook up the Kinect and look for any changes in the packet capture
Of course, I'm fairly certain that if the Xbox phones home with the Kinect... uh, connected... it probably does it all the time, but maybe (assuming your hypothesis is correct and they're already watching you) the Kinect uses a different protocol or something.
No, seriously - if you're going to claim someone else's hypothesis is dubious, and summarily discount it, you'd better have some pretty damn compelling evidence to back your words. Otherwise, you just come off like one of those wacky religious zealots.
I'm not sure if that was meant to refer to something I said or not.
Yea it was.
If so, I'm quite curious what you were referring to.
You said,
fanboi' and 'fandroid' are automatic signals
Which implies that you harbor a preconceived notion that
the person writing the post turned off their brain
This is a generalization, and as Samuel Clemens taught us, "most generalizations are false, including this one."
Generalizations are the bastion of the non-thinker - it's an easy way to avoid having to consider all the possible reasons someone might engage in a particular activity, in this case, using the words "fanboi" and "fandroid", and to discount the opinions of others because of the arbitrary decision to label them with a generic denigration.
For example - I use words like fanboi and fandroid because, quite simply, I like language and think they're fun words to use. My usage has no nefarious purpose, nor is it a sign I have "turned off [my] brain" - in fact, quite the opposite (swapping 'y' with 'i' in 'fanboy' is a funny little phonetic twist, IMO).
We, as Americans, have a fucking duty to actively and collectively break every single law that does not follow the Supreme Law of the Land, aka the Constitution.
Ah, but you said yourself if the law is automatically trumped by the 8th Amendment, it isn't really a law. So why would breaking the law be necessary if it isn't really law after all?
Because the government will attempt to deny you your freedoms for doing what they deem (but what isn't actually) an illegal act.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but every armchair lawyer does not get to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. You thinking that the 8th Amendment trumps a "lesser" law does not mean it is so.
As I said before, this has nothing to do with what I think, it's purely a matter of the well established hierarchy of law in this nation. Anyone who actually passed 9th grade Civics should know that.
Not to mention, it's not like there's a whole lot of interpretation that needs to be done with:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
To say that such a simple, direct statement is need of interpretation is to insult the collective intellect of every single American citizen. While you might not have a problem with your government calling you an idiot, I sure as hell do.
That is what the court systems are for. I would trust a judge's interpretation of the law over yours any day, sorry.
I see - so if a judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that everyone must attend some kind of church, you would take his side? If so, you're the worst kind of traitor to your nation.
What you are offering up is anarchy, not strict adherence to the Constitution.
Actually, it's quite the opposite - what you offer, a world where judges (i.e., individuals with preconceived notions and prejudices that in no way represent an understanding of Constitutional law) are the sole decision makers in what constitutes a legitimate law, even when said decision flies in the face of everything this country is supposed to stand for, is the real definition of anarchy.
If everyone gets to interpret the law as they see fit, it is basically lawlessness because the law means nothing.
If by "everyone," you mean "activist judges that get paid to not give a fuck about your rights," I would agree. I would prefer we stick to the basic, obvious, well-known, well-established interpretations myself.
Yea, about that... according to your link, it appears the behavior you refer to of asking users for access per-permission is a brand new feature only available in iOS6, which was released in September of this year. So, prior to 2 months ago, iDevices had the same security issues you've implied are exclusive to the Android platform (not to mention, as not every iDevice can be updated to iOS 6, there will be many out there that still contain this flaw).
We, as American citizens, have not just a right but a duty to actively and collectively deny unconstitutional laws. This doesn't just mean breaking them; it means standing up for our fellow citizens when the brownshirts (or, rather, blue shirts) come to drag them off.
Right, and you saying the 8th trumps all doesn't make it legally so.
No, the Constitution saying the 8th trumps all is what makes it "legally so."
Unless you challenge the established law in court with an 8th amendment challenge, and a judge upholds the challenge, the established law is still law. YOUR interpretation of the law is not what is legally binding.
...and if a judge's interpretation is in obvious and blatant opposition to our Constitutional rights, it is not law.
According to your "logic," the government could outlaw religious practice, free speech, gun ownership, right to due process, et. al., through precedent. Newflash: THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS - READ YOUR GODDAMN CONSTITUTION.
I think you are greatly overestimating your own knowledge of the US legal system if you think by merely challenging a law it becomes null and void instantly.
Precedent does not supersede the Constitution.
Again: Precedent does not supersede the Constitution.
One more time to make sure you get it: PRECEDENT DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE CONSTITUTION.
Just because jackasses and morons allow unconstitutional laws to be forced upon them, does not make said laws any less unconstitutional. We, as Americans, have a fucking duty to actively and collectively break every single law that does not follow the Supreme Law of the Land, aka the Constitution. Don't take my word for it, read the document yourself, it's all there in black and white.
Damn apologists, worse traitors than Benedict Arnold...
... posts subjective, pro-brand nonsense as AC, presumably because either A) they care entirely too much about the karma score of their named account, or B) they're too chickenshit to create a named account and thus collect all the bad will they've earned themselves.
Indeed, many places in Manhattan don't need volunteers. Most people don't have cars to deal with, or yards/trees in need of cutting. The biggest problems are the areas without electricity and the fuel shortage, neither of which are things individuals can do much about.
Individuals can't haul fuel and generators, can't get ahold of the Red Cross and see what needs to be done?
To quote the folksy wisdom of my hillbilly father, "Can't" is a lazy bastard, who never accomplished a damn thing.
The fines were the maximum amount allowed legally. You may want to start with changing that law before going straight to the excessive fines defense. May be a bit tricky when it has already been legally established that $150,000 fine per movie is acceptable.
According to the much, much more established hierarchy of law that supposedly governs this nation, the Constitution and her Amendments cannot be superseded by anything but another Constitutional Amendment. What you say is legal is actually not, because it is a direct violation of the 8th Amendment, which supersedes local, state, and federal law.
That I have to explain what should be common knowledge to every American over the age of 16 pains me greatly.
Side note: It appears a lot of Americans are basically clueless when it comes to the Constitution and how our legal system is set up... I'm curious as to if this is just a statistical anomaly (with 360 million+ sample size, you're going to run into a lot of ignorant folks), or is it indicative of a disturbing trend that fewer Americans care enough about their rights to know them?
Except, with Android, I can root my phone and do whatever the heck I want with it.
And what about those of us that don't want to bother with such things?
Then you play with the hand (or in this case, device) you're dealt, and your complaints about how much that particular hand sucks will likely fall on many, many deaf ears.
How do you know that, by the time you disable the permission, the app hasn't already uploaded your info to their servers?
because (sensibly) by default apps have no such permission. I get asked if I want to allow the action the very first time.
Okay, just making sure I understand what you're saying - you install an app on iOS, but it's totally dead in the water (i.e., no permissions to actually do anything) until the user actually engages the app for the first time, at which point it goes through the things it wants to do point-by-point, giving the user the option to not allow certain permissions, while allowing others?
Assuming the above is indeed what you're trying to say, can you cite a source for this? And when I say "source," I mean actual technical details, not some marketing drone's blog post that boils down to "I work for Apple, trust me on this."
If only there were some way to selectively allow or deny permissions to an app instead of the all-or-nothing approach currently employed on a non-rooted phone.
What they're saying is he would have been better off if he hadn't have shared them. Is that such a hard concept for you or are you just another Slashtard trying to twist logic to come up with a shallow justification for stealing other people's content?
I believe OP's point was that had Mr. Fisher just pirated the films to begin with, instead of purchasing them legally, his metadata never would have been stamped on the content, and thus he could have shared to his heart's content, and most likely would have gotten away scott-free. Also, pretty sure that point is so glaringly obvious that the only way to not get it would be through intent.
So please, by all means, continue to froth at the mouth spouting ill-conceived nonsense, which stems from your complete lack of understanding the topic at hand.
If someone is caught driving drunk, now they get fined/jail time. If that person kills someone while driving under the influence, now they're in for a lot of jail time.
Unless, of course, they happen to be a US Senator.
It's not about the money so much as deterring others. Seeing someone get slapped with a charge they have no way of paying off will probably scare a few people straight.
8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Hmm... don't see any exceptions for "making an example" out of someone... I fact, I would contend, knowing the Founders' feeling about debtors prisons and such, that imposing outrageous fines for the purpose of deterrence is very much an unconstitutional, and thus illegal, act.
Slashdot Mirror
More money in the hands of the very few is bad for everybody else. Romney is a representative of exactly those very few.
So is Obama.
The difference between him and Mittens is that Obama does a much better job of not being so damned blatant about it.
Better - tell her you have an orgy fetish, and CSPAN is the only channel with enough dicks and pussies on screen at once to satisfy your urges.
Here's what I'd do:
- set up a machine between your Xbox and router to do a packet capture
- disconnect every other device on the network (not necessary, but will reduce background "noise" from unrelated traffic)
- fire up the Xbox with the Kinect unhooked, and let it run for a bit, keeping an eye on the packets (I don't know much about Xbox networking, but I would guess anything transmitted outside port 80 would be suspect)
- hook up the Kinect and look for any changes in the packet capture
Of course, I'm fairly certain that if the Xbox phones home with the Kinect... uh, connected... it probably does it all the time, but maybe (assuming your hypothesis is correct and they're already watching you) the Kinect uses a different protocol or something.
we know it isn't being monitored.
How?
No, seriously - if you're going to claim someone else's hypothesis is dubious, and summarily discount it, you'd better have some pretty damn compelling evidence to back your words. Otherwise, you just come off like one of those wacky religious zealots.
But "because reality"
e.g., "God did it."
I'm not sure if that was meant to refer to something I said or not.
Yea it was.
If so, I'm quite curious what you were referring to.
You said,
Which implies that you harbor a preconceived notion that
This is a generalization, and as Samuel Clemens taught us, "most generalizations are false, including this one."
Generalizations are the bastion of the non-thinker - it's an easy way to avoid having to consider all the possible reasons someone might engage in a particular activity, in this case, using the words "fanboi" and "fandroid", and to discount the opinions of others because of the arbitrary decision to label them with a generic denigration.
For example - I use words like fanboi and fandroid because, quite simply, I like language and think they're fun words to use. My usage has no nefarious purpose, nor is it a sign I have "turned off [my] brain" - in fact, quite the opposite (swapping 'y' with 'i' in 'fanboy' is a funny little phonetic twist, IMO).
I hope that explanation satisfies your curiosity.
We, as Americans, have a fucking duty to actively and collectively break every single law that does not follow the Supreme Law of the Land, aka the Constitution.
Ah, but you said yourself if the law is automatically trumped by the 8th Amendment, it isn't really a law. So why would breaking the law be necessary if it isn't really law after all?
Because the government will attempt to deny you your freedoms for doing what they deem (but what isn't actually) an illegal act.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but every armchair lawyer does not get to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. You thinking that the 8th Amendment trumps a "lesser" law does not mean it is so.
As I said before, this has nothing to do with what I think, it's purely a matter of the well established hierarchy of law in this nation. Anyone who actually passed 9th grade Civics should know that.
Not to mention, it's not like there's a whole lot of interpretation that needs to be done with:
To say that such a simple, direct statement is need of interpretation is to insult the collective intellect of every single American citizen. While you might not have a problem with your government calling you an idiot, I sure as hell do.
That is what the court systems are for. I would trust a judge's interpretation of the law over yours any day, sorry.
I see - so if a judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that everyone must attend some kind of church, you would take his side? If so, you're the worst kind of traitor to your nation.
What you are offering up is anarchy, not strict adherence to the Constitution.
Actually, it's quite the opposite - what you offer, a world where judges (i.e., individuals with preconceived notions and prejudices that in no way represent an understanding of Constitutional law) are the sole decision makers in what constitutes a legitimate law, even when said decision flies in the face of everything this country is supposed to stand for, is the real definition of anarchy.
If everyone gets to interpret the law as they see fit, it is basically lawlessness because the law means nothing.
If by "everyone," you mean "activist judges that get paid to not give a fuck about your rights," I would agree. I would prefer we stick to the basic, obvious, well-known, well-established interpretations myself.
can you cite a source for this?
Well you could just ask any iOS users or developers since it's the way every app works.
Anecdote != fact. C'mon, man, you know that.
But here is just one of many stories.
Yea, about that... according to your link, it appears the behavior you refer to of asking users for access per-permission is a brand new feature only available in iOS6, which was released in September of this year. So, prior to 2 months ago, iDevices had the same security issues you've implied are exclusive to the Android platform (not to mention, as not every iDevice can be updated to iOS 6, there will be many out there that still contain this flaw).
More than a bit disingenuous, if you ask me.
We, as American citizens, have not just a right but a duty to actively and collectively deny unconstitutional laws. This doesn't just mean breaking them; it means standing up for our fellow citizens when the brownshirts (or, rather, blue shirts) come to drag them off.
Right, and you saying the 8th trumps all doesn't make it legally so.
No, the Constitution saying the 8th trumps all is what makes it "legally so."
Unless you challenge the established law in court with an 8th amendment challenge, and a judge upholds the challenge, the established law is still law. YOUR interpretation of the law is not what is legally binding.
...and if a judge's interpretation is in obvious and blatant opposition to our Constitutional rights, it is not law.
According to your "logic," the government could outlaw religious practice, free speech, gun ownership, right to due process, et. al., through precedent. Newflash: THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS - READ YOUR GODDAMN CONSTITUTION.
I think you are greatly overestimating your own knowledge of the US legal system if you think by merely challenging a law it becomes null and void instantly.
Precedent does not supersede the Constitution.
Again: Precedent does not supersede the Constitution.
One more time to make sure you get it: PRECEDENT DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE CONSTITUTION.
Just because jackasses and morons allow unconstitutional laws to be forced upon them, does not make said laws any less unconstitutional. We, as Americans, have a fucking duty to actively and collectively break every single law that does not follow the Supreme Law of the Land, aka the Constitution. Don't take my word for it, read the document yourself, it's all there in black and white.
Damn apologists, worse traitors than Benedict Arnold...
Oh, and that the government needs a warrant to go through my storage locker.
Sounds a lot like stuff transported over public roads.
Correct. Which is why anything of value is moved over said roads in guarded and/or armored transport.
I think you missed the point. Scratch that - I know you missed the point.
You moved it in your car from your house a the local U-Haul storage locker. You used an Interstate Highway. Therefore it's not really your property
You seem to be confusing law with reality.
The property, by law is still yours.
BUT you are no longer in control of it. The storage locker owner can access it at any time, as can any burglar.
... and it's still not legal for them to do so.
Can you please try to see the difference?
Yea, the difference is, if a storage locker owner or burglar accessed my stuff without explicit permission, I can take legal action against them.
what's next: anything that's not kept in your hands 100% of the time is open to be taken away? where does this encroachment end?
Unfortunately, it probably won't until citizens in general gather the wherewithal to defend themselves and their chattels with deadly force.
By then, it will be far too late.
No, it's badmouthing.
The typical clueless sperglord...
... posts subjective, pro-brand nonsense as AC, presumably because either A) they care entirely too much about the karma score of their named account, or B) they're too chickenshit to create a named account and thus collect all the bad will they've earned themselves.
Guessing the latter in this case.
Indeed, many places in Manhattan don't need volunteers. Most people don't have cars to deal with, or yards/trees in need of cutting. The biggest problems are the areas without electricity and the fuel shortage, neither of which are things individuals can do much about.
Individuals can't haul fuel and generators, can't get ahold of the Red Cross and see what needs to be done?
To quote the folksy wisdom of my hillbilly father, "Can't" is a lazy bastard, who never accomplished a damn thing.
The fines were the maximum amount allowed legally. You may want to start with changing that law before going straight to the excessive fines defense. May be a bit tricky when it has already been legally established that $150,000 fine per movie is acceptable.
According to the much, much more established hierarchy of law that supposedly governs this nation, the Constitution and her Amendments cannot be superseded by anything but another Constitutional Amendment. What you say is legal is actually not, because it is a direct violation of the 8th Amendment, which supersedes local, state, and federal law.
That I have to explain what should be common knowledge to every American over the age of 16 pains me greatly.
Side note: It appears a lot of Americans are basically clueless when it comes to the Constitution and how our legal system is set up... I'm curious as to if this is just a statistical anomaly (with 360 million+ sample size, you're going to run into a lot of ignorant folks), or is it indicative of a disturbing trend that fewer Americans care enough about their rights to know them?
Except, with Android, I can root my phone and do whatever the heck I want with it.
And what about those of us that don't want to bother with such things?
Then you play with the hand (or in this case, device) you're dealt, and your complaints about how much that particular hand sucks will likely fall on many, many deaf ears.
How do you know that, by the time you disable the permission, the app hasn't already uploaded your info to their servers?
because (sensibly) by default apps have no such permission. I get asked if I want to allow the action the very first time.
Okay, just making sure I understand what you're saying - you install an app on iOS, but it's totally dead in the water (i.e., no permissions to actually do anything) until the user actually engages the app for the first time, at which point it goes through the things it wants to do point-by-point, giving the user the option to not allow certain permissions, while allowing others?
Assuming the above is indeed what you're trying to say, can you cite a source for this? And when I say "source," I mean actual technical details, not some marketing drone's blog post that boils down to "I work for Apple, trust me on this."
If only there were some way to selectively allow or deny permissions to an app instead of the all-or-nothing approach currently employed on a non-rooted phone.
FTFY. If your phone is rooted, use Permissions.
On iOS I can choose *after* installation to allow or disallow certain activities.
So.. for example.. I can allow an application access to my calendar but not to my contacts or photos.
How do you know that, by the time you disable the permission, the app hasn't already uploaded your info to their servers?
Android is a "take it or leave it" system. Which I suppose is great for the app developers.. but not so much for users.
Except, with Android, I can root my phone and do whatever the heck I want with it.
Is Apple still bricking jailbroken iShinys?
(having to complete with free amateur porn)
Best. Typo. Ever.
Of all time.
What they're saying is he would have been better off if he hadn't have shared them. Is that such a hard concept for you or are you just another Slashtard trying to twist logic to come up with a shallow justification for stealing other people's content?
I believe OP's point was that had Mr. Fisher just pirated the films to begin with, instead of purchasing them legally, his metadata never would have been stamped on the content, and thus he could have shared to his heart's content, and most likely would have gotten away scott-free. Also, pretty sure that point is so glaringly obvious that the only way to not get it would be through intent.
So please, by all means, continue to froth at the mouth spouting ill-conceived nonsense, which stems from your complete lack of understanding the topic at hand.
It humors me.
He must be able to afford it if he had the time to watch and run out of free porn. I don't know, maybe the paid stuff has a better sound track.
So... instead of the standard "bow-wiki-wiki-wow-wow," you get John Williams?
Yea, I can see how someone might be willing to pay for that...
If someone is caught driving drunk, now they get fined/jail time. If that person kills someone while driving under the influence, now they're in for a lot of jail time.
Unless, of course, they happen to be a US Senator.
It's not about the money so much as deterring others. Seeing someone get slapped with a charge they have no way of paying off will probably scare a few people straight.
8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Hmm... don't see any exceptions for "making an example" out of someone... I fact, I would contend, knowing the Founders' feeling about debtors prisons and such, that imposing outrageous fines for the purpose of deterrence is very much an unconstitutional, and thus illegal, act.
Perhaps, but both 'fanboi' and 'fandroid' are automatic signals that the person writing the post turned off their brain.
Funny, I feel the same way about people who let their preconceived notions control their thought processes.