If you want to sit and passively wait for pics like the rest of us, sure. But if you want to collect information more easily by saying "We'll treat it well", you had better.
That asset is worth less, and thus given more freely, because it's encumbered with conditions. Pretending the conditions on an asset go away on transfer is ridiculous. If you buy land where someone else has the water rights, for instance, you cannot remove that right by simply selling the land - even via bankruptcy. That personal information is seen differently is a legal aberration, and part of the reason nobody respects "the law".
The real way to deal with this is rent the involved CEOs' houses (as if for a movie shoot) and go bankrupt, selling the houses (which we all agree are not yours to sell) for pennies on the dollar. Because that's what they're doing to people.
Do you have an expectation of privacy when broadcasting signals? No. Of course not. And that's why, despite the USA's stupid laws, we encrypt our radio communications.
But it should be reasonable to expect the company selling you an encrypted phone not sell you out without a warrant.
Without the phone company identifying your phone for the snoopers you wouldn't stand out from the other anonymous devices. And because they refuse to use DOS-resistant protocols (ie, the phone only answering location queries from devices it trusts, like the base station, and not some random spoofer), you have a crippled device serving more as a leash than a phone.
If PETA was having a protest and someone used the police over-reaction there to rob a bank elsewhere you'd probably blame the demonstrators. A bunch of people were DDOSing an auth server. Meanwhile someone hacked into a website. The two are only coincidentally connected because no cover was needed and the DDOSing didn't open the hole.
In the end who the heck cares, these groups affected million of innocent people while trying to prove their "point." If they don't care about the general populace, why should the general populace care about them.
To the degree the general populace is as willfully ignorant as you, fuck them. Your hardship in going to Walmart and buying donuts is meant to be interrupted by protests - it's what makes you look around. If you pay attention, Sony wasn't properly providing what they claimed to be. If you wouldn't leave your credit card info laying in a public washroom you shouldn't give it to Sony. If a script kiddy gets through your security with standard tools it's your fault as a service provider. It's not the 90s anymore.
You should feel lucky if the service interruption kept you from registering. If you already were registered call your credit card company and say that with being forced to use the console online for the full experience, and them being so lax with your credit card and personal info, that you want to return it and get a refund.
In the end Sony just increased their security. They're still Sony and [...]
To the degree that that actually happened, then good. It's exactly what should have happened.
But if you believe that you probably believe anything you hear. They'll patch the specific hole used, and a few others, and drop the issue because they've got a monopoly on serving play station owners. They don't need to compete on quality. Post-purchase you're screwed.
Your standard is pretty weak - you care about the material, not the result. I want furniture that won't break in regular use and isn't just overbuilt to cost more. Particle board is bad in some uses, 'solid wood' bad for others.
It sounds like your 'real furniture stores' are just pretentious crap-shacks selling the same lame workmanship but in more expensive materials or they'd have given you better standards.
Apple OEM install discs only install on hardware they came with [...]
Gotta love it when a non-trivial amount of engineering goes into making the product less useful. What if your disc breaks and your friend doesn't have the same model?
If they weren't total assholes the disc would work, but would bill the owner of that install serial number for another install unless they proved it was to replace broken media. But at best they'd still be inconveniencing you.
Restricted yet easy far more open than MSFTS stupid plan.
Meh. Not noticeably different really. Big stonewalling company, DRM, requiring permission to install, abusive EULAs, etc. When you haven't balked at giving them the ability to make you jump through hoops why begrudge them an extra hoop or two?
It's difficult to have a rational debate with a guy holding a sign that says "Wall St is full of Pig Fuckers"
He's only wrong in the sense that they don't literally fuck pigs. In the vernacular that means thieves and those who deal with them. And Wall St is full of them.
Try giving him one good reason to believe that the financial system isn't a giant Ponzi scheme.
or the guy standing next to him with a sign that says "A Job Is A Natural Right"
Isn't it? Why shouldn't he take his 1/300Mth of the resources and join another group, if our society won't manage them properly?
In this case, we're letting a minority group with little to no concern over the results of their actions undermine democracy because they feel they have the right to just ignore the law because it's inconvenient.
Uh, no, we're not. Arguing that we should choose, through the democratic process, an approach to controlling the ills associated with certain currently-prohibited drugs that would, based on past experience with another previously-prohibited drugs whose prohibition had undesirable effects very similar to those that are manifest with the currently-prohibited drugs at issue, produce better net results for society isn't letting anyone undermine democracy. (And, if it was, ending prohibition -- which had no such clear past referent -- would have been even moreso.)
Actually, I think prohibition undermined democracy, and would have even if a clear 90% majority had voted for it in a special referendum.
Membership in our country isn't optional. You have it because you were born here and if you leave you lose your share of the resources without recourse. What may be valid if we all signed up isn't valid when we don't have a practical choice.
Democracy needs to be used in a positive fashion - for instance building a new hospital. If a sufficiently large group of the people need a new hospital we should build/staff one. And it winning means that while other people wanted other things, this is simply the most popular - a hospital at all, and this one particular, was more wanted than anything else.
It should not be used as freely for restrictions. You can find problems in anything, and with enough propaganda, get everyone riled up. And that's all politicians are paid to do. But that doesn't mean you have the moral authority to tell your neighbor not to do things simply because many people don't like it.
It abuses our democracy for people to vote for prohibition (or the war in Iraq, etc) because it says "there are more of us and thus we're right" (which is a fallacy).
The difference between Google and Microsoft is that Google invented AppEngine, Microsoft would be trying to extend someone else's existing project.
Also Google has published the API openly and supports third-party attempts to implement it like this project. Microsoft would have released the API details under NDA to registered developers, and would sue anyone attempting to reverse-engineer them.
Or maybe we could get a bit eye-for-an-eye and put up posters around his home town with his face and instructions to "insult this arse if you see him in the street, let's see how he likes it [...]".
Well, you've got one good idea. I was beginning to think you were an irredeemable ass. "Ban him! Ban him!" and all.
I mean look at the podgy slack-jawed idiot
Hmmm, no. You just seem mean. Two of your insults are based on physical features and the last on a congenital mental defect. You're a bully. Go rag on someone with a hair-lip, why don't you?
ASBOs are pretty much ineffective due to the "badge of honour" thing
If they're handed out by people like you, flipping out over insults and looking for any handy revenge, yeah.
People get all "its a human right" if you talk about a more general Internet ban
Too bad we can't get all eye-for-an-eye on you and ban you from the net for trying to do it to someone else.
First, it's the government saying this, they'll say any convenient thing literally without regard for truth. Portraying some people as a leadership group is their way of trying to pin everything on a few people, having huge sentences, and declaring it solved. They'd never have said it truly was a leaderless collective - it would have scuppered their case.
Second, there's a difference between a leadership group and a collective of equals, some of whom just have more enticing ideas. Nobody in Anonymous can tell anyone else what to do because there is no hierarchy, no account to keep in good standing, no way to definitively identify each other, and thus absolutely no way to enforce anything.
All any reports of a leadership clique indicate is who the reporter personally finds influential/threatening.
I dunno, everyone I've ever seen mention Anonymous in person mentions the Scientology thing and is at least semi-positive about them. They often don't have a clue what's going on but they know what Scientology is (if only a little) and that they hate it so it must be a good thing.
On the other hand FOX news has yet to say anything positive about Wikileaks so of course they're spinning Anonymous, if they come up, as atheistic anarchistic monsters.
If that's your only measure, that the USA is so full of retards that the propaganda is accepted uncritically by a majority, then yes. But at that level, the majority believes that god exists. But that's not public opinion being against Anonymous, that's your whole fucking nation being addicted to the daily hate and willing to accept any story for blood. As you say, they'll gleefully watch thugs blowing away teenage "hackers" if they've been assured that these kids are against baby Jesus. Yay USA.
If you're going to play "Revolutionary" like the big boys do, you'd better understand what that means: secret jails, warrantless raids, and "shot while resisting arrest". That's how governments... ALL governments...
Yeah, that's pretty much why you're universally despised. One minute you're all like "We're the USA, best in the world", and the next it's "Did you look at me? I'll fucking kill you if you looked at me!"
If you treat harmless protests as terrorism you can expect terrorism because there won't be any enforcement difference. In for a penny, in for bringing down the power grid to fuck the pricks who shot your friend for DDoSing Sony. If that means China invades, oh well - you're gonna get shot anyways.
Think about the message you really want the government to send to our kids.
But you lose the ability to brag about it when you made a correct prevision.
No. You could selectively prove authorship after the fact with a few schemes. For example, you could sign a post by publishing a hash of it plus a one-time key, before you publish the post. To later reveal it as yours you point to the appropriate random number, the post, and reveal your secret key for that post allowing the hashing to be checked.
By using a unique key you prevent a Google-level enemy from hashing all posts in the world to see which match your random numbers.
You are also less likely to be taken seriously.
Not by those worth being heard by.
I have a name because I choose to be findable by it, not to earn a modicum more respect from it. Frankly if you can't judge me by my words alone...
It's probably pretty easy. I doubt many people fully test the QoS qualities of their new gigabit switch while at the counter. All you need to do is make it look real enough that they think the problem might be on their end long enough for you to move on.
Put a general purpose computer in it configured to mimic the specific product. Until it fails to deliver under load it'll appear to be the real thing.
Btw there's actually a phrase for what you're feeling: "domain envy". It's no different than those that lament not buying MSFT back in the early '90s.
I (may) lament my lack of money but not my unwillingness to mug a senior citizen for it. I don't envy the killers.
You're using domain envy a little too loosely here. Under your usage a rape counselor would have domain envy towards rapists.
And I'd bet the you'd feel much differently if you owned a multi-million dollar domain like beautiful.com.
Ahhh, the "You can't prove you wouldn't do it so it's unjust to punish anyone for it" argument. Weak.
But no, I wouldn't want them, or me, to be punished. I'd want it taken away and allocated in a way that best matches what the public wants to find when they type "beautiful com(pany)".
But you can't because P&G registered [...] Sounds like you're unhappy about the situation.
Yes, I am. There are systems that could serve people and here we are using one pretty much designed not to help.
Out here in the real world it's called capitalism.
Wow. That's so abysmally stupid that you must have an MBA.
That is precisely the opposite of capitalism. The government took some computer config stuff and wrote laws about it, handing control of the process to the biggest lobbyist and in general fucking the whole system up, just so someone could 'own' it. That's cronyism and rent-seeking. Pay attention, it's the main cause of the decay of your society.
The whole thing is shockingly Soviet. Take some functioning industry, decide bureaucrats know best, and drive it into the ground through a total lack of domain knowledge.
The United States is indeed in a war in Afganistan.
It sure is.
And its not operating on a purely evil operation.
Actually, it is. It invaded Afghanistan under the false pretense of catching Osama. If someone busts into my house and kills someone that doesn't give me the right to burn your house down while chasing him.
Maybe you should go back and read what life is like under the Taliban where Osama Bin Laden and his 'followers' inflicted misery and death on ordinary people,
Maybe you should go back to 2001-09-10 and see the absolute lack of concern for that suffering that your entire government showed. It's a convenient justification, after the fact, but it's a flat out lie to say that the USA went into Afghanistan to help the people in any way.
The ability to take out a kite and fly it.
Yes, the kite-hating Muslims. Biggest sect, right after Sunnis.
There was no oil there - a standard claim of the leftists brain dead dogma often pitched.
The USA has invaded and killed millions for many reasons. Oil is only one. The Philippines were a convenient base. Central American countries fell for as little as bananas, or the rights of US companies to grow them.
US troops being anywhere on the planet is no reason to slay 3,000 civilians anywhere.
Terrorists killing 3000 is no reason for you to kill over a million, mostly noncombatants, in a country totally unrelated to the attack.
the greatest numbers of people dying are deliberatly killed, maimed, and tortured by this enemy as *their primary* ethics and policy.
The greatest number of people dying because of the war are doing so because of restricted access to food or medicine, largely because of embargoes. A ways down the list are people unintentionally killed by predator drones over Pakistan.
Al Quaeda's actions, 9/11 and all, is really just a rounding error on an unstopping US-led killing spree
And the visitation of guests in Islamic lands is no acceptable way to slaughter 3,000 people in a couple of buildings because you don't happen to like that idea very much
Try for coherency.
Also, apply this advice to yourselves. One guy killing some people doesn't justify you killing whole cities full of other people.
You are monsters.
Americans and Western troops may not indeed be angelic on occasion in this dark war, soldiers generally aren't, but they are brought to account, and if they commit crimes they are brought to book.
Liar. Fucking useless jingoistic liar.
Thousands of people knew about atrocities at Abu Ghraib and a handful have token sentences - certainly none of the higher ranks.
The US armed forces' main job these days is losing Apache gun-cam video.
When was the last time you saw Al Quida or one of its affiliates bringing one of their scum to court becuase they broke laws.
I imagine they do it all the time, actually. Sharia law is reputed to be quite strict. Stupid religious nonsense of course, but strict.
Oh, thats right, they don't follow law, geneva convention, wear uniforms, or any civilised premise.
Hint, asshole. You don't follow the Geneva convention. You kidnapped innocent brown people (this is all you used to select them) from international flights and sent them to Syria for literally years of testicle zapping, waterboarding, torture. You're fucking monsters.
They actively target and kill civilians as their primary weapon, and do not deserve an ouce or vestige of the humanity often given to them.
Awww, they've grown up just like you. Isn't it sweet.
You've killed hundreds of thousands in a war against Saddam (under false pretenses no less). The vast maj
And on that topic, emulators aren't illegal either.
Actually, in the USA, they probably are. Under old copyright law, no. But under the DMCA, in any practical sense, very likely yes.
Almost all ROMs are protected by hardware and software means. To access that for any reason other than one explicitly approved by the copyright holder, with a limited set of exceptions such as library use, sounds like a DMCA violation.
Let this be a lesson to people in other countries. The USA's laws are unrealistic and unreasonable and will have to be thrown off at some point. Best to do it before adopting it if you still have the chance. Write to your representatives and let them know that letting foreign parties dictate your laws is a fundamental violation of their duties.
Not even in the most retarded countries when it comes to IP law.
That would be the USA, yes.
If not the DMCA then patents. Any given ROM likely contains patented features and using those in a way they weren't licensed for can be a violation even if done by an end user. The law is just that ridiculous.
Companies want you to THINK it is illegal, but it isn't.
True dat. I had it out with id Software on usenet over them claiming it was illegal to write a level editor for Doom. Also, later when they claimed modding Q3 so it'd allow clients without checking them via the master keyserver would be illegal.
And Blizzard when they claimed it's be illegal (for me in Canada) to modify one of their games to avoid broken DRM.
But it's getting to the point where they're right, everything is illegal there. Common sense and traditional legal wisdow, like that software must be implicitly licensed to be used or it couldn't reasonably be offered for sale, is disappearing under draconian nonsense like the DMCA
Track and pool expenses then split them by total revenue, and then by the unreasonableness of the case. The individual makes maybe $75k, the studio perhaps $7.5B so weight the costs accordingly.
And World of Warcraft magic swords aren't.. Hilarious. Both are lines of nothing in a database.
You may disagree that the owner of "cellphones.com" should profit from the domain
Of course I do. They're a useless leech on the system. If not for a court turning that into "property" it'd just be data in a DB and the community would point it where the community wanted.
The reason we think (in general) that property owners should be able to rent property is that it usually wouldn't be there (a house), or developed (a piece of property with access and sewer/power), etc. Simply giving the public domain to someone, like ownership of the word 'cellphones' so that they can start billing when people use it is as reasonable as letting people set up toll booths on roads they didn't build or maintain.
In the beginning domain names were sold not to make money but to pay for their administration and to keep freeloaders from taking them all. Now their administration is trivial and the low prices mean "free"loaders are back. We need to add a new rule like, if you want more than five domains you have to send a picture of yourself (no employees, etc) with a shoe on your head. It's not about cost, it's about deterring run-away hoarding and bringing problems to light so they can be fixed to the benefit of everyone.
But at least recognize that there is a clear distinction between "sewer scum" and legitimate domain owners that choose to use a domain as they see fit.
You mean, take the group of people who intentionally hurt society for their own luxury, and recognize an important different because some choose to do it via gaming the system and some just break the rules? No. I don't think so.
Domain names are just lines in a database and the laws justifying those DB lines as property and not others are ridiculous. People who make a business gaming this are thieves, if only the crafty type we call lawyers.
Pft. The TSA is provably worthless because they knowingly continue to do the wrong things. They're obviously (as in, to the people who man the stations) not useful for security because of everything that comes in without getting screened via other paths. (And yes, it gets some but lesser screening - I saw a family have a collectible plate taken away (it could have been a weapon, gasp!) but while waiting for my flight I noticed a virtually identical plate for sale in the secure area.)
So anyways, nobody who works at the TSA can use "saving lives" as an excuse for anything they do. It's obvious security theater to the tourists who lost their plate, and to the guards enforcing it. As such, unjust treatment is obviously just unjust, with no higher purpose to rescue it.
At that, everyone in the organization from the janitor and the mailboy to the management and front-line gropers, is guilty of groping. They know it happens and they know it's worthless, but they continue to support it. The only problem with the suit is that it doesn't sue the whole management chain too.
The concept that they NOT be required to defend their behavior is ludicrous. Legal, but ludicrous.
That isn't really a practical attack against a hash which is why they'd very likely be using one as part of their system. Part of the point is that they discard information (if done right) making it very one-way.
It'd only work if you perfectly guess the plaintext and that'd only work if they used weak strings like 'One' or '1002007'. If you think anyone has ever, or will ever, type exactly the same sequence of letters as you, you shouldn't be using that phrase cryptographically.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to sit and passively wait for pics like the rest of us, sure. But if you want to collect information more easily by saying "We'll treat it well", you had better.
That asset is worth less, and thus given more freely, because it's encumbered with conditions. Pretending the conditions on an asset go away on transfer is ridiculous. If you buy land where someone else has the water rights, for instance, you cannot remove that right by simply selling the land - even via bankruptcy. That personal information is seen differently is a legal aberration, and part of the reason nobody respects "the law".
The real way to deal with this is rent the involved CEOs' houses (as if for a movie shoot) and go bankrupt, selling the houses (which we all agree are not yours to sell) for pennies on the dollar. Because that's what they're doing to people.
Do you have an expectation of privacy when broadcasting signals? No. Of course not. And that's why, despite the USA's stupid laws, we encrypt our radio communications.
But it should be reasonable to expect the company selling you an encrypted phone not sell you out without a warrant.
Without the phone company identifying your phone for the snoopers you wouldn't stand out from the other anonymous devices. And because they refuse to use DOS-resistant protocols (ie, the phone only answering location queries from devices it trusts, like the base station, and not some random spoofer), you have a crippled device serving more as a leash than a phone.
WOW good job anonymous on your 5 seconds of fame.
If PETA was having a protest and someone used the police over-reaction there to rob a bank elsewhere you'd probably blame the demonstrators. A bunch of people were DDOSing an auth server. Meanwhile someone hacked into a website. The two are only coincidentally connected because no cover was needed and the DDOSing didn't open the hole.
In the end who the heck cares, these groups affected million of innocent people while trying to prove their "point." If they don't care about the general populace, why should the general populace care about them.
To the degree the general populace is as willfully ignorant as you, fuck them. Your hardship in going to Walmart and buying donuts is meant to be interrupted by protests - it's what makes you look around. If you pay attention, Sony wasn't properly providing what they claimed to be. If you wouldn't leave your credit card info laying in a public washroom you shouldn't give it to Sony. If a script kiddy gets through your security with standard tools it's your fault as a service provider. It's not the 90s anymore.
You should feel lucky if the service interruption kept you from registering. If you already were registered call your credit card company and say that with being forced to use the console online for the full experience, and them being so lax with your credit card and personal info, that you want to return it and get a refund.
In the end Sony just increased their security. They're still Sony and [...]
To the degree that that actually happened, then good. It's exactly what should have happened.
But if you believe that you probably believe anything you hear. They'll patch the specific hole used, and a few others, and drop the issue because they've got a monopoly on serving play station owners. They don't need to compete on quality. Post-purchase you're screwed.
Your standard is pretty weak - you care about the material, not the result. I want furniture that won't break in regular use and isn't just overbuilt to cost more. Particle board is bad in some uses, 'solid wood' bad for others.
It sounds like your 'real furniture stores' are just pretentious crap-shacks selling the same lame workmanship but in more expensive materials or they'd have given you better standards.
Apple OEM install discs only install on hardware they came with [...]
Gotta love it when a non-trivial amount of engineering goes into making the product less useful. What if your disc breaks and your friend doesn't have the same model?
If they weren't total assholes the disc would work, but would bill the owner of that install serial number for another install unless they proved it was to replace broken media. But at best they'd still be inconveniencing you.
Restricted yet easy far more open than MSFTS stupid plan.
Meh. Not noticeably different really. Big stonewalling company, DRM, requiring permission to install, abusive EULAs, etc. When you haven't balked at giving them the ability to make you jump through hoops why begrudge them an extra hoop or two?
It's difficult to have a rational debate with a guy holding a sign that says "Wall St is full of Pig Fuckers"
He's only wrong in the sense that they don't literally fuck pigs. In the vernacular that means thieves and those who deal with them. And Wall St is full of them.
Try giving him one good reason to believe that the financial system isn't a giant Ponzi scheme.
or the guy standing next to him with a sign that says "A Job Is A Natural Right"
Isn't it? Why shouldn't he take his 1/300Mth of the resources and join another group, if our society won't manage them properly?
Then don't watch. I'd prefer to give someone the option to scar themselves than cripple everyone to prevent it.
In this case, we're letting a minority group with little to no concern over the results of their actions undermine democracy because they feel they have the right to just ignore the law because it's inconvenient.
Uh, no, we're not. Arguing that we should choose, through the democratic process, an approach to controlling the ills associated with certain currently-prohibited drugs that would, based on past experience with another previously-prohibited drugs whose prohibition had undesirable effects very similar to those that are manifest with the currently-prohibited drugs at issue, produce better net results for society isn't letting anyone undermine democracy. (And, if it was, ending prohibition -- which had no such clear past referent -- would have been even moreso.)
Actually, I think prohibition undermined democracy, and would have even if a clear 90% majority had voted for it in a special referendum.
Membership in our country isn't optional. You have it because you were born here and if you leave you lose your share of the resources without recourse. What may be valid if we all signed up isn't valid when we don't have a practical choice.
Democracy needs to be used in a positive fashion - for instance building a new hospital. If a sufficiently large group of the people need a new hospital we should build/staff one. And it winning means that while other people wanted other things, this is simply the most popular - a hospital at all, and this one particular, was more wanted than anything else.
It should not be used as freely for restrictions. You can find problems in anything, and with enough propaganda, get everyone riled up. And that's all politicians are paid to do. But that doesn't mean you have the moral authority to tell your neighbor not to do things simply because many people don't like it.
It abuses our democracy for people to vote for prohibition (or the war in Iraq, etc) because it says "there are more of us and thus we're right" (which is a fallacy).
The difference between Google and Microsoft is that Google invented AppEngine, Microsoft would be trying to extend someone else's existing project.
Also Google has published the API openly and supports third-party attempts to implement it like this project. Microsoft would have released the API details under NDA to registered developers, and would sue anyone attempting to reverse-engineer them.
Or maybe we could get a bit eye-for-an-eye and put up posters around his home town with his face and instructions to "insult this arse if you see him in the street, let's see how he likes it [...]".
Well, you've got one good idea. I was beginning to think you were an irredeemable ass. "Ban him! Ban him!" and all.
I mean look at the podgy slack-jawed idiot
Hmmm, no. You just seem mean. Two of your insults are based on physical features and the last on a congenital mental defect. You're a bully. Go rag on someone with a hair-lip, why don't you?
ASBOs are pretty much ineffective due to the "badge of honour" thing
If they're handed out by people like you, flipping out over insults and looking for any handy revenge, yeah.
People get all "its a human right" if you talk about a more general Internet ban
Too bad we can't get all eye-for-an-eye on you and ban you from the net for trying to do it to someone else.
Right. If we gave such a huge boost to one industry we'd have to do it for the rest.
First, it's the government saying this, they'll say any convenient thing literally without regard for truth. Portraying some people as a leadership group is their way of trying to pin everything on a few people, having huge sentences, and declaring it solved. They'd never have said it truly was a leaderless collective - it would have scuppered their case.
Second, there's a difference between a leadership group and a collective of equals, some of whom just have more enticing ideas. Nobody in Anonymous can tell anyone else what to do because there is no hierarchy, no account to keep in good standing, no way to definitively identify each other, and thus absolutely no way to enforce anything.
All any reports of a leadership clique indicate is who the reporter personally finds influential/threatening.
I dunno, everyone I've ever seen mention Anonymous in person mentions the Scientology thing and is at least semi-positive about them. They often don't have a clue what's going on but they know what Scientology is (if only a little) and that they hate it so it must be a good thing.
On the other hand FOX news has yet to say anything positive about Wikileaks so of course they're spinning Anonymous, if they come up, as atheistic anarchistic monsters.
If that's your only measure, that the USA is so full of retards that the propaganda is accepted uncritically by a majority, then yes. But at that level, the majority believes that god exists. But that's not public opinion being against Anonymous, that's your whole fucking nation being addicted to the daily hate and willing to accept any story for blood. As you say, they'll gleefully watch thugs blowing away teenage "hackers" if they've been assured that these kids are against baby Jesus. Yay USA.
If you're going to play "Revolutionary" like the big boys do, you'd better understand what that means: secret jails, warrantless raids, and "shot while resisting arrest". That's how governments... ALL governments...
Yeah, that's pretty much why you're universally despised. One minute you're all like "We're the USA, best in the world", and the next it's "Did you look at me? I'll fucking kill you if you looked at me!"
If you treat harmless protests as terrorism you can expect terrorism because there won't be any enforcement difference. In for a penny, in for bringing down the power grid to fuck the pricks who shot your friend for DDoSing Sony. If that means China invades, oh well - you're gonna get shot anyways.
Think about the message you really want the government to send to our kids.
But you lose the ability to brag about it when you made a correct prevision.
No. You could selectively prove authorship after the fact with a few schemes. For example, you could sign a post by publishing a hash of it plus a one-time key, before you publish the post. To later reveal it as yours you point to the appropriate random number, the post, and reveal your secret key for that post allowing the hashing to be checked.
By using a unique key you prevent a Google-level enemy from hashing all posts in the world to see which match your random numbers.
You are also less likely to be taken seriously.
Not by those worth being heard by.
I have a name because I choose to be findable by it, not to earn a modicum more respect from it. Frankly if you can't judge me by my words alone...
The TV Guide you say? Were the listings accurate? Which sitcom is your favorite? Why?
It's probably pretty easy. I doubt many people fully test the QoS qualities of their new gigabit switch while at the counter. All you need to do is make it look real enough that they think the problem might be on their end long enough for you to move on.
Put a general purpose computer in it configured to mimic the specific product. Until it fails to deliver under load it'll appear to be the real thing.
Btw there's actually a phrase for what you're feeling: "domain envy". It's no different than those that lament not buying MSFT back in the early '90s.
I (may) lament my lack of money but not my unwillingness to mug a senior citizen for it. I don't envy the killers.
You're using domain envy a little too loosely here. Under your usage a rape counselor would have domain envy towards rapists.
And I'd bet the you'd feel much differently if you owned a multi-million dollar domain like beautiful.com.
Ahhh, the "You can't prove you wouldn't do it so it's unjust to punish anyone for it" argument. Weak.
But no, I wouldn't want them, or me, to be punished. I'd want it taken away and allocated in a way that best matches what the public wants to find when they type "beautiful com(pany)".
But you can't because P&G registered [...] Sounds like you're unhappy about the situation.
Yes, I am. There are systems that could serve people and here we are using one pretty much designed not to help.
Out here in the real world it's called capitalism.
Wow. That's so abysmally stupid that you must have an MBA.
That is precisely the opposite of capitalism. The government took some computer config stuff and wrote laws about it, handing control of the process to the biggest lobbyist and in general fucking the whole system up, just so someone could 'own' it. That's cronyism and rent-seeking. Pay attention, it's the main cause of the decay of your society.
The whole thing is shockingly Soviet. Take some functioning industry, decide bureaucrats know best, and drive it into the ground through a total lack of domain knowledge.
The United States is indeed in a war in Afganistan.
It sure is.
And its not operating on a purely evil operation.
Actually, it is. It invaded Afghanistan under the false pretense of catching Osama. If someone busts into my house and kills someone that doesn't give me the right to burn your house down while chasing him.
Maybe you should go back and read what life is like under the Taliban where Osama Bin Laden and his 'followers' inflicted misery and death on ordinary people,
Maybe you should go back to 2001-09-10 and see the absolute lack of concern for that suffering that your entire government showed. It's a convenient justification, after the fact, but it's a flat out lie to say that the USA went into Afghanistan to help the people in any way.
The ability to take out a kite and fly it.
Yes, the kite-hating Muslims. Biggest sect, right after Sunnis.
There was no oil there - a standard claim of the leftists brain dead dogma often pitched.
The USA has invaded and killed millions for many reasons. Oil is only one. The Philippines were a convenient base. Central American countries fell for as little as bananas, or the rights of US companies to grow them.
US troops being anywhere on the planet is no reason to slay 3,000 civilians anywhere.
Terrorists killing 3000 is no reason for you to kill over a million, mostly noncombatants, in a country totally unrelated to the attack.
the greatest numbers of people dying are deliberatly killed, maimed, and tortured by this enemy as *their primary* ethics and policy.
The greatest number of people dying because of the war are doing so because of restricted access to food or medicine, largely because of embargoes. A ways down the list are people unintentionally killed by predator drones over Pakistan.
Al Quaeda's actions, 9/11 and all, is really just a rounding error on an unstopping US-led killing spree
And the visitation of guests in Islamic lands is no acceptable way to slaughter 3,000 people in a couple of buildings because you don't happen to like that idea very much
Try for coherency.
Also, apply this advice to yourselves. One guy killing some people doesn't justify you killing whole cities full of other people.
You are monsters.
Americans and Western troops may not indeed be angelic on occasion in this dark war, soldiers generally aren't, but they are brought to account, and if they commit crimes they are brought to book.
Liar. Fucking useless jingoistic liar.
Thousands of people knew about atrocities at Abu Ghraib and a handful have token sentences - certainly none of the higher ranks.
The US armed forces' main job these days is losing Apache gun-cam video.
When was the last time you saw Al Quida or one of its affiliates bringing one of their scum to court becuase they broke laws.
I imagine they do it all the time, actually. Sharia law is reputed to be quite strict. Stupid religious nonsense of course, but strict.
Oh, thats right, they don't follow law, geneva convention, wear uniforms, or any civilised premise.
Hint, asshole. You don't follow the Geneva convention. You kidnapped innocent brown people (this is all you used to select them) from international flights and sent them to Syria for literally years of testicle zapping, waterboarding, torture. You're fucking monsters.
They actively target and kill civilians as their primary weapon, and do not deserve an ouce or vestige of the humanity often given to them.
Awww, they've grown up just like you. Isn't it sweet.
You've killed hundreds of thousands in a war against Saddam (under false pretenses no less). The vast maj
Sigh no.
Nowadays anyone would be seen as a odd for still using C after twenty years unless they were in certain specific industries.
Simply 20+ years of programming experience isn't that weird at all.
And on that topic, emulators aren't illegal either.
Actually, in the USA, they probably are. Under old copyright law, no. But under the DMCA, in any practical sense, very likely yes.
Almost all ROMs are protected by hardware and software means. To access that for any reason other than one explicitly approved by the copyright holder, with a limited set of exceptions such as library use, sounds like a DMCA violation.
Let this be a lesson to people in other countries. The USA's laws are unrealistic and unreasonable and will have to be thrown off at some point. Best to do it before adopting it if you still have the chance. Write to your representatives and let them know that letting foreign parties dictate your laws is a fundamental violation of their duties.
Not even in the most retarded countries when it comes to IP law.
That would be the USA, yes.
If not the DMCA then patents. Any given ROM likely contains patented features and using those in a way they weren't licensed for can be a violation even if done by an end user. The law is just that ridiculous.
Companies want you to THINK it is illegal, but it isn't.
True dat. I had it out with id Software on usenet over them claiming it was illegal to write a level editor for Doom. Also, later when they claimed modding Q3 so it'd allow clients without checking them via the master keyserver would be illegal.
And Blizzard when they claimed it's be illegal (for me in Canada) to modify one of their games to avoid broken DRM.
But it's getting to the point where they're right, everything is illegal there. Common sense and traditional legal wisdow, like that software must be implicitly licensed to be used or it couldn't reasonably be offered for sale, is disappearing under draconian nonsense like the DMCA
Track and pool expenses then split them by total revenue, and then by the unreasonableness of the case. The individual makes maybe $75k, the studio perhaps $7.5B so weight the costs accordingly.
btw, domains are considered property
And World of Warcraft magic swords aren't.. Hilarious. Both are lines of nothing in a database.
You may disagree that the owner of "cellphones.com" should profit from the domain
Of course I do. They're a useless leech on the system. If not for a court turning that into "property" it'd just be data in a DB and the community would point it where the community wanted.
The reason we think (in general) that property owners should be able to rent property is that it usually wouldn't be there (a house), or developed (a piece of property with access and sewer/power), etc. Simply giving the public domain to someone, like ownership of the word 'cellphones' so that they can start billing when people use it is as reasonable as letting people set up toll booths on roads they didn't build or maintain.
In the beginning domain names were sold not to make money but to pay for their administration and to keep freeloaders from taking them all. Now their administration is trivial and the low prices mean "free"loaders are back. We need to add a new rule like, if you want more than five domains you have to send a picture of yourself (no employees, etc) with a shoe on your head. It's not about cost, it's about deterring run-away hoarding and bringing problems to light so they can be fixed to the benefit of everyone.
But at least recognize that there is a clear distinction between "sewer scum" and legitimate domain owners that choose to use a domain as they see fit.
You mean, take the group of people who intentionally hurt society for their own luxury, and recognize an important different because some choose to do it via gaming the system and some just break the rules? No. I don't think so.
Domain names are just lines in a database and the laws justifying those DB lines as property and not others are ridiculous. People who make a business gaming this are thieves, if only the crafty type we call lawyers.
Pft. The TSA is provably worthless because they knowingly continue to do the wrong things. They're obviously (as in, to the people who man the stations) not useful for security because of everything that comes in without getting screened via other paths. (And yes, it gets some but lesser screening - I saw a family have a collectible plate taken away (it could have been a weapon, gasp!) but while waiting for my flight I noticed a virtually identical plate for sale in the secure area.)
So anyways, nobody who works at the TSA can use "saving lives" as an excuse for anything they do. It's obvious security theater to the tourists who lost their plate, and to the guards enforcing it. As such, unjust treatment is obviously just unjust, with no higher purpose to rescue it.
At that, everyone in the organization from the janitor and the mailboy to the management and front-line gropers, is guilty of groping. They know it happens and they know it's worthless, but they continue to support it. The only problem with the suit is that it doesn't sue the whole management chain too.
The concept that they NOT be required to defend their behavior is ludicrous. Legal, but ludicrous.
That isn't really a practical attack against a hash which is why they'd very likely be using one as part of their system. Part of the point is that they discard information (if done right) making it very one-way.
It'd only work if you perfectly guess the plaintext and that'd only work if they used weak strings like 'One' or '1002007'. If you think anyone has ever, or will ever, type exactly the same sequence of letters as you, you shouldn't be using that phrase cryptographically.
DRM comes into it because it's what keeps you from making a HD-backup of a CD or DVD (and having it work).