Too bad Trump is turbocharging the swamp, instead of draining it like he promised.
It would seem you are suggesting that Trump have the power to remove democratically elected senators when they do something stupid like this. Otherwise, how is it Trump's fault that two idiots are creating a tempest in a teapot?
An estimated 2 million American's stolen identities to post fake comments on an incredibly important issue doesn't matter -- until it's just 2 American Senators? What's wrong with this picture?
The idea that is it "identity theft" if someone who has the same name as you do uses it to post a public comment to the FCC, and that the name is relevant to begin with.
Also, the idea that there were 2 million comments means anything. It wasn't a vote. It wasn't a referendum.
Also, the idea that comments made in a public filing should be deleted. That's a really big thing wrong with this picture.
There is not even a superficial attempt to verify the commentator's identities and prevent robotic submissions.
That's because the identities are impossible to verify in the first place, and irrelevant in the second. It's the comment that is relevant. The only people who care who makes a good point or a significant comment are those who rely on ad hominem.
If you think the people reading the comments at the FCC couldn't figure out that a 3000-name comment saying "netwerk nutraltie rocks, dude!" or 10,000 comments saying "ditch that network neutrality crap, it's socialism!" were meaningless, you're a loon.
Let me put it this way. When you assess different methods of trying to sway the votes in an election, and compare the costs, risks, and benefits, any kind of fraud that involves getting meatbags into polling places is going to be dead last, including legitimate campaigning.
You can put it any way you want, but you are still wrong. It has been done so many times over so many decades that it cannot be waved away by fake claims of how hard it is to do.
Mathematically, voter impersonation is the stupidest way to rig an election.
And yet various machines in various cities stayed in power using just that method. It's hard to deny success when it happens.
The background is that you need a hook to make a proper actionable complaint about it. What this news story is about is that now there's a hook that looks more actionable than previously discussed hooks.
What is this "actionable hook", and what "action"? A government public comment input system which has no way to validate names used by people who post comments didn't validate names used by people to post comments. This is "actionable"? Or is it a "hook"?
The FCC didn't use Merkely's or what-his-name's name, people posting comments did. What should the FCC do? What info do they have, the "name" and maybe "IP address"? Hey, if you have an IP address, that identifies someone specific, and if they used a fake name then they are guilty of -- umm, what? And is the IP address now a legal way of identifying someone who committed a crime?
There is no action to be taken here. People used fake names to post comments on a government website. Is that a crime? Who committed the crime, the government or the people using the fake names? And is it a crime to use a fake name per-se? (No, it isn't, Mr. LJW004.)
Get over it. People thought they were gaming the system from both sides. "Look how many comments" is a wonderful but still meaningless claim. The comment site wasn't a vote, it was not binding. It was a way to enter comments. Period. Get over it.
What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones.
What makes you think they didn't weed out the fake ones? The fact that they were available to view by the public on the web doesn't mean anyone in the FCC paid any attention to them. They were filed public comments and as such became part of the public record. It would be very dangerous precedent for the FCC to start deleting public comments, because the next one it deletes might be yours.
They were very obvious.
Yes, they were. Obvious enough that there is no reason to believe that the FCC gave them any more weight than they deserved.
Millions of identical comments (all opposing net neutrality)
The ones all supporting net neutrality were just as obvious, if you were looking, or if you didn't just accept them at face value because they agree with your opinion. Fakes were coming in on both sides. They were obvious to anyone who wanted to see them, and there is no reason to think that either side carried any weight in any decision making.
get rid of the requirement to register to vote, and auto-register all citizens.
Thus creating a much larger pool of people who have no interest in the process and have no intention of voting, but are registered to do so. In other words, everyone because a target for identity theft by people who cast multiple votes.
Voter registration is just a bottleneck designed to make it harder for the destitute to vote.
Registering to vote costs nothing, so your asinine excuse is just that. Registration is how you validate that each person who votes is authorized to do so. Unless your goal is to allow people who have no right to vote access to the polls, then you have no reason not to support registration and identification.
Different countries use different measures - all from indelible ink to mark voters with,
Putting ink on someone's finger doesn't identify them, it only shows that they might have voted. You want to stop your spouse from voting in tomorrow's election? Dip his finger in ink while he's sleeping. Bingo, he VOTED!
and all the way up to centralized computer systems that register that a certain hash has already voted that day.
And that "by computer" special process stops one person from voting as five different people exactly how?
You just pointed out why voter impersonation doesn't work, you dingbat.
Name calling, check.
You have to know with very high accuracy who isn't going to vote, or else there will be evidence to track you down.
Someone who is dead is unlikely to vote. Someone who is on vacation is unlikely to vote. Someone who you know isn't going to bother to vote is unlikely to vote.
But, since you are giving SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME, there is little evidence to "track you down".
Meatbag fraud is the least effective fraud,
Given that nobody ever bothers to ask anyone after an election if they did actually vote, so there will be little chance of detecting votes cast under someone else's name, it is highly effective. It is most effective at the local level, of course. Why do you think the Daley machine in Chicago relied on it for so many years?
and voter ID does nothing to stop it.
To vote someone else's ballot when voter ID is requires means you have to forge an ID for each person you are voting as. That's a pretty low bar to preventing it, but since it's more than we're doing now it will have a positive effect. Claiming that voter ID would do nothing to stop fraud is just ridiculous.
Or did someone just put their name in the name field and click submit?
This.
This comment system is not part of our democracy. There is no voting here; there is nothing binding; there is nothing validated. Anyone can comment using any name they want, because it is simply too difficult under such a system to validate any identity information. Even if you validate, too many people have the same name to ever try to limit comments to only one "Tom Smith" or "sycodon" (ahhh, I get it now. Yes, I know a couple of people I would call sycodon (homonym).)
What do these Senators suggest be done? Force people to register and show ID?
OH NO, gasp, forcing people to identify themselves in a democracy is just dog whistle racism. You can't force anyone to provide ID before exercising any democratic right.
You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient.
Murder is an inconvenience. Wow.
Lots of things that are perfectly legal are inconvenient. It's inconvenient that the mailman comes at noon. It would be convenient if he came at 6AM. Should there be a law?
Attempts to rig those games lead to expensive court proceedings.
Only because it was illegal. It was illegal for moral reasons.
That is based on the moral principle that economics should define what matters.
No, his argument was that you don't have to consider moral values, you can also consider economic ones. He didn't say you should define "what matters" in any specific way, only that there is more than one way to get to the same answer.
Yes, there is entertainment value to gambling. When it is rigged it is a negative sum game for everyone but the cheater, so there can be no economic value to them. If they discover the cheating, then they lose the entertainment value, too.
Rigging a game does not mean it is unenjoyable. Look at the WWE as an example. Predetermined, yet tons of fans.
Is that the best you can do? WWE is not a sport, it is scripted entertainment performed by trained stunt people who are paid to get the desired result. You would never call a Jackie Chan movie "sports", would you? Maybe you would -- it's scripted entertainment performed by trained stunt people (which includes Jackie himself) paid to get the desired result.
You destroy your own argument by using this as an example -- you turn all honest sporting contests into crap media events by trying to equate them.
Rigging only hurts people dumb enough to bet on it.
Rigging hurts everyone who participates, and everyone who supports those who participate.
As for saying a game is of no consequence to the world is fatalistic, melodramatic much? It's an effing game.
That's the fatalistic attitude writ large. Learning sportsmanship and teamwork is a lifetime achievement for many people. It seems to have gone over your head.
It's entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.
I thought you could not demonstrate a complete lack of understanding before, but you've outdone yourself here. To those who watch, it may be entertainment. To those who participate, it is a goal and a lot of hard work.
The only way any bad comes from anything with a game is if there's assholes who take it way too seriously and hurt other people.
Like the 79 people on a college football team who spend hours working to be the best they can be, practicing until they hurt, just to lose the game because one person accepts money to throw the result? You mean that asshole and those other people? You mean like the 8 people on a baseball field that are playing their hearts out to win a game, only to be stymied by the cheating shortstop who drops the ball during one crucial play so they lose? That asshole and those other people?
And the last one, sorry, what? I seriously can't put together a coherent response because what you said is literal nonsense.
You mean "So, as long as you don't directly participate in something bad, it's ok?" It's simple English. The suggestion was that if I think rigging is bad, I shouldn't bet on the game. Rigging sports games is bad for other reasons than just rigged gambling results, and I'm supposed to ignore all of that just as long as I don't personally bet on the game. In other words, it's ok to rig sports as long as you don't participate in the rigging. That's the nonsense.
I get it. You don't see anything in sports other than your personal enjoyment. It's all about you. You can enjoy a sporting event even if the outcome isn't based on skill. You even think that WWE is a sport, you're so into your own enjoyment. But it's not all about you. It's about a team, which is a concept you clearly don't get. You gave it away earlier -- an asshole who hurts other people makes it bad, and yet you can't grasp the concept that one person on a team being bought to throw a game hurts all the other players. And it hurts the fans who paid to see an honest game. It hurts a lot of other people -- just not the ones who don't actually care about anything other than their own enjoyment. Like you.
If you don't know the answer to that, maybe you should actually read the description of the flaw?
Tried that. Followed TFA link to TFA, wound up at Wired which promptly put up a sign-up form over the top of the article that could not be dismissed in any way I could find. Other than maybe signing in, which ain't. Thanks/. for Wired clickbait.
Your description explains things. It's a stupid bug -- if the contents of an email are changed, then the decryption should fail, period. Headers yes, they need to be mutable (some of them), but body, no.
What email client author actually thought that someone would care enough to encrypt the message and then include an unencrypted HTML alternative?
For many years I had a procmail recipe that changed any Content-Type that said HTML to text/plain. Then I realized that some stupid email clients looked at the text in the body, guessed it was HTML, and rendered it anyway.
The other flaw has to do with a known plaintext attack; if you want to know how that works, RTFA.
So you support the idea that victory should go to the ones with the most money, not the ones who are the best at something. Hey, kids, don't bother working hard to be the best at some sport, the outcome of any game you play will depend on how much money is involved and which of your teammates has been bought. Discipline and sportsmanship are outmoded. Make sure you get your money while you can.
It's of no consequence to the world at large.
What a sad, fatalistic view you have. What you just posted is of no consequence to the world at large, yet you posted it anyway.
If you don't like the idea that it may be rigged, don't bet on it.
So, as long as you don't directly participate in something bad, it's ok?
For those not familiar with the business model that BeIn uses:
They sign exclusive rights for the entire Middle East from whatever agency is responsible for broadcasting the World Cup. In just one fell swoop they exclude millions of people that can't afford the $400 subscription from watching the games.
Almost. It is the World Cup organizing committee that signs exclusive deals that is excluding viewers. If that committee had not granted exclusive rights to a geographic area, other companies could buy the same feed and sell it cheaper, or for more.
This is common practice. I figure that a commercial enterprise has a right to charge what it wants for its product; I have a right to not pay that price if I don't like it. It's silly to think that I can tell a content producer that they have to make their content available to me at a price I'll pay. What I can tell them is they can keep their product if they want too much or show it someplace I can't see it.
More than likely it's poor people that make about $100 to $200 a month trying to enjoy some leisurely football that's available for free or at a fraction of the price in other more advanced countries.
Now you are blaming the country. Once again, it's the sports organizer not the country that writes exclusivity into the contracts. And you're also pretending that access to video services is a basic human right.
What I am currently chuckling about is your reference to The World Cup as "some leisurely football". It ain't Upper Wolly FC vs. Barnswater playin' in the World Cup, you know.
But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't.
Every law deals with morality. Even the ones against murder. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is a moral statement. So is "don't steal". What one can do in a contractual framework, ditto.
The sports gambling laws are there because gambling on sports games leads to attempts to rig those games. Point shaving, for example. This is not a hypothesis, it is why the laws were created in the first place. History shows it happens.
Also, a slight variant of this system (holes in film) used to be used on movies distributed to airlines for in-flight entertainment. At some point in every movie there would be a super with the name of the airline. Maybe more than once. A dedicated pirate could simple cover that, so it would only stop casual piracy.
For each stream delivered add markers. Find the marker and you can leak source.
From TFA:
The beIN antipiracy team believes it knows how beoutQ is stealing the signal. Essentially, the website is re-airing content delivered to an individual subscriber. Since each subscriber has a unique identification number that is usually visible, known as a fingerprint, beIN engineers thought they would be able to easily identify the offending customer. However, the pirates have figured out how to hide their fingerprints.
So, yes, each stream has a marker. TFA is not explicit in saying that it is a marker from the source to the subscriber, or something that is output from the subscriber terminal. In any case, the pirates have identified and are removing the marker. Kind of like patching the holes in your old movie film process.
The solution is not as simple as turning off the offending user's stream, however. While boxes are individually addressable, that relies on a cooperating box. If your decryption system does not pay attention to the authorization signal, then it doesn't matter if you don't get authorized.
This is the same problem Dish had (and may still have) with their card system. People were hacking the decryption cards so they would decrypt without needing to be authorized.
Plus tht's local government not "the government" which is almost always used to refer to Westminster.
It is government. I didn't say federal or local. In the US, the "government" is turtles all the way from the top to the locals. The Constitution we have applies to all of them.
The comment I replied to said that this was a decision by a local transit company. It isn't. It's the government. "London", "City of London", big fucking deal. It's like saying "New York" when referring to a mayor or the "city of New York."
Which is totaly not a global megacorp. Neither is BurgerKing or KFC.
Of course McDonalds is a megacorp. "Companies like McDonalds" are not necessarily megacorps. "Like" means "similar to", and in this context the similarity is "FAST allegedly bad FOOD". The POINT that you glibly ignore is that the prohibition is not against global megacorps, it's against the kind of food.
Yep. Uncle Bill can't get a free pass either.
Which proves the point I was making. Thanks for figuring that out.
In 1968 if you wanted a phone in a particular room, as opposed to the main phone usually a wall phone in the kitchen, you had to make an appointment to have somebody from the phone company come to your house and install an 'extension' phone.
The house I lived in was built in 1960. It had telephone wiring installed in every room of the house, including the bathrooms, by my father, who did not work for the telephone company. When we wanted to string a line to the barn we went to Radio Shack to buy a spool of wire and an outlet (the old four-pin kind) and did it ourselves. The demarc was on the pole about 20 feet from the house, and we took care of everything on our side of it.
There was one person who worked for "the phone company" in town. We knew him, but didn't call him to do anything but fix things we could not do ourselves, like mice chewing up the wires in the telco junction boxes down the street next to the railroad tracks. In the late 60's he retired and all of our telco repair came from the next city over -- in a different state and a different area code.
This isn't a lot different than we have today, where I run the lines in my house, plug phones in where I want them, and the telco repair guys take no responsibility for anything past the demarc. Maybe the difference is that back then, if there was a problem, we called ONE repair service and they dealt with local and long distance issues, and today the local telco points the finger at the LD and the LD points the finger at the local office and things take a lot longer getting fixed. Oh, and the local repair threatens huge fees for a visit to the demarc if they can blame inside wiring for the issue. The local guy we knew by name and where he lived never did that.
The question is, does the advertising on junk food cause more people to purchase junk food than otherwise would? The answer is self-evidently yes. (by following the money).
The answer is not as simple as that. It will increase the amount spent at the advertiser's stores, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Does it increase the size of the overall market?
We had a "Burgerville" move in to replace a local Wendy's. (Wendy's made the stupid decision to simultaneously close many of their stores for a system-wide remodel; some of them never re-opened.) They're the "high class" fast food with $6 burgers. Across the street is a McDs that doesn't seem as busy as it used to be, and one block away is a Burger King that I know isn't as busy because it is boarded up closed. New store, new ads, but the market didn't expand to keep everyone in business.
So this move will obviously reduce the amount of junk food ingested.
There your "it's obvious" argument fails. A customer who is likely to buy a McD product based on the ad is already likely to buy something from any convenient store he passes by. Advertising sometimes tries to increase a market; sometimes it only redirects the existing market to make different choices.
It's not a great leap to think that this will in turn reduce the amount of obesity.
Uhh, yeah, actually it is. You're now two levels away from "obvious". If someone doesn't see an ad for McD, does that mean he will eat something more healthful? Or will he just buy junk food from a convenience store (or the main grocery), or some other cheap stuff that isn't good for him but is quick and easy to consume? If you aren't reminded of how convenient McD is, will you find a grocer with fresh produce, buy the parts to make a balanced dinner, go home and take the hour to prepare and eat it, or will you just stop in the shop on the corner and pick up some takeout of something else?
Are those people who used to stop at the BK in my town now eating well-balanced, nutritious meals prepared fresh? Or are they in line at Burgerville or McD?
If you are a consumer already primed to eat well, then a McDs ad will be irrelevant. McD and other fast food ads are targeted at people who are already going to make poor choices in their foods, and that's what causes the health problems, not which of the many fast food places they pick to consume their poor food choices.
It was the government's fault in the first place... Same with reducing housing standards...
So it is the government's fault that parents choose substandard housing and poor environments to raise their children? Should the government force ALL housing to be adequate to raise a four person family in a healthy environment, or should it step out and allow different options for different needs? I.e., a four person family really ought to have at least three bedrooms. Absolute minimum, two. There has to be a park nearby with lots of play activity. Etc. But that will raise the prices unnecessarily for single people looking for basic housing.
If you are a single 20-something seeking a place to live reasonably close to work in the big city, then you will be priced out of the market if the only thing available is your "family friendly" multi-person dwelling. Even if you're a newlywed couple. No sane four-person family wants to live in the heart of the city, so all those government-required three bedroom housing units will... not be used by sane four member families.
Then they allowed the food manufacturers to use all the different preservatives and chemical processes to make processed food more "attractive".
They allow preservatives to keep the food from decomposing and rotting, and going to waste if it isn't eaten in a day or two. Improving shelf life and allowing longer farm-to-table times increases the food supply and allows the same amount to feed more people. It improves diversity in the food supply so that a local drought or crop failure doesn't cause starvation. It reduces spoilage on the shelves so grocers don't have to charge higher prices to cover lost sales.
Rant about sugar, yeah, but going back to the 1800's for limited lifetime on food products is asinine. I happen to like the "attractiveness" of unmoldy cheese and green vegetables that aren't brown and meat that isn't green and fuzzy instead of red.
Yes, it has. It started downhill with the talk about "if you expect the government to pay for", which isn't a fact that is in evidence.
Firstly, this is TFL who are refusing to advertise harmful products,
No, actually, it is a proposed ban by the City of London. The Government.
Secondly, refusing to accept advertising from some global megacorps
It's not a ban on advertising from "global megacorps", it's a ban on fast food advertisements "from companies like McDonalds". There are a lot more fast food restaurants than just McD's. From TFS: "A large percentage of the advertising that would be affected comes from 'a handful' of major companies and brands," which means a large percentage would be for a lot of small companies -- not "global megacorps".
Also from TFS: "Mayor Khan also proposed a ban on new hot food takeaway stores opening within 400 meters (1,300 feet) of schools." That would include Uncle Bill's Chippy Shop, run by Uncle Bill and his family. Clearly not "global megacorps".
You need to rein in your hatred for "global megacorp" and your attempt to justify stupid laws because they would only impact those you hate, because those stupid laws will hurt a lot of small players, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad Trump is turbocharging the swamp, instead of draining it like he promised.
It would seem you are suggesting that Trump have the power to remove democratically elected senators when they do something stupid like this. Otherwise, how is it Trump's fault that two idiots are creating a tempest in a teapot?
An estimated 2 million American's stolen identities to post fake comments on an incredibly important issue doesn't matter -- until it's just 2 American Senators? What's wrong with this picture?
The idea that is it "identity theft" if someone who has the same name as you do uses it to post a public comment to the FCC, and that the name is relevant to begin with.
Also, the idea that there were 2 million comments means anything. It wasn't a vote. It wasn't a referendum.
Also, the idea that comments made in a public filing should be deleted. That's a really big thing wrong with this picture.
There is not even a superficial attempt to verify the commentator's identities and prevent robotic submissions.
That's because the identities are impossible to verify in the first place, and irrelevant in the second. It's the comment that is relevant. The only people who care who makes a good point or a significant comment are those who rely on ad hominem.
If you think the people reading the comments at the FCC couldn't figure out that a 3000-name comment saying "netwerk nutraltie rocks, dude!" or 10,000 comments saying "ditch that network neutrality crap, it's socialism!" were meaningless, you're a loon.
Let me put it this way. When you assess different methods of trying to sway the votes in an election, and compare the costs, risks, and benefits, any kind of fraud that involves getting meatbags into polling places is going to be dead last, including legitimate campaigning.
You can put it any way you want, but you are still wrong. It has been done so many times over so many decades that it cannot be waved away by fake claims of how hard it is to do.
Mathematically, voter impersonation is the stupidest way to rig an election.
And yet various machines in various cities stayed in power using just that method. It's hard to deny success when it happens.
The background is that you need a hook to make a proper actionable complaint about it. What this news story is about is that now there's a hook that looks more actionable than previously discussed hooks.
What is this "actionable hook", and what "action"? A government public comment input system which has no way to validate names used by people who post comments didn't validate names used by people to post comments. This is "actionable"? Or is it a "hook"?
The FCC didn't use Merkely's or what-his-name's name, people posting comments did. What should the FCC do? What info do they have, the "name" and maybe "IP address"? Hey, if you have an IP address, that identifies someone specific, and if they used a fake name then they are guilty of -- umm, what? And is the IP address now a legal way of identifying someone who committed a crime?
There is no action to be taken here. People used fake names to post comments on a government website. Is that a crime? Who committed the crime, the government or the people using the fake names? And is it a crime to use a fake name per-se? (No, it isn't, Mr. LJW004.)
Get over it. People thought they were gaming the system from both sides. "Look how many comments" is a wonderful but still meaningless claim. The comment site wasn't a vote, it was not binding. It was a way to enter comments. Period. Get over it.
What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones.
What makes you think they didn't weed out the fake ones? The fact that they were available to view by the public on the web doesn't mean anyone in the FCC paid any attention to them. They were filed public comments and as such became part of the public record. It would be very dangerous precedent for the FCC to start deleting public comments, because the next one it deletes might be yours.
They were very obvious.
Yes, they were. Obvious enough that there is no reason to believe that the FCC gave them any more weight than they deserved.
Millions of identical comments (all opposing net neutrality)
The ones all supporting net neutrality were just as obvious, if you were looking, or if you didn't just accept them at face value because they agree with your opinion. Fakes were coming in on both sides. They were obvious to anyone who wanted to see them, and there is no reason to think that either side carried any weight in any decision making.
get rid of the requirement to register to vote, and auto-register all citizens.
Thus creating a much larger pool of people who have no interest in the process and have no intention of voting, but are registered to do so. In other words, everyone because a target for identity theft by people who cast multiple votes.
Voter registration is just a bottleneck designed to make it harder for the destitute to vote.
Registering to vote costs nothing, so your asinine excuse is just that. Registration is how you validate that each person who votes is authorized to do so. Unless your goal is to allow people who have no right to vote access to the polls, then you have no reason not to support registration and identification.
Different countries use different measures - all from indelible ink to mark voters with,
Putting ink on someone's finger doesn't identify them, it only shows that they might have voted. You want to stop your spouse from voting in tomorrow's election? Dip his finger in ink while he's sleeping. Bingo, he VOTED!
and all the way up to centralized computer systems that register that a certain hash has already voted that day.
And that "by computer" special process stops one person from voting as five different people exactly how?
You just pointed out why voter impersonation doesn't work, you dingbat.
Name calling, check.
You have to know with very high accuracy who isn't going to vote, or else there will be evidence to track you down.
Someone who is dead is unlikely to vote. Someone who is on vacation is unlikely to vote. Someone who you know isn't going to bother to vote is unlikely to vote.
But, since you are giving SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME, there is little evidence to "track you down".
Meatbag fraud is the least effective fraud,
Given that nobody ever bothers to ask anyone after an election if they did actually vote, so there will be little chance of detecting votes cast under someone else's name, it is highly effective. It is most effective at the local level, of course. Why do you think the Daley machine in Chicago relied on it for so many years?
and voter ID does nothing to stop it.
To vote someone else's ballot when voter ID is requires means you have to forge an ID for each person you are voting as. That's a pretty low bar to preventing it, but since it's more than we're doing now it will have a positive effect. Claiming that voter ID would do nothing to stop fraud is just ridiculous.
Or did someone just put their name in the name field and click submit?
This.
This comment system is not part of our democracy. There is no voting here; there is nothing binding; there is nothing validated. Anyone can comment using any name they want, because it is simply too difficult under such a system to validate any identity information. Even if you validate, too many people have the same name to ever try to limit comments to only one "Tom Smith" or "sycodon" (ahhh, I get it now. Yes, I know a couple of people I would call sycodon (homonym).)
What do these Senators suggest be done? Force people to register and show ID?
OH NO, gasp, forcing people to identify themselves in a democracy is just dog whistle racism. You can't force anyone to provide ID before exercising any democratic right.
You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient.
Murder is an inconvenience. Wow. Lots of things that are perfectly legal are inconvenient. It's inconvenient that the mailman comes at noon. It would be convenient if he came at 6AM. Should there be a law?
Attempts to rig those games lead to expensive court proceedings.
Only because it was illegal. It was illegal for moral reasons.
That is based on the moral principle that economics should define what matters.
No, his argument was that you don't have to consider moral values, you can also consider economic ones. He didn't say you should define "what matters" in any specific way, only that there is more than one way to get to the same answer.
Yes, there is entertainment value to gambling. When it is rigged it is a negative sum game for everyone but the cheater, so there can be no economic value to them. If they discover the cheating, then they lose the entertainment value, too.
Rigging a game does not mean it is unenjoyable. Look at the WWE as an example. Predetermined, yet tons of fans.
Is that the best you can do? WWE is not a sport, it is scripted entertainment performed by trained stunt people who are paid to get the desired result. You would never call a Jackie Chan movie "sports", would you? Maybe you would -- it's scripted entertainment performed by trained stunt people (which includes Jackie himself) paid to get the desired result.
You destroy your own argument by using this as an example -- you turn all honest sporting contests into crap media events by trying to equate them.
Rigging only hurts people dumb enough to bet on it.
Rigging hurts everyone who participates, and everyone who supports those who participate.
As for saying a game is of no consequence to the world is fatalistic, melodramatic much? It's an effing game.
That's the fatalistic attitude writ large. Learning sportsmanship and teamwork is a lifetime achievement for many people. It seems to have gone over your head.
It's entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.
I thought you could not demonstrate a complete lack of understanding before, but you've outdone yourself here. To those who watch, it may be entertainment. To those who participate, it is a goal and a lot of hard work.
The only way any bad comes from anything with a game is if there's assholes who take it way too seriously and hurt other people.
Like the 79 people on a college football team who spend hours working to be the best they can be, practicing until they hurt, just to lose the game because one person accepts money to throw the result? You mean that asshole and those other people? You mean like the 8 people on a baseball field that are playing their hearts out to win a game, only to be stymied by the cheating shortstop who drops the ball during one crucial play so they lose? That asshole and those other people?
And the last one, sorry, what? I seriously can't put together a coherent response because what you said is literal nonsense.
You mean "So, as long as you don't directly participate in something bad, it's ok?" It's simple English. The suggestion was that if I think rigging is bad, I shouldn't bet on the game. Rigging sports games is bad for other reasons than just rigged gambling results, and I'm supposed to ignore all of that just as long as I don't personally bet on the game. In other words, it's ok to rig sports as long as you don't participate in the rigging. That's the nonsense.
I get it. You don't see anything in sports other than your personal enjoyment. It's all about you. You can enjoy a sporting event even if the outcome isn't based on skill. You even think that WWE is a sport, you're so into your own enjoyment. But it's not all about you. It's about a team, which is a concept you clearly don't get. You gave it away earlier -- an asshole who hurts other people makes it bad, and yet you can't grasp the concept that one person on a team being bought to throw a game hurts all the other players. And it hurts the fans who paid to see an honest game. It hurts a lot of other people -- just not the ones who don't actually care about anything other than their own enjoyment. Like you.
If you don't know the answer to that, maybe you should actually read the description of the flaw?
Tried that. Followed TFA link to TFA, wound up at Wired which promptly put up a sign-up form over the top of the article that could not be dismissed in any way I could find. Other than maybe signing in, which ain't. Thanks /. for Wired clickbait.
Your description explains things. It's a stupid bug -- if the contents of an email are changed, then the decryption should fail, period. Headers yes, they need to be mutable (some of them), but body, no.
What email client author actually thought that someone would care enough to encrypt the message and then include an unencrypted HTML alternative?
For many years I had a procmail recipe that changed any Content-Type that said HTML to text/plain. Then I realized that some stupid email clients looked at the text in the body, guessed it was HTML, and rendered it anyway.
The other flaw has to do with a known plaintext attack; if you want to know how that works, RTFA.
Sigh. Wired doesn't agree with you.
So, sports gambling laws actually stop all gambling on sports?
No more so than murder laws stop all murders or all robbery laws stop all robberies. Did you think anyone said otherwise?
Because otherwise, there's still an incentive to rig games....
If you remove large scale economic incentives, you reduce the motive for doing so.
Should we do away with all laws because they do not actually stop all illegal activity? Or do we accept that criminals will still break the law?
Honestly, what does it matter if it is rigged?
So you support the idea that victory should go to the ones with the most money, not the ones who are the best at something. Hey, kids, don't bother working hard to be the best at some sport, the outcome of any game you play will depend on how much money is involved and which of your teammates has been bought. Discipline and sportsmanship are outmoded. Make sure you get your money while you can.
It's of no consequence to the world at large.
What a sad, fatalistic view you have. What you just posted is of no consequence to the world at large, yet you posted it anyway.
If you don't like the idea that it may be rigged, don't bet on it.
So, as long as you don't directly participate in something bad, it's ok?
For those not familiar with the business model that BeIn uses: They sign exclusive rights for the entire Middle East from whatever agency is responsible for broadcasting the World Cup. In just one fell swoop they exclude millions of people that can't afford the $400 subscription from watching the games.
Almost. It is the World Cup organizing committee that signs exclusive deals that is excluding viewers. If that committee had not granted exclusive rights to a geographic area, other companies could buy the same feed and sell it cheaper, or for more.
This is common practice. I figure that a commercial enterprise has a right to charge what it wants for its product; I have a right to not pay that price if I don't like it. It's silly to think that I can tell a content producer that they have to make their content available to me at a price I'll pay. What I can tell them is they can keep their product if they want too much or show it someplace I can't see it.
More than likely it's poor people that make about $100 to $200 a month trying to enjoy some leisurely football that's available for free or at a fraction of the price in other more advanced countries.
Now you are blaming the country. Once again, it's the sports organizer not the country that writes exclusivity into the contracts. And you're also pretending that access to video services is a basic human right.
What I am currently chuckling about is your reference to The World Cup as "some leisurely football". It ain't Upper Wolly FC vs. Barnswater playin' in the World Cup, you know.
But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't.
Every law deals with morality. Even the ones against murder. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is a moral statement. So is "don't steal". What one can do in a contractual framework, ditto.
The sports gambling laws are there because gambling on sports games leads to attempts to rig those games. Point shaving, for example. This is not a hypothesis, it is why the laws were created in the first place. History shows it happens.
Those who forget history tend to repeat it.
Also, a slight variant of this system (holes in film) used to be used on movies distributed to airlines for in-flight entertainment. At some point in every movie there would be a super with the name of the airline. Maybe more than once. A dedicated pirate could simple cover that, so it would only stop casual piracy.
For each stream delivered add markers. Find the marker and you can leak source.
From TFA:
So, yes, each stream has a marker. TFA is not explicit in saying that it is a marker from the source to the subscriber, or something that is output from the subscriber terminal. In any case, the pirates have identified and are removing the marker. Kind of like patching the holes in your old movie film process.
The solution is not as simple as turning off the offending user's stream, however. While boxes are individually addressable, that relies on a cooperating box. If your decryption system does not pay attention to the authorization signal, then it doesn't matter if you don't get authorized.
This is the same problem Dish had (and may still have) with their card system. People were hacking the decryption cards so they would decrypt without needing to be authorized.
Plus tht's local government not "the government" which is almost always used to refer to Westminster.
It is government. I didn't say federal or local. In the US, the "government" is turtles all the way from the top to the locals. The Constitution we have applies to all of them.
The comment I replied to said that this was a decision by a local transit company. It isn't. It's the government. "London", "City of London", big fucking deal. It's like saying "New York" when referring to a mayor or the "city of New York."
Which is totaly not a global megacorp. Neither is BurgerKing or KFC.
Of course McDonalds is a megacorp. "Companies like McDonalds" are not necessarily megacorps. "Like" means "similar to", and in this context the similarity is "FAST allegedly bad FOOD". The POINT that you glibly ignore is that the prohibition is not against global megacorps, it's against the kind of food.
Yep. Uncle Bill can't get a free pass either.
Which proves the point I was making. Thanks for figuring that out.
It's part of why we can't have nice things.
What utter nonsense.
In 1968 if you wanted a phone in a particular room, as opposed to the main phone usually a wall phone in the kitchen, you had to make an appointment to have somebody from the phone company come to your house and install an 'extension' phone.
The house I lived in was built in 1960. It had telephone wiring installed in every room of the house, including the bathrooms, by my father, who did not work for the telephone company. When we wanted to string a line to the barn we went to Radio Shack to buy a spool of wire and an outlet (the old four-pin kind) and did it ourselves. The demarc was on the pole about 20 feet from the house, and we took care of everything on our side of it.
There was one person who worked for "the phone company" in town. We knew him, but didn't call him to do anything but fix things we could not do ourselves, like mice chewing up the wires in the telco junction boxes down the street next to the railroad tracks. In the late 60's he retired and all of our telco repair came from the next city over -- in a different state and a different area code.
This isn't a lot different than we have today, where I run the lines in my house, plug phones in where I want them, and the telco repair guys take no responsibility for anything past the demarc. Maybe the difference is that back then, if there was a problem, we called ONE repair service and they dealt with local and long distance issues, and today the local telco points the finger at the LD and the LD points the finger at the local office and things take a lot longer getting fixed. Oh, and the local repair threatens huge fees for a visit to the demarc if they can blame inside wiring for the issue. The local guy we knew by name and where he lived never did that.
The question is, does the advertising on junk food cause more people to purchase junk food than otherwise would? The answer is self-evidently yes. (by following the money).
The answer is not as simple as that. It will increase the amount spent at the advertiser's stores, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Does it increase the size of the overall market?
We had a "Burgerville" move in to replace a local Wendy's. (Wendy's made the stupid decision to simultaneously close many of their stores for a system-wide remodel; some of them never re-opened.) They're the "high class" fast food with $6 burgers. Across the street is a McDs that doesn't seem as busy as it used to be, and one block away is a Burger King that I know isn't as busy because it is boarded up closed. New store, new ads, but the market didn't expand to keep everyone in business.
So this move will obviously reduce the amount of junk food ingested.
There your "it's obvious" argument fails. A customer who is likely to buy a McD product based on the ad is already likely to buy something from any convenient store he passes by. Advertising sometimes tries to increase a market; sometimes it only redirects the existing market to make different choices.
It's not a great leap to think that this will in turn reduce the amount of obesity.
Uhh, yeah, actually it is. You're now two levels away from "obvious". If someone doesn't see an ad for McD, does that mean he will eat something more healthful? Or will he just buy junk food from a convenience store (or the main grocery), or some other cheap stuff that isn't good for him but is quick and easy to consume? If you aren't reminded of how convenient McD is, will you find a grocer with fresh produce, buy the parts to make a balanced dinner, go home and take the hour to prepare and eat it, or will you just stop in the shop on the corner and pick up some takeout of something else?
Are those people who used to stop at the BK in my town now eating well-balanced, nutritious meals prepared fresh? Or are they in line at Burgerville or McD?
If you are a consumer already primed to eat well, then a McDs ad will be irrelevant. McD and other fast food ads are targeted at people who are already going to make poor choices in their foods, and that's what causes the health problems, not which of the many fast food places they pick to consume their poor food choices.
It was the government's fault in the first place ... Same with reducing housing standards ...
So it is the government's fault that parents choose substandard housing and poor environments to raise their children? Should the government force ALL housing to be adequate to raise a four person family in a healthy environment, or should it step out and allow different options for different needs? I.e., a four person family really ought to have at least three bedrooms. Absolute minimum, two. There has to be a park nearby with lots of play activity. Etc. But that will raise the prices unnecessarily for single people looking for basic housing.
If you are a single 20-something seeking a place to live reasonably close to work in the big city, then you will be priced out of the market if the only thing available is your "family friendly" multi-person dwelling. Even if you're a newlywed couple. No sane four-person family wants to live in the heart of the city, so all those government-required three bedroom housing units will ... not be used by sane four member families.
Then they allowed the food manufacturers to use all the different preservatives and chemical processes to make processed food more "attractive".
They allow preservatives to keep the food from decomposing and rotting, and going to waste if it isn't eaten in a day or two. Improving shelf life and allowing longer farm-to-table times increases the food supply and allows the same amount to feed more people. It improves diversity in the food supply so that a local drought or crop failure doesn't cause starvation. It reduces spoilage on the shelves so grocers don't have to charge higher prices to cover lost sales.
Rant about sugar, yeah, but going back to the 1800's for limited lifetime on food products is asinine. I happen to like the "attractiveness" of unmoldy cheese and green vegetables that aren't brown and meat that isn't green and fuzzy instead of red.
Well that degnerated fast.
Yes, it has. It started downhill with the talk about "if you expect the government to pay for", which isn't a fact that is in evidence.
Firstly, this is TFL who are refusing to advertise harmful products,
No, actually, it is a proposed ban by the City of London. The Government.
Secondly, refusing to accept advertising from some global megacorps
It's not a ban on advertising from "global megacorps", it's a ban on fast food advertisements "from companies like McDonalds". There are a lot more fast food restaurants than just McD's. From TFS: "A large percentage of the advertising that would be affected comes from 'a handful' of major companies and brands," which means a large percentage would be for a lot of small companies -- not "global megacorps".
Also from TFS: "Mayor Khan also proposed a ban on new hot food takeaway stores opening within 400 meters (1,300 feet) of schools." That would include Uncle Bill's Chippy Shop, run by Uncle Bill and his family. Clearly not "global megacorps".
You need to rein in your hatred for "global megacorp" and your attempt to justify stupid laws because they would only impact those you hate, because those stupid laws will hurt a lot of small players, too.