> How exactly can they raid zombie computers of private people?
No computers were "raided". Read the articles. Breach your contract with your ISP/hosting service/registrar and they can terminate service without notice.
Because there is none. Quit confounding parody and satire with humour. Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).
> I wonder if Google could argue that by not using robots.txt, Murdoch had > essentially given permission to have his sites searched and indexed.
I believe that in the US case law has established that Murdoch has given permission to have his sites searched and indexed by making them public. Obeying robots.txt is just a courtesy, but the fact that he has not used it to block Google totally destroys any feeble case he might have had.
> If we followed that philosophy, we would not be making a stand against DRM.
Not everyone is. While the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are pernicious DRM itself is a private matter. Authors don't have to publish their works at all: why should it be wrong for them to make them available only in encrypted form? They have as much right to be idiots as anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
We already know webmasters are involved.
> did not Godaddy get its start registering pr0n sites?
So what?
> What would be possible if browsing the web was as fast as turning the pages
> of a magazine?
With all ads blocked (including Googles) it already is.
> How exactly can they raid zombie computers of private people?
No computers were "raided". Read the articles. Breach your contract with your ISP/hosting service/registrar and they can terminate service without notice.
> FireEye employees have access computer systems they are not authorised to
> access, and have halted services and caused malicious damage.
They did no such thing. They coordinated actions by ISPs and registrars, none of who did anything illegal. Read the article.
> sudo is shit. What is the point anyway ? Either you've got root, or you
> assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.
Wrong.
man sudo
man sudoers
...came first.
Most of the remaining bombs were made with plutonium, which the "terrorism" freaks are afraid of.
Use it.
Because there is none. Quit confounding parody and satire with humour. Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).
> Why is it the job of the govt. deputy solicitor to uphold the ...
> interests of the US of A...
Because that is his job.
He can totally block Google any time he wants to. He doesn't want to.
> He's got the time.
No, I don't think he does.
> People with IQ's well below 100 can manage to make a robots.txt do what they
> want it to do.
Perhaps, but they aren't trying to make it give them some of Google's money.
> He just wants a cut of Google's pie.
So do I. I, however, know that I won't get it by threatening to hold my breath until I turn blue.
> Maybe the answer is robots.txt; but that is not what you tell a billionaire
> if he asks you.
You ado if you are another billionaire. He's dealing with two of them, either of which could buy him three times over.
> The fact that this is so retardedly easy means that no one has told him.
He knows.
> I wonder if Google could argue that by not using robots.txt, Murdoch had
> essentially given permission to have his sites searched and indexed.
I believe that in the US case law has established that Murdoch has given permission to have his sites searched and indexed by making them public. Obeying robots.txt is just a courtesy, but the fact that he has not used it to block Google totally destroys any feeble case he might have had.
> I don't know why Google doesn't just do a preemptive strike and drop them
> from the search engine.
Why should they? It's not as though he is any threat to them.
...for them to change their name to Calvin Gosz.
OpenDNS is not the only choice.
How is your fork coming along?
> When will encrypted data at the 2048 and higher bit level make it into the
> tech we take for granted on a daily basis.
When a significant number of customers won't buy "tech" without it. The fact is most people don't care, including most of those who complain about it.
> As opposed to what? Cloning?
Well, yes, actually. Jellyfish reproduce both sexually and asexually.
> If we followed that philosophy, we would not be making a stand against DRM.
Not everyone is. While the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are pernicious DRM itself is a private matter. Authors don't have to publish their works at all: why should it be wrong for them to make them available only in encrypted form? They have as much right to be idiots as anyone.