I'd have just returned the item for a refund outright, and for good measure, written a lette to the applicable state attorney general's office about the fraud Best Buy had perpetrated, using a copy of the original receipt as proof of the conveniently increased price.
Of course, this assumes I'd be caught dead giving any money to Best Buy.
That has to be the most thoughtful rant I've ever read here, and I learned more than I ever knew about photographry and photographers. So I ask: why isn't it at 5?
Heh. I'm sure that an internet connection is required to play the movie, and that it will be checking some (somewhat) secure time reference that the user doesn't control.
Can it really be that long before there is a work-around for the DRM protection?
That's exactly what they want. Then there's a better case for the CBDTPA, making TCPA/digital restrictions management (DRM) required. And who holds a patent on DRM?
Hey, I'm as much a copyright infringer as the next guy, but if you think war3zing XP is subversive, you're wrong. You want to be subversive? Get regular users up and running with free software--for example, Linux, Star Office, and mplayer (no DRM there!).
You know, I simply used the wrong word. And minutes after clicking submit, typed the following as an AC reply:
s/cache/proxy/ in the above post.
which you obviously didn't bother to read. So obviously, you're not just a dick, but a dick that can't bother to read everything. While I really don't care what you think of me, here's a big FUCK YOU for calling me stupid.
This whole repetitive debate about terminology reminds me of the SPA's attempts to crowbar the word "softlifting" into the lexicon. Fortunately, they've failed at this more egregious attempt.
Unfortunately, a whole generation is being brainwashed into believing that copying bits is stealing. I suppose the *AA have enough money to make them believe the sky is made of cotton candy, too. But those who have been around any length of time remember that the earliest misuses of this terminology were by greedy "rights" holders. And they pretend to tow the line around the ignorant, while doing what they please among themselves. As it was and always shall be.
You're clearly being disingenuous here. The OP never said say he copied anything--yet you make baseless accusations and write an attempt at showing erudition that's nothing but a long-winded, polysyllabic diatribe that doesn't even disprove his original statement.
The music/movie industries might pull an Adobe--call the FBI, then say "Oh, why, we didn't mean for that to happen" after the PR crap hits the fan. It seemed to work for Adobe just fine.
No, they serve no-knock warrants on two or three each in a few different countries, confiscate everything, jail the users pending trial, sue them and their parents (if applicable). This would be sufficient to scare of 90% of those 4,500,000 Gnutella nodes. And it's going to happen--have you heard the shoe-banging rhetoric Ashcroft's been spouting about NET Act prosecutions? And do you think other Western nations dare not tow the line?
Early publically available anonymizing proxies, such as lpwa.com, did not cache SSL. And WTF is with the "you don't know what you're talking about" posts. It's possible to disagree without being a prick. Why not try it?
Re:Well.... Misson Accomplished
on
Mr Anti-Google
·
· Score: 1
The page with the login form is indeed sent to you unencrypted via ordinary HTTP. However, the form action is of the form https://foo/bar, which means that your browser will use SSL to submit the information you put into the form. This is why you don't get a security warning until you submit the form.
I stand corrected.
Now, this is inferior to using SSL for the login form . . .
Hotmail only uses SSL during the logon process (AFTER your username and password have been transmitted in the clear). I suspect this is an underhanded attempt to get the real IP address for those using anonymizing proxies, which often don't proxy SSL: you think you're anonymous, your browser silently connects on port 443, your real IP address is captured, and you're none the wiser until you're found out.
To observe this, turn on the warnings for transitioning between SSL and non-SSL pages and log on to hotmail.
What do you find so wrong with the idea that government be required to use software that saves taxpayers money and is open to public scrutiny in unclassified situations?
Slashdot Mirror
so go the days of our first posts.
first post!
But my feed doesn't carry alt.binaries.hamsters.teen.amateur.duct.tape.
Adjusting the price up 10% from the previous day's price when a 10% off sale starts is fraud, pure and simple.
Of course, this assumes I'd be caught dead giving any money to Best Buy.
That has to be the most thoughtful rant I've ever read here, and I learned more than I ever knew about photographry and photographers. So I ask: why isn't it at 5?
Heh. I'm sure that an internet connection is required to play the movie, and that it will be checking some (somewhat) secure time reference that the user doesn't control.
That's exactly what they want. Then there's a better case for the CBDTPA, making TCPA/digital restrictions management (DRM) required. And who holds a patent on DRM?
Hey, I'm as much a copyright infringer as the next guy, but if you think war3zing XP is subversive, you're wrong. You want to be subversive? Get regular users up and running with free software--for example, Linux, Star Office, and mplayer (no DRM there!).
Damn shame it's made by a jackbooted DMCA wielding, Jack Valenti loving, GPL violating, peer-to-peer network threatening evil conglomerate.
That's no more bogus than "stole" as in "infringed copyright." If we're going to be flexible with the lexicon, why not go whole hog?
Or they could be dooming it to fail to strengthen the argument of the Representative from Disney that it must be made mandatory.
Then if you're Jack Valenti, the solution is obvious: death penalty for file sharing.
Unfortunately, a whole generation is being brainwashed into believing that copying bits is stealing. I suppose the *AA have enough money to make them believe the sky is made of cotton candy, too. But those who have been around any length of time remember that the earliest misuses of this terminology were by greedy "rights" holders. And they pretend to tow the line around the ignorant, while doing what they please among themselves. As it was and always shall be.
You're clearly being disingenuous here. The OP never said say he copied anything--yet you make baseless accusations and write an attempt at showing erudition that's nothing but a long-winded, polysyllabic diatribe that doesn't even disprove his original statement.
The music/movie industries might pull an Adobe--call the FBI, then say "Oh, why, we didn't mean for that to happen" after the PR crap hits the fan. It seemed to work for Adobe just fine.
I don't think that Asian pr0n has the same allure for people who actually are Asian, anyway :).
Where do you think they're earning the money to pay Cisco?
No, they serve no-knock warrants on two or three each in a few different countries, confiscate everything, jail the users pending trial, sue them and their parents (if applicable). This would be sufficient to scare of 90% of those 4,500,000 Gnutella nodes. And it's going to happen--have you heard the shoe-banging rhetoric Ashcroft's been spouting about NET Act prosecutions? And do you think other Western nations dare not tow the line?
Early publically available anonymizing proxies, such as lpwa.com, did not cache SSL. And WTF is with the "you don't know what you're talking about" posts. It's possible to disagree without being a prick. Why not try it?
Google and Slashdot: ranked and spanked.
It's not necessary to be combative.
The page with the login form is indeed sent to you unencrypted via ordinary HTTP. However, the form action is of the form https://foo/bar, which means that your browser will use SSL to submit the information you put into the form. This is why you don't get a security warning until you submit the form.
I stand corrected.
Now, this is inferior to using SSL for the login form . . .
I agree.
To observe this, turn on the warnings for transitioning between SSL and non-SSL pages and log on to hotmail.
What do you find so wrong with the idea that government be required to use software that saves taxpayers money and is open to public scrutiny in unclassified situations?