Okay, *several deep breaths* Okay, I'm better now.
I would like to commend you 7Days. That was truly a beautiful troll. Your responses in all their bigoted illogic have everyone going.
Your efforts have near single-handedly derailed this whole thread.
Bah, no rewards to all the uninventive trolls talking about hot grits or Natalie, this guy here is brilliant. He rants onwards in a way designed to get the goat of just about any reader, including good christian ones.
7Days, you are outstanding. I hereby award you "Troll of the Year", *hands statuette over*, for you brilliant work in suckering us all in.
I will now stand back and let you make your acceptance speach. I'm sure you have some nasty verbiage to aim at me.
Unfortunately for you I am now done with this thread, it's amusement potential has gone and I'm marching onwards towards things that actually matter, unlike you.
There is no way to prove that the data posted here was obtained by someone violating the EULA. The instructions for bypassing the EULA, moronically easy, were posted prior to the supposedly violating information. Therefore the trade secret argument is in-valid.
The copyright issue is bogus. MIT owns all copyrights on Kerberos. Microsoft can't get them by re-writing a spec. Doesn't work that way.
So either you are propagating false information, in which case shame on you. Or you are a M$ shill only posting here to put some propaganda out, in which case "ROT IN HELL A$$HOLE!"
For goodness' sakes. I can't possibly be the first person to notice this.
Didn't anyone else notice that the titles of all the sections in the article were titles from episodes of Babylon 5? I mean come on, "the Geometry of Shadows". "Babylon Squared"!!!!!!!
Geeze. Am I the only sci-fi geek left around here?
Absimiliard ------------------------------------------------ ------- All sigs are lame, but I've got the lamest sig of all!
I have to take issue with your statement that the media would jump all over anything remotely close to the government's actions during prohibition.
Here in the US we are currently undergoing a period of prohibition. The drug warriors are all up on their high-horses riding down your rights. Your rights have been, and are currently being, eroded very seriously in the name of the war on drugs.
The media has chosen to ignore these abuses quite handily. No TV station has yet had the balls to stand up and say that seizure of property on the suspicion that drug money may have been involved AND placing the burden of proof to reclaim the property on the person from whom it was seized is wrong. It's pretty clearly wrong, the Founding Fathers would have had fits over it, but our media does not have the stones to say it.
That is only one example.
Now if anyone knows why the media is so quiet on the subject I'd love to hear it. I'm really quite perplexed myself. I've figured the media as corporate stooges for ages, but I can't for the life of me figure out why corporate money wants our property rights eroded in this way? What are they getting?
Absimiliard -------------------------------------- All sigs are lame, but mine is the lamest!
Interesting viewpoint. I do find that I must agree with your assessment of WHY laws are complicated. The analogy of complexity in programming is a good one.
However. When you state "BZZZZTTT, wrong, thanks for playing. If the patent system was simple, it would be ambiguous and we'd need legions more patent lawyers to handle the resulting legal disputes." I cannot agree. Yes there might be more legal disputes with more simple/ambiguous laws. But simple law could be argued by each disputant. We would not need more lawyers, we would however need more judges.
Personally I would be okay with the laws that govern my life being a few highly general principles that are interpreted and implemented on the fly. I realize that would require more judges, and more competant ones, but I've always liked the Bene Gesserit solution, (3 person panel, their decisions hold, screw what the law says) and that approaches it.
I found the response of the Patent Bar fascinating but not surprising.
[rant]
Does anyone else here think that what the patent lawyers think isn't worth $RANDOM_EXPLETIVE? I mean talk about a biased viewpoint.
These folks have a strong interest in preserving or making more complex the current situation. Heck, if it was simple we wouldn't need patent lawyers at all. Given that exactly how surprising is it that they want to $RANDOM_EXPLETIVE those of us who see the flaws in the current system and are thus calling for reform.
Not that I would typically want to destroy someone's livelihood, but these yutzes just don't figure into the equation as far as I'm concerned. Sure they're experts on the current law. But if the system is broken why should their income potential matter when the question at hand is "How do we fix a broken system?"
Basically I guess my opinion is this. Screw them all. Their money is at stake, that makes them inherently untrustworthy in my book. (Not that I trust lawyers I don't personally know anyway.)
Hmmmmm obfuscated FORTRAN. If I recall correctly that would be ALL code written in FORTRAN woudln't it?
Absimiliard
Re:communications from Moon/Mars ??????? WTF!
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
Pardon me if this comes off as kind of flamy, but what do you mean?
How could it possibly aid wireless communications? Satellites in orbit currently can cover the whole earth. A Moon-base receiver, or a Mars-based one, could only cover %50 at a time.
Finally, would you really want to add a 7 second lag to all your conversations by bouncing a signal off the Moon? Bouncing off of Mars would make that lag minutes.
I can only hope you jest, and no one has moderated your humor down for innacuracy yet. I sincerely hope you aren't serious, though I acknowledge that maybe you're thinking of something totally escaping me, but given that exceeding the speed of light is impossible I highly doubt that.
> God intended sex to be a way in which two > people, a man and a woman, could experience a > profound and joyous union
Okay, I'm going to go off-topic here. Feel free to moderate me down folks. But just whose God are you talking about? Are you speaking about the Christian God, the Hindu God (which one), the Muslim God (arguably the Christian God), the Confucian God (again, which one), or the 'I don't believe in the supernatural I am a secular humanist God' (In which case I would really like to know exactly who you think that is.)
Obviously I am taking a poke at you because you seem to believe that you have the right to impose your religious views on me. I don't for a minute think that kids should see everything on the internet, in fact I don't know anyone who does. However I do strongly object to using any religion's beliefs on anything to regulate a multi-national, and thus multi-religion, medium like the internet.
Not to too strongly offend you, but take your Christian belief system and go take a long walk off a short pier. I am not Christian, none of my friends are, and most of the world is not. Keep your moral code out of our lives. In return I will agree to leave your children alone. They can have my pity for being raised Christian, but they are yours to raise, not mine.
-Absimiliard
Who doesn't have time to make a sig while he rants at Christians.
The problem I see with this is that the warrant in question is likely to come out a close-court ruling by the judges that the FBI/NSA/(other big governmental acronym) keep sequestered for just this purpose.
I forget my source but there is a panel of judeges who do nothing but issues warrants for wiretapping. The judges in question do not conduct public hearings, and you cannot get access to the court records. They also grant like 90% of the warrants asked for. Basically rubber-stamping whatever the Feds want.
It is that 'easily obtained' warrant that scares me. The Mitnick case clearly demonstrates the governments desire to act illegally in order to send a message to the hackers. Now could they have another tool to abuse. Not good.
-abs
'I don't have a sig you silly english knight, now go away or I shall taunt you again.'
Slashdot Mirror
BWAAAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
ROFLMAO
HAHAHAHAHA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA
A HAHAH HA AHAAHAAAHAHHA
Ohh, that hurt *wipes tears from eyes*
Okay, *several deep breaths* Okay, I'm better now.
I would like to commend you 7Days. That was truly a beautiful troll. Your responses in all their bigoted illogic have everyone going.
Your efforts have near single-handedly derailed this whole thread.
Bah, no rewards to all the uninventive trolls talking about hot grits or Natalie, this guy here is brilliant. He rants onwards in a way designed to get the goat of just about any reader, including good christian ones.
7Days, you are outstanding. I hereby award you "Troll of the Year", *hands statuette over*, for you brilliant work in suckering us all in.
I will now stand back and let you make your acceptance speach. I'm sure you have some nasty verbiage to aim at me.
Unfortunately for you I am now done with this thread, it's amusement potential has gone and I'm marching onwards towards things that actually matter, unlike you.
Absimiliard
Don't shill for M$ that way.
- --
There is no way to prove that the data posted here was obtained by someone violating the EULA. The instructions for bypassing the EULA, moronically easy, were posted prior to the supposedly violating information. Therefore the trade secret argument is in-valid.
The copyright issue is bogus. MIT owns all copyrights on Kerberos. Microsoft can't get them by re-writing a spec. Doesn't work that way.
So either you are propagating false information, in which case shame on you. Or you are a M$ shill only posting here to put some propaganda out, in which case "ROT IN HELL A$$HOLE!"
Absimiliard
-----------------------------------------------
Sigs are stupid, but mine's stupider than yours.
Actually in the US that is NOT illegal. Journalists have pretty much settled that issue. Telling someone where the crack-house is is perfectly legal.
Absimiliard
---------------------------------
Sigs are lame, but mine's lamer!
Oh come on folks!
- -------
For goodness' sakes. I can't possibly be the first person to notice this.
Didn't anyone else notice that the titles of all the sections in the article were titles from episodes of Babylon 5? I mean come on, "the Geometry of Shadows". "Babylon Squared"!!!!!!!
Geeze. Am I the only sci-fi geek left around here?
Absimiliard
-----------------------------------------------
All sigs are lame, but I've got the lamest sig of all!
Hey infodragon.
I have to take issue with your statement that the media would jump all over anything remotely close to the government's actions during prohibition.
Here in the US we are currently undergoing a period of prohibition. The drug warriors are all up on their high-horses riding down your rights. Your rights have been, and are currently being, eroded very seriously in the name of the war on drugs.
The media has chosen to ignore these abuses quite handily. No TV station has yet had the balls to stand up and say that seizure of property on the suspicion that drug money may have been involved AND placing the burden of proof to reclaim the property on the person from whom it was seized is wrong. It's pretty clearly wrong, the Founding Fathers would have had fits over it, but our media does not have the stones to say it.
That is only one example.
Now if anyone knows why the media is so quiet on the subject I'd love to hear it. I'm really quite perplexed myself. I've figured the media as corporate stooges for ages, but I can't for the life of me figure out why corporate money wants our property rights eroded in this way? What are they getting?
Absimiliard
--------------------------------------
All sigs are lame, but mine is the lamest!
Interesting viewpoint. I do find that I must agree with your assessment of WHY laws are complicated. The analogy of complexity in programming is a good one.
However. When you state "BZZZZTTT, wrong, thanks for playing. If the patent system was simple, it would be ambiguous and we'd need legions more patent lawyers to handle the resulting legal disputes." I cannot agree. Yes there might be more legal disputes with more simple/ambiguous laws. But simple law could be argued by each disputant. We would not need more lawyers, we would however need more judges.
Personally I would be okay with the laws that govern my life being a few highly general principles that are interpreted and implemented on the fly. I realize that would require more judges, and more competant ones, but I've always liked the Bene Gesserit solution, (3 person panel, their decisions hold, screw what the law says) and that approaches it.
Absimiliard
I found the response of the Patent Bar fascinating but not surprising.
[rant]
Does anyone else here think that what the patent lawyers think isn't worth $RANDOM_EXPLETIVE? I mean talk about a biased viewpoint.
These folks have a strong interest in preserving or making more complex the current situation. Heck, if it was simple we wouldn't need patent lawyers at all. Given that exactly how surprising is it that they want to $RANDOM_EXPLETIVE those of us who see the flaws in the current system and are thus calling for reform.
Not that I would typically want to destroy someone's livelihood, but these yutzes just don't figure into the equation as far as I'm concerned. Sure they're experts on the current law. But if the system is broken why should their income potential matter when the question at hand is "How do we fix a broken system?"
Basically I guess my opinion is this. Screw them all. Their money is at stake, that makes them inherently untrustworthy in my book. (Not that I trust lawyers I don't personally know anyway.)
[/rant]
Hmmmmm obfuscated FORTRAN. If I recall correctly that would be ALL code written in FORTRAN woudln't it?
Absimiliard
Pardon me if this comes off as kind of flamy, but what do you mean?
How could it possibly aid wireless communications? Satellites in orbit currently can cover the whole earth. A Moon-base receiver, or a Mars-based one, could only cover %50 at a time.
Finally, would you really want to add a 7 second lag to all your conversations by bouncing a signal off the Moon? Bouncing off of Mars would make that lag minutes.
I can only hope you jest, and no one has moderated your humor down for innacuracy yet. I sincerely hope you aren't serious, though I acknowledge that maybe you're thinking of something totally escaping me, but given that exceeding the speed of light is impossible I highly doubt that.
Absimiliard
I don't write good sigs, I just envy them.
This is way off-topic, unless I'm just to dumb to see any link between David Johansen and Jon Johansen besides their last name.
Would someone please moderate it down.
Absimiliard
Probably, I would venture that Sid Meier would also be an exception to this rule.
Absimiliard
> God intended sex to be a way in which two
> people, a man and a woman, could experience a
> profound and joyous union
Okay, I'm going to go off-topic here. Feel free to moderate me down folks. But just whose God are you talking about? Are you speaking about the Christian God, the Hindu God (which one), the Muslim God (arguably the Christian God), the Confucian God (again, which one), or the 'I don't believe in the supernatural I am a secular humanist God' (In which case I would really like to know exactly who you think that is.)
Obviously I am taking a poke at you because you seem to believe that you have the right to impose your religious views on me. I don't for a minute think that kids should see everything on the internet, in fact I don't know anyone who does. However I do strongly object to using any religion's beliefs on anything to regulate a multi-national, and thus multi-religion, medium like the internet.
Not to too strongly offend you, but take your Christian belief system and go take a long walk off a short pier. I am not Christian, none of my friends are, and most of the world is not. Keep your moral code out of our lives. In return I will agree to leave your children alone. They can have my pity for being raised Christian, but they are yours to raise, not mine.
-Absimiliard
Who doesn't have time to make a sig while he rants at Christians.
I recall somewhere hearing that they did swipe it from Toqueville. Of course I could be wrong.
-abs
The problem I see with this is that the warrant in question is likely to come out a close-court ruling by the judges that the FBI/NSA/(other big governmental acronym) keep sequestered for just this purpose.
I forget my source but there is a panel of judeges who do nothing but issues warrants for wiretapping. The judges in question do not conduct public hearings, and you cannot get access to the court records. They also grant like 90% of the warrants asked for. Basically rubber-stamping whatever the Feds want.
It is that 'easily obtained' warrant that scares me. The Mitnick case clearly demonstrates the governments desire to act illegally in order to send a message to the hackers. Now could they have another tool to abuse. Not good.
-abs
'I don't have a sig you silly english knight, now go away or I shall taunt you again.'