Only if your previous Windows OS is Windows XP (really 2000) or older.
Ever since Windows XP, all versions of windows require activation to obtain an encryption signature from Microsofts certificate. Without that, the OS itself has components that actively fight the OS itself.
Now yes this software is easy to bypass in XP. I've heard it's not too difficult in Vista, but is no longer described as "easy" for Win 7. I suspect it will continue to get harder with each release, until PS3 levels of protection are achieved and surpassed.
Once Microsoft refuses to hand out those signatures from their cert, the usefulness of those OS install discs become more and more of a hassle and headache with each new release.
Average people won't put up with that.
Sure an average person might spend the 2 minutes needed to figure out that safe mode thing, and run an exe off the dark corners of the net to fix XP, but for how long?
Last I saw, Win 7 requires one to setup an enterprise license server with hacked key such that it can activate a workstation for you, all while preventing the bits and pieces from trying to verify that key. I wouldn't want to deal with that, there is no way an average person would want to.
Perhaps an easier method has been found, it wouldn't surprise me at all, but isn't really the point. For how long, and through how much bullshit, will even a geek go through when you aren't driven by boredom but a desire to get something done - or worse for a company that you actually don't want to see sued into the ground
They don't call it the upgrade treadmill for nothing.
I'm curious what your kids answers were, if you don't mind (and they don't mind you) sharing.
I know what my own answer must be, but more and more feel like a minority opinion, and less and less like a moral absolute I still view the matter as.
Seeing as you've taken the time to geekcode PS+ PE, I must first assume your reply will not be propaganda, and second assume that even if it is, you still win. Either way I'm still curious of their initial reactions
I'm sick of being a product.. I mean, ok the old model of Television and Radio where you the viewer gets something of value (the programming/entertainment) without directly paying for it, then it's a reasonable tradeoff that it's paid for by advertising
When TV first started becoming popular, the actors felt that they were being/invited/ into other peoples homes, and to act rudely would bring about mobs and pitchforks. Actual pitchforks!
However, when you're paying for a train fare, you've paid for the transit... it's not like you're given the option of "pay full price to not be subjected to adversising, or get a discount for being advertised to"
Cable TV was initially sold as "Television with a monthly fee, so you won't need to ever see another commercial again". Notice the amount of ads on cable TV these days? I don't believe for a second those greedy bastards won't rush as fast as possible to ads with over-charging you at the same time.
It looks like they are using standard wifi hardware, two modules actually. What they aren't doing is speaking 802.11 over it and are providing their own framing in order to get a reversed signal on the other module. There will be no protocol in that framing to speak IP on top of.
The major advantage is that a manufacturer can purchase the same wifi chips as they usually do for wifi, but these two chips are configured in software quite differently. I assume they will likely have a different antenna to optimize it for this function too, since the hardware modules will be dedicated to this task.
That's also probably why they don't call this "wifi" at all. (Go go gadget slashdot reporting!)
While it might be possible in some existing devices to reconfigure the existing wifi chip to work in this way, you must have two in total for the task or it won't work, so most existing devices will be excluded due to that reason alone. Of course any antenna issues will make it sub-par, and also you won't be able to use a chip for both this and wifi at the same time which would be very handy for a remote sensor type device. Most likely, any new hardware built for this purpose will come with a total of 3 hardware wifi modules, one dedicated to 802.11 and the other two dedicated to wivi.
Using existing mass-produced hardware will let maufacturers take advantage of both the low cost of those modules, and the fact they likely have them in their ordering system with bulk pricing deals setup already. Previously one needed dedicated sonar or radar hardware, which isn't in as large of demand and so still pretty expensive.
Who said anything about giving them access to iTunes? As long as the schools IT department isn't incompetent (it manages to happen at times), these will be locked down just as much as the desktop computers should be.
iOS policies are as powerful as GPO or blackberry. Store access can be restricted to an approved list of apps, or disabled all together and they only get apps pushed out over the network by the admins.
That said, yes you are right that they shouldn't be wasting money like this. An ereader at a fraction of the cost is better than an iPad locked down to ereader levels of functionality at a higher price.
Sadly this is far from the only example of the waste of tax payer money in the school system, or even the government in general. It is wrong, but far from surprising.
I have a [high-end pc for 3 years ago] with only 8gb ram and for the entire first year win7-x64 booted in just under 30 seconds, from power-on to desktop (and a usable desktop at that)
Over the years I've gained more crap that starts on login so I'm up to 1.5 minutes now, but still no where near 5 min.
My C isn't even a SSD but spinny rust, and it's "only" an i7 920 at 2.66 - pretty slow by todays standards. Not to mention, holy crap I haven't had to reinstall in 3 years! That's pretty shocking after XP.
As someone that started out with 68k macs, then switching to linux full time in 96, Win7 is actually the first MS OS I don't despise having to use.
I'm pretty confident to say 7 is quite fast and stable for a long time for us power users.
I am also just now deploying the first batch of 7 boxes at work, where we have no choice (industrial control here as well, so I feel your pain), to my test subjects / beta test team. Curious to see how long it will last under non-computer-user type use at work and all the normal problems which result. Another huge plus is the new Group Policy controls that come with the new v2 profiles since Vista.
Fair in the eyes of the public may not be "fair" in the eyes of the bomber.
Ok but under that definition, YOU are guilty of possessing and operating a WMD repeatedly, and because you can't prove otherwise, you operated that WMD with the intent to MURDER a multitude of people (you just didn't do a good job at it all this time)
"A WMD is any explosive or incendiary devices with more than 1/4 oz payload"
That perfectly describes the engine of your automobile. The same engine powering every car you had since you got your license. You have operated that WMD more days than not ever since then, and that WMD has the very real capability to kill many people (proven by the fact cars do in fact kill others, sometimes in the double digits if the wreck is bad enough)
Are you really sure you want to argue that public opinion means more than the rule of law? Are you honestly saying you want to argue you are guilty of a crime that you can be put to death for?
You can argue my symantics as being stupid all you want (because they are), however they are very clearly and plainly defined in law as such, and you only need to piss off the right/wrong person to be put to death for crimes you have already committed.
Looks nothing like your image at all. The one ad at the top clearly states "Ads related to mesothelioma" and has a space between it and the rest of the search results that come from page content matching.
I personally think this whole scenario instead proves just how afraid governments are of us.
Not until a centered power at the top does something so outrageous and vile that they turn at least 80% if not 90% of the entire military forces against them.
It would have to be at least that bad before the government has any fear of anything what so ever. And even then, the fear is losing their ability to command control anymore - not of the rest of "us"
Unfortunately I don't think it's near that bad enough yet.
Uhh, we have both posted, we can't mod even if we had points.
So just to sum up, exchanging money for information is not selling that information; facts don't make a person right, bashing Apple does; it can't possibly be you that is wrong despite tens of people proving it and showing you otherwise, it must be us downmodding you after having posted comments.
Man we have a smrt one here!
BTW, your now on my ignore list, so don't bother replying. I won't see it.
I'm quite certain that we will see widespread violence towards users of Google Glasses. People really don't like the idea of being recorded all the time. This is also illegal in many countries (in the EU). Just because you're out in the open doesn't make it allowed to film other people.
I agree, I believe I will commit widespread violence against you personally, because I don't like the idea of you recording me all the time, kicking puppies, and murdering children's goldfish. You have also committed crimes in many countries, as animal and human abuse is illegal, not to mention the things you do with the pipe cleaners.
Just because nothing either of us have said is true doesn't mean you are allowed to do those things.
And apparently makes it perfectly OK for me to commit violence against you, though I don't know why you would state such a thing.
Xerox didn't sell them anything. They were an early investor in Apple and allowed a couple of people from Apple to visit PARC.
And Apple paid Xerox executives for that privilege.
But sure keep deluding yourself
It's a sad sad day when anti-technology trolls start arguing that handing over money in exchange for technology is not "selling"
But keep making up shit to try and look cool bashing Apple. It's worked so well this past decade. They keep on making money hand over fist despite you.
I signed up about a decade ago, and this thing was a huge time sink every day at 4pm at work for a good three years.
Being turn based and turn limited, like the old school BBS door games of yore, one always seems to end up having 5-6 accounts just to get more play time.
I must admit I'm pretty confused as to your point.
AC comes along and states "These companies didn't claim anything" when presented with proof otherwise.
I correct AC that "No, they claimed to not share data with the government, they are just lying."
Finally you come along and correct me "No they never claimed to not share data. Also those claims they did not make are clearly truthful." You then call me naive for believing their claims that they never made?
You should really make up your mind.
I still hold that the companies claimed to not share data, and that they are not telling the truth. If you wish to prove either of those false: - that they claimed to not share data and are telling the truth, or - that they did not claim to not share data You'll have to provide more evidence than that.
With a valid court order, there is no objection to giving the data to the government. We don't care that answer is yes. Of course it is yes. It is almost never worth going to prison for to act otherwise.
All have flatly said they do not give data to the government otherwise, which is the one and only point that matters.
Unless they are literally flat out lying, these answer the very question you point out - No they do not give data to the government.
The partial-sentence provided was not clear at all. In fact I'm not sure how you got that from as little information as was provided.
"people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?"
The only thing "their" can apply to is "people", however "opinions" also applies to the exact same "people"
How can a person have an opinion and at the same time not agree with that opinion they hold?
You imply multiple peoples opinions differ, but I don't see how you can get multiple different people out of that, as only one person was actually referenced.
If only he could have wrote something like "Why is it that other people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?" (Of course requiring further grammar corrections)
It could have been worded much clearer, much more syntactically close to a sentence (or perhaps syntactically correct), and applying some form of grammar.
I'm not even talking about "minor" things like "their" vs "they're" or what not. I mean having a subject for your adjectives to apply to. Having two nouns instead of only one, when talking about two different things. Etc.
It would be as if I said "but isn't and also yes" and claiming that is perfectly clear and understandable.
people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?
No, and yes? I think?
No, "people don't agree with their opinions" appears false. People generally do agree with their own opinions, else they wouldn't be their own opinions.
Yes, others might disagree. Though you don't mention others in your question, so perhaps I am wandering away from your question.
Is English not your first language? If so, we understand.
But that statement/question as written makes no sense. I believe you are missing a noun to apply the rest of the question too. It makes it difficult to guess your intent and what you are asking.
It would likely be a better idea to always default to the safe option of "on"
If the military needs to maintain secrecy, they can spend the few minutes reading the user manual to figure out how to operate the device correctly.
If they can't be bothered to spend a few minutes figuring out how to disable the transmitter option, just imagine all the other mistakes that will be made that would give away their position and just generally screw up the goal of "secret".
I understand your opinion, but how is this different than current handling of fingerprints?
Fingerprint matching is much more reliable than DNA matching.
DNA matches are based on usually 7-8 markers total, meaning by pure chance a couple million other people on the planet match you exactly.
DNA matching is also so misunderstood by the public at large, that this fact is used in court to the governments advantage on purpose.
A prosecutor claiming "We have a 100% DNA match between pixelpusher220 and the person who murdered this child" basically means you and a couple million other people have the same 8 markers in your DNA, it does not mean you did the crime or were involved in any way. But a jury hearing "100% DNA match" is trained to think that means YOU are the only one that could possibly match the DNA sample, when in fact you could very easily match by pure chance.
Fingerprint matching on the other hand is actually pretty reliable and accurate. For whatever reason, it appears the general public is willing to at least entertain the statistics behind fingerprint matching, and require some other form of evidence to go along with it.
Until these facts change regarding DNA, it really should be banned as valid evidence. Being guilty by pure chance was supposed to go out of style with the witch trials.
The only reason this works is because Apple put DRM in their chargers to prevent people creating cheaper clones.
Two resistors is hardly concidered "communications" by anyone else in any industry. Two resistors are also not considered "DRM" by pretty much anyone else either.
US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people,
Prolonging the suffering of patients. That is sick.
Murdering people against their will is even sicker, and seems to be what you are advocating for.
While I appreciate you giving me the OK to murder you without cause or further consent, I on the other hand refuse to lower myself to your level to do so.
They did a great job teaching this kid "I could sell it to paypal for zero dollars, or I can auction it on this underground forum starting at $5000"
The only thing the kid even asked paypal for was a written statement of the accomplishment to put on his resume, and they won't even send that! Even Microsoft lists him as a security researcher for the updates they have pushed fixing bugs this kid has found and reported to them!
The worst part is, paypal has also just taught these facts to everyone else who happens to know of an exploit in their system, or ever finds one in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if your previous Windows OS is Windows XP (really 2000) or older.
Ever since Windows XP, all versions of windows require activation to obtain an encryption signature from Microsofts certificate. Without that, the OS itself has components that actively fight the OS itself.
Now yes this software is easy to bypass in XP. I've heard it's not too difficult in Vista, but is no longer described as "easy" for Win 7. I suspect it will continue to get harder with each release, until PS3 levels of protection are achieved and surpassed.
Once Microsoft refuses to hand out those signatures from their cert, the usefulness of those OS install discs become more and more of a hassle and headache with each new release.
Average people won't put up with that.
Sure an average person might spend the 2 minutes needed to figure out that safe mode thing, and run an exe off the dark corners of the net to fix XP, but for how long?
Last I saw, Win 7 requires one to setup an enterprise license server with hacked key such that it can activate a workstation for you, all while preventing the bits and pieces from trying to verify that key.
I wouldn't want to deal with that, there is no way an average person would want to.
Perhaps an easier method has been found, it wouldn't surprise me at all, but isn't really the point.
For how long, and through how much bullshit, will even a geek go through when you aren't driven by boredom but a desire to get something done - or worse for a company that you actually don't want to see sued into the ground
They don't call it the upgrade treadmill for nothing.
I sort of posed a similar question to my kids....
I'm curious what your kids answers were, if you don't mind (and they don't mind you) sharing.
I know what my own answer must be, but more and more feel like a minority opinion, and less and less like a moral absolute I still view the matter as.
Seeing as you've taken the time to geekcode PS+ PE, I must first assume your reply will not be propaganda, and second assume that even if it is, you still win.
Either way I'm still curious of their initial reactions
I'm sick of being a product.. I mean, ok the old model of Television and Radio where you the viewer gets something of value (the programming/entertainment) without directly paying for it, then it's a reasonable tradeoff that it's paid for by advertising
When TV first started becoming popular, the actors felt that they were being /invited/ into other peoples homes, and to act rudely would bring about mobs and pitchforks. Actual pitchforks!
However, when you're paying for a train fare, you've paid for the transit... it's not like you're given the option of "pay full price to not be subjected to adversising, or get a discount for being advertised to"
Cable TV was initially sold as "Television with a monthly fee, so you won't need to ever see another commercial again". Notice the amount of ads on cable TV these days?
I don't believe for a second those greedy bastards won't rush as fast as possible to ads with over-charging you at the same time.
(Insert Futurama - Lightspeed Briefs spot here)
Too bad the article doesn't list the URLs
Yea, shame. The article only lists a bunch of thingies that all start with: ws-cloud112-blur.svcmot.com:443/blur-services-1.0/ws/
Too bad that isn't a URL :(
It looks like they are using standard wifi hardware, two modules actually.
What they aren't doing is speaking 802.11 over it and are providing their own framing in order to get a reversed signal on the other module. There will be no protocol in that framing to speak IP on top of.
The major advantage is that a manufacturer can purchase the same wifi chips as they usually do for wifi, but these two chips are configured in software quite differently. I assume they will likely have a different antenna to optimize it for this function too, since the hardware modules will be dedicated to this task.
That's also probably why they don't call this "wifi" at all. (Go go gadget slashdot reporting!)
While it might be possible in some existing devices to reconfigure the existing wifi chip to work in this way, you must have two in total for the task or it won't work, so most existing devices will be excluded due to that reason alone. Of course any antenna issues will make it sub-par, and also you won't be able to use a chip for both this and wifi at the same time which would be very handy for a remote sensor type device.
Most likely, any new hardware built for this purpose will come with a total of 3 hardware wifi modules, one dedicated to 802.11 and the other two dedicated to wivi.
Using existing mass-produced hardware will let maufacturers take advantage of both the low cost of those modules, and the fact they likely have them in their ordering system with bulk pricing deals setup already.
Previously one needed dedicated sonar or radar hardware, which isn't in as large of demand and so still pretty expensive.
Who said anything about giving them access to iTunes?
As long as the schools IT department isn't incompetent (it manages to happen at times), these will be locked down just as much as the desktop computers should be.
iOS policies are as powerful as GPO or blackberry.
Store access can be restricted to an approved list of apps, or disabled all together and they only get apps pushed out over the network by the admins.
That said, yes you are right that they shouldn't be wasting money like this.
An ereader at a fraction of the cost is better than an iPad locked down to ereader levels of functionality at a higher price.
Sadly this is far from the only example of the waste of tax payer money in the school system, or even the government in general.
It is wrong, but far from surprising.
I have a [high-end pc for 3 years ago] with only 8gb ram and for the entire first year win7-x64 booted in just under 30 seconds, from power-on to desktop (and a usable desktop at that)
Over the years I've gained more crap that starts on login so I'm up to 1.5 minutes now, but still no where near 5 min.
My C isn't even a SSD but spinny rust, and it's "only" an i7 920 at 2.66 - pretty slow by todays standards.
Not to mention, holy crap I haven't had to reinstall in 3 years! That's pretty shocking after XP.
As someone that started out with 68k macs, then switching to linux full time in 96, Win7 is actually the first MS OS I don't despise having to use.
I'm pretty confident to say 7 is quite fast and stable for a long time for us power users.
I am also just now deploying the first batch of 7 boxes at work, where we have no choice (industrial control here as well, so I feel your pain), to my test subjects / beta test team.
Curious to see how long it will last under non-computer-user type use at work and all the normal problems which result. Another huge plus is the new Group Policy controls that come with the new v2 profiles since Vista.
Fair in the eyes of the public may not be "fair" in the eyes of the bomber.
Ok but under that definition, YOU are guilty of possessing and operating a WMD repeatedly, and because you can't prove otherwise, you operated that WMD with the intent to MURDER a multitude of people (you just didn't do a good job at it all this time)
"A WMD is any explosive or incendiary devices with more than 1/4 oz payload"
That perfectly describes the engine of your automobile. The same engine powering every car you had since you got your license. You have operated that WMD more days than not ever since then, and that WMD has the very real capability to kill many people (proven by the fact cars do in fact kill others, sometimes in the double digits if the wreck is bad enough)
Are you really sure you want to argue that public opinion means more than the rule of law?
Are you honestly saying you want to argue you are guilty of a crime that you can be put to death for?
You can argue my symantics as being stupid all you want (because they are), however they are very clearly and plainly defined in law as such, and you only need to piss off the right/wrong person to be put to death for crimes you have already committed.
The current Google page, the first is an ad, second is not. http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png
Ok, compare that to my screenshot: http://www.google.com/#output=search&q=mesothelioma
Looks nothing like your image at all. The one ad at the top clearly states "Ads related to mesothelioma" and has a space between it and the rest of the search results that come from page content matching.
I'm tempted to even call your image a fake.
Except a "theory" is the top of the food chain in having already been proven right. There is no state higher on the path to being a fact.
So yes, the only remaining option after being shown to be correct 100% of the time each and every time, is to be proven wrong.
I personally think this whole scenario instead proves just how afraid governments are of us.
Not until a centered power at the top does something so outrageous and vile that they turn at least 80% if not 90% of the entire military forces against them.
It would have to be at least that bad before the government has any fear of anything what so ever. And even then, the fear is losing their ability to command control anymore - not of the rest of "us"
Unfortunately I don't think it's near that bad enough yet.
Uhh, we have both posted, we can't mod even if we had points.
So just to sum up, exchanging money for information is not selling that information;
facts don't make a person right, bashing Apple does;
it can't possibly be you that is wrong despite tens of people proving it and showing you otherwise, it must be us downmodding you after having posted comments.
Man we have a smrt one here!
BTW, your now on my ignore list, so don't bother replying. I won't see it.
I'm quite certain that we will see widespread violence towards users of Google Glasses. People really don't like the idea of being recorded all the time. This is also illegal in many countries (in the EU). Just because you're out in the open doesn't make it allowed to film other people.
I agree, I believe I will commit widespread violence against you personally, because I don't like the idea of you recording me all the time, kicking puppies, and murdering children's goldfish.
You have also committed crimes in many countries, as animal and human abuse is illegal, not to mention the things you do with the pipe cleaners.
Just because nothing either of us have said is true doesn't mean you are allowed to do those things.
And apparently makes it perfectly OK for me to commit violence against you, though I don't know why you would state such a thing.
PS. Misrepresenting reality is fun!
Xerox didn't sell them anything. They were an early investor in Apple and allowed a couple of people from Apple to visit PARC.
And Apple paid Xerox executives for that privilege.
But sure keep deluding yourself
It's a sad sad day when anti-technology trolls start arguing that handing over money in exchange for technology is not "selling"
But keep making up shit to try and look cool bashing Apple. It's worked so well this past decade. They keep on making money hand over fist despite you.
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned The Kingdom of Loathing web RPG.
I think an image search would be better suited for the uninitiated.
I signed up about a decade ago, and this thing was a huge time sink every day at 4pm at work for a good three years.
Being turn based and turn limited, like the old school BBS door games of yore, one always seems to end up having 5-6 accounts just to get more play time.
Curse you interwebs, my old account still works!
I must admit I'm pretty confused as to your point.
AC comes along and states "These companies didn't claim anything" when presented with proof otherwise.
I correct AC that "No, they claimed to not share data with the government, they are just lying."
Finally you come along and correct me "No they never claimed to not share data. Also those claims they did not make are clearly truthful."
You then call me naive for believing their claims that they never made?
You should really make up your mind.
I still hold that the companies claimed to not share data, and that they are not telling the truth.
If you wish to prove either of those false:
- that they claimed to not share data and are telling the truth, or
- that they did not claim to not share data
You'll have to provide more evidence than that.
With a valid court order, there is no objection to giving the data to the government.
We don't care that answer is yes. Of course it is yes. It is almost never worth going to prison for to act otherwise.
All have flatly said they do not give data to the government otherwise, which is the one and only point that matters.
Unless they are literally flat out lying, these answer the very question you point out - No they do not give data to the government.
The partial-sentence provided was not clear at all.
In fact I'm not sure how you got that from as little information as was provided.
"people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?"
The only thing "their" can apply to is "people", however "opinions" also applies to the exact same "people"
How can a person have an opinion and at the same time not agree with that opinion they hold?
You imply multiple peoples opinions differ, but I don't see how you can get multiple different people out of that, as only one person was actually referenced.
If only he could have wrote something like "Why is it that other people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?" (Of course requiring further grammar corrections)
It could have been worded much clearer, much more syntactically close to a sentence (or perhaps syntactically correct), and applying some form of grammar.
I'm not even talking about "minor" things like "their" vs "they're" or what not.
I mean having a subject for your adjectives to apply to. Having two nouns instead of only one, when talking about two different things. Etc.
It would be as if I said "but isn't and also yes" and claiming that is perfectly clear and understandable.
people don't agree with their opinions on what is the "correct" way to do things?
No, and yes? I think?
No, "people don't agree with their opinions" appears false. People generally do agree with their own opinions, else they wouldn't be their own opinions.
Yes, others might disagree. Though you don't mention others in your question, so perhaps I am wandering away from your question.
Is English not your first language? If so, we understand.
But that statement/question as written makes no sense. I believe you are missing a noun to apply the rest of the question too. It makes it difficult to guess your intent and what you are asking.
It would likely be a better idea to always default to the safe option of "on"
If the military needs to maintain secrecy, they can spend the few minutes reading the user manual to figure out how to operate the device correctly.
If they can't be bothered to spend a few minutes figuring out how to disable the transmitter option, just imagine all the other mistakes that will be made that would give away their position and just generally screw up the goal of "secret".
I understand your opinion, but how is this different than current handling of fingerprints?
Fingerprint matching is much more reliable than DNA matching.
DNA matches are based on usually 7-8 markers total, meaning by pure chance a couple million other people on the planet match you exactly.
DNA matching is also so misunderstood by the public at large, that this fact is used in court to the governments advantage on purpose.
A prosecutor claiming "We have a 100% DNA match between pixelpusher220 and the person who murdered this child" basically means you and a couple million other people have the same 8 markers in your DNA, it does not mean you did the crime or were involved in any way.
But a jury hearing "100% DNA match" is trained to think that means YOU are the only one that could possibly match the DNA sample, when in fact you could very easily match by pure chance.
Fingerprint matching on the other hand is actually pretty reliable and accurate.
For whatever reason, it appears the general public is willing to at least entertain the statistics behind fingerprint matching, and require some other form of evidence to go along with it.
Until these facts change regarding DNA, it really should be banned as valid evidence.
Being guilty by pure chance was supposed to go out of style with the witch trials.
This is the 3rd time you have been corrected and yet keep repeating these lies.
Apple did NOT invent the USB 2.0 spec. They had nothing to do with it beyond using it.
Stop lying about apple inventing things they did not invent
Stop lying about Android, with your claims that not a single android device can talk to a computer over USB.
Stop lying about resistors being secret government microprocessors capable of complex digital communications.
Just stop lying.
The only reason this works is because Apple put DRM in their chargers to prevent people creating cheaper clones.
Two resistors is hardly concidered "communications" by anyone else in any industry.
Two resistors are also not considered "DRM" by pretty much anyone else either.
Please try to be right when correcting someone.
US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people,
Prolonging the suffering of patients. That is sick.
Murdering people against their will is even sicker, and seems to be what you are advocating for.
While I appreciate you giving me the OK to murder you without cause or further consent, I on the other hand refuse to lower myself to your level to do so.
Seriously, paypal done fucked up once more.
They did a great job teaching this kid "I could sell it to paypal for zero dollars, or I can auction it on this underground forum starting at $5000"
The only thing the kid even asked paypal for was a written statement of the accomplishment to put on his resume, and they won't even send that!
Even Microsoft lists him as a security researcher for the updates they have pushed fixing bugs this kid has found and reported to them!
The worst part is, paypal has also just taught these facts to everyone else who happens to know of an exploit in their system, or ever finds one in the future.
Smart move paypal *golf clap* smart move