(I wasn't really serious about the "just kidding" example.)
If you want to have certain kinds of criminals punished for life..
No, but I do think it's not ridiculous to have a sentence of: "no mixing with society, until you get over whatever the fuck it is that makes you rape children. If that's until death, so be it, and if that's after a couple years of counseling, that's ok too."
If the purpose of sentencing people to prison is to be a deterrent, so that criminals are forced to make game theory decisions ("if I rape this kid, I get n years, but the pleasure of tapping that sweet virgin ass is only worth risking n-3 years, so I think I won't do it") then I guess arbitrary fixed sentences make sense. Just pick the right n, and hope that each prospective criminal subscribes to the right journals so they know exactly what their sentences will be and can make informed and rational decisions.
But if the purpose of sentencing people to prison is to keep them away from new victims, then sentencing them to arbitrary known-in-advance amounts of time is almost always going to be wrong (either too long or too short) and fail to accomplish the goal of sentencing. There's just no way a judge can possibly know that the criminal won't be reformed at n-1 years and yet will be reformed at n years. Nobody who doesn't have a time machine, is that prescient.
As for plea bargains, I'm not convinced they're a useful aspect of the justice system.
People are convicted and sentenced for their crimes, and once they have served their sentence they have the right to go free.
Amend the process of sentencing. There's no reason it has to be fully declared in advance. At sentencing trial #1, judge says, "I sentence you to prison." Prisoner asks, "How long?" Judge answers: "I don't know. Ask me again in 5 years." Whoa.
It could be fun. Judge: "I sentence you to death." Prisoner: "Oh crap." Firing Squad: "Ready.. aim.." Judge: "Just kidding." Firing Squad: "Oh crap."
IMHO the GPL, even v3, needs some work to clarify this question and also to close the hole for the software-as-a-service industry to modify GPL code without reciprocating.
I've seen this kind of thing before, and it surprises me that so many people have such a deep misunderstanding of copyright law.
The GPL ***CAN'T*** define what a derived work is; it lacks the power to do that. Congress (not FSF and not Microsoft), through copyright law, does that.
Reading pages at FSF may clarify the issue, simply because those pages are written by presumably well-versed people (though beware: they may try to persuade you, rather than inform you).
You're right, and it's good for people to know that.
But: If you have any need for supporting HDCP, then something has already gone terribly wrong with your setup. HDCP is for people with Bluray players and cable boxes. But when you buy into that stuff, you know you're locking yourself into HDCP dependency and that you're creating a legacy where you're pretty much guaranteed to get fucked pretty hard.
Plan ahead and avoid it altogether. So my advice to the guy is: if hacker-friendly means no HDCP (and it does), and no HDCP is a problem, then deal with your lockin/DRM problem first. Then buy a TV. Get out of jail before you start tweaking the fine details of freedom.
We always have the option, it's just that the option is exercised long before election day. We can sometimes abandon our duty and miss an election cycle, but DMCA has been on the books for over a decade now. If we still don't have candidates to even run and lose, I can't blame Hollywood.
I don't take all the responsibility, just about a hundred millionth of it. So it's not like there's a lot of self-loathing here. But it's something. I hope everyone reading this, feels their share of the shame, too.
We know what will happen if we wait until November 2010 to act. We can choose that destiny, or try for something else. That's voting. Tonight I'll probably go home and drink beer: another vote to keep DMCA.
It's about judgment, not power. Deciding whether or not to shoot someone might not always be easy, but at least the short-term consequences are clear: they die. (And it hardly ever starts World War 1.) But when you tell your girlfriend exactly when you'll be coming back from your Daiquiri storage depot bombing run (coming in from the north below their radar), you might not realize that she might mention your return time to someone, with the info eventually getting back to the enemy.
And that's just the cover reason. There's also the problem of soldiers saying "it sucks here and it's clear that we're not actually serving our own country's interests by being here; I joined to serve my country, not harm it, and I don't want civvies treating me like a Vietnam vet when I get back," which in turn could result in political pressure and a president deciding to stop spending so much money. That can be bad for contractors' business. If I were a contractor, I would pressure the military to shoot any soldier who voices any opinions or posts any of their torture videos to MySpace. The public needs to stay uninformed about the [lack of] utility of the mission or the plug could get pulled. And then nobody wins except the taxpayers. Can't have that.
I admit I'm probably over-generalizing "you." Maybe a tiny handful of you, Slashdot users, actually did. But most of you voted for keeping DMCA. I did too. I hate DMCA, but when I was in the booth, for all seats in Congress in all the time since DMCA became law, I voted exclusively for Democrat and Republican candidates. No one else was running, in my state. Presidents have been the only positions where I've voted against the worst of the bad guys, and I'm not even sure my presidential candidates actually favored repealing DMCA. I don't remember them talking about that particular law.
Name a candidate for any office, legislative or executive, that ran on repealing DMCA. If you can name one, then: did you vote for him? Three presidents and hundreds of congressmen can't be wrong, especially when the voters continually say they are right.
If we want government to not be evil, then we need some serious candidates for government. Who is willing to actually step up and run on a non-evil platform?
If they want to keep data private, then use real cryptography, and validated software/hardware combinations that make the cost of extracting the data in a usable format more expensive than the data it's protecting. The military does it, as to certain businesses, and intelligence agencies around the world. The technology is there, it works, and it's real security.
BTW, how can you call yourself a purist? That is not "real security." That's a practical (in)convenience, just the kind of advantage (as opposed to "real security") that I was talking about and the last thing I'd expect from a "purist." If people can see it, they can write it down. They can paraphrase. The person has the information (that's why you sent it to them). You've just removed easy copy-and-paste.
chances are good the "leaker" in question can form an affirmative defense
Sometimes there's no defense, because we're not always talking about court. So what if you don't have solid proof that person X leaked? You still know (pretty darn sure) that they did it.
If you're Steve Jobs, you fire 'em. So you don't have proof? Fine, their unemployment claim goes through. Or they're demoted to beta tester and if they don't like knowing the cool secrets, they can quit. You're no longer giving secrets to leaky people.
If you're a Bond Villain, you just kill the leaker; they don't have a trial. You're pretty sure you killed the right guy. And if it's actually James Bond's plot to get you to kill all your henchmen, that's fine, because you're playing the part that the movie-goers came to see.
What, you mean to suggest that admitting to committing the activity that the plaintiff claims caused them financial harm during a civil suit is not necessarily the best way for the defendant to proceed? Say it isn't so!
I think the shock here isn't the activity itself. It was that that this defendant is a law student (theoretically and ideally, a lot more informed than most Slashdotters about how courts work in the real world) and had a lot of pre-trial swagger, as though he had found a statute (or more likely, a decision) that covered his ass and was sure he was going to win and embarrass Sony.
Now we have a story that not only has Fair Use been ruled out (almost a minor point) but a strong suggestion that Fair Use (?!) was this guy's case.
Christians are not experts on Life, the Universe, and Everything. Christians have no special insights, education, access to data, nor have they devoted more time (on average) to studying the big picture and investigating problems, compared to anyone else.
Climate scientists are experts. They've actually looked at the problem 1000x more than most people. They've studied it. They've poured over numbers that you don't even know, off the top of your head, where to get.
Trusting them to tell it like it is, is still dogma (appeal to authority). But as dogma goes, it's the best there is. If I blindly accept the anti-scientists' position that global warming isn't happening, that's just as dogmatic. I'm either going to look into it myself, or listen to the people who know what they're talking about. Listening to the people who don't know what they're talking about, is the least smartest option.
just run it through the thesaurus algorithm a few more times
But do leakers do that? Always?
People get caught when their guard is down. People fuck up. People think, "nobody's out to get me."
Sometimes they're wrong. Every single day, people die by that principle. They won't get mugged. They can drive home drunk and probably not crash. They can forgo the condom this time. It's true they're not guaranteed to lose. But sometimes they still do.
You're right that it's not a general solution that you can count on, to find your opponent. But at the same time, you know plenty of damn fools will get caught by it.
It's not security through obscurity; it's advantage through security.
is that you don't know who your peers are. They might not even be "peers" in the everyday commonly-understood sense.
Solution: remove anonymity, or at least replace it with pseudo-anonymity. I don't know who the guy that signs his chunks with keyid 0xDEADBEEF is, but I know he's never sent me garbage in the past. The owner of keyid 0xF00C1000 sends me chunks that don't match up with the rest of the content. My computer has a hard disk. It can remember things like this.
Gnutella blacklists mediasentry IPs. IPs are ephemeral. What they ought to do is use a signed protocol, and blacklist bad signing keys. Or better yet, greylist everyone by default and whitelist the ones who show a history of integrity. No wait, program the client to do all that, and don't distribute any lists at all.
I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.
Because all Slashdotters (100% of them) use the Internet.
Networks are about communication and interoperability. Software patents got a lot of attention, starting in 1989 when the LZW thing came up in DDJ, because they prevent interoperability. You were not allowed to implement a side of a conversation, such as decoding a GIF.
Quicksort can be replaced with other sorts; nobody really needs Quicksort to get their project working. A Quicksort patent holder would have an advantage in his apps, not a monopoly. If patents had never been applied in a way where they impacted file formats, codecs, and protocols, then hackers would see other people's patents as something that merely gave them competitive disadvantage, rather than being a complete exclusion.
I don't mind being told the other guy gets a leg up, especially if he was clever and deserved it. So I'm playing with a handicap? Fine. Bring it on! I might show the other guy a thing or two.
I do mind being told that I am simply not allowed to compete at all, and this will be enforced by government courts.
My own fucking government, demanding that a market not exist. That pisses me off. (And this is in America, of all places. Doesn't exactly fit the Free Market stereotype, does it? They told me the Commies lost the cold war, so how did I get an anti-business government? How did it happen that the so-called "socialist" countries got this right when we got it wrong? I think somebody lied to me.)
They don't. But most ISPs offer it as a service, and most DHCP clients automatically accept the offer. If you're not a computer dork, it appears that they're in control, whereas in practice, you actually did opt in.
The reason they offer this service (whether it's done well, according to the specs, or done brokenly, as Comcast is doing here), is that it's more efficient.
When they do it correctly, you come out ahead by letting your ISP do this for you (instead of running Bind yourself). Translating a name into an address requires multiple queries to multiple authorities. Because your ISP's links are faster than yours, they can look stuff up faster. And if more than one user is sharing the service, then some of the queries can be skipped and served by a prior user's cached results instead.
It's actually a good thing.. technically. The catch is that you're trusting them with something, and some of them are starting to act untrustworthy.
It's just like caching web proxies, NNTP servers, etc. Great tech, if you're doing business with someone who feels they have a reputation to lose. Not so great if you're doing business with an entity that people choose by default (or have chosen for them by their local government), e.g. "I'll just get internet through the local cable TV company."
Then everyone ought to be furious at the government for pressing totally bullshit charges instead of addressing what she did.
Imagine if I bite you, you die of the resulting infection, and then I eat your brain, and the government's reaction is to charge me with pedophilia. Eventually, I'm going to walk (my lawyer is going to bring up your age, the lack of any evidence that I raped you, and the recording of the conversation where you said, "ok, you can eat my brain"), instead of going to jail for murder+cannibalism.
Blame me, but blame the government too. The government didn't charge Drew with trying to get someone to die; they charged with for "hacking."
Actually no... if you put the input inside a div with a class and set the class to display:none then there is no indication that the input element is special.
There's obviously some indication, because your web browser doesn't show that input.
It's not hard for a scraper to understand that if a container isn't shown, then the things inside that container aren't shown. That's a very basic aspect of CSS, and if one piece of software (browser) "gets it" then so can another.
For example, make a "Phone Number" field and set the CSS display attribute to none. Normal users won't see this field and won't fill it out. Spam-bots will see it and attempt to fill it out.
This only works for as long as spammers don't care about it. I think anyone who can figure out the HTML resulting from javascript, can also figure out the style of an element.
What's really funny about this problem is that we used to talk about using captchas to tell the robots apart from the meatbags, so that you could discriminate against robots. But now people want the robots to make sense of their page (so that they get referrals from Google) but they don't want the robots to make sense of their page (so that their email box doesn't get referrals from spambot). You're on the web or you're not. Choose.
The Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) should not be driven by ideology. The role of the judge is simply to apply the law impartially.
You will understand "progressives" a lot better, once you realize that the above statement is ideology.
Seriously, there are people who disagree with that statement. What's amazing is that they are the majority. Most people in the US now, think that the law is incomplete and implies things rather than says things.
Look at any SCOTUS case, let's say (here's a good recent one): Do convicted prisoners have the constitutional right to a DNA test to prove their innocence? Almost everyone thinks giving convicts a DNA test (in cases where there is DNA known from the perpetrator to compare with) to re-verify their guilt is, at worst, harmless. Among that group, probably most people think it's a good idea to go ahead and do it.
Progressives look at the situation and say, well, since the DNA testing is a good idea, then it's a constitutional right. DNA testing is the mainstream technology du jour, and therefore, implicitly part of "due process." It's that simple.
Conservatives read the law and say, "I don't see anything in the constitution about DNA. I just can't find DNA mentioned anywhere in that 1780s document, maybe my browser's search function is broken." So they'll say it's not constitutionally protected, but many probably think it's a good idea and might vote for it if they happen to hold office as a state legislator. It's that simple.
They're both spouting ideology, but most conservatives don't realize that "the courts should apply the law impartially" is idealogy because they remember (or think they remember, but that's another topic) when such statements were common sense shared by 99% of the population. When ideology is unanimous and not divisive, we don't think of it as ideology. But you have to pay attention to the growing population that sees the current laws as being so unfair, that those laws must not really be The Law. Once that group becomes big enough, what was once common sense is now just one group's ideology.
"But it's obvious!!" you might think. The law is so clear. Don't forget, though, that the real law is not a document or set of ideals. It's not code, no matter how many times some people say it is. The law is ultimately whatever whoever has the most force of arms wants. It can mean mass murder to make room for the master race, or it can mean double-checking that convicts are really guilty. The law is whatever we want it to be, and I think that when you look at it that way, progressives (whether their ideals are wise or foolish) have reality on their side.
"Explicit" is an even stupider way to describe porn than "graphic" is, because it always applies to way more than what you really mean. If you mean porn, then say "porn."
It always amused me when music albums used to come with an "parental advisory: explicit lyrics" warning; they might as well have just said, "look out, this album isn't all just instrumental" or "warning: not much abstract symbolism, the writer actually knows how to write."
Slashdot Mirror
Through a tube made out of coca leaves.
(I wasn't really serious about the "just kidding" example.)
No, but I do think it's not ridiculous to have a sentence of: "no mixing with society, until you get over whatever the fuck it is that makes you rape children. If that's until death, so be it, and if that's after a couple years of counseling, that's ok too."
If the purpose of sentencing people to prison is to be a deterrent, so that criminals are forced to make game theory decisions ("if I rape this kid, I get n years, but the pleasure of tapping that sweet virgin ass is only worth risking n-3 years, so I think I won't do it") then I guess arbitrary fixed sentences make sense. Just pick the right n, and hope that each prospective criminal subscribes to the right journals so they know exactly what their sentences will be and can make informed and rational decisions.
But if the purpose of sentencing people to prison is to keep them away from new victims, then sentencing them to arbitrary known-in-advance amounts of time is almost always going to be wrong (either too long or too short) and fail to accomplish the goal of sentencing. There's just no way a judge can possibly know that the criminal won't be reformed at n-1 years and yet will be reformed at n years. Nobody who doesn't have a time machine, is that prescient.
As for plea bargains, I'm not convinced they're a useful aspect of the justice system.
Amend the process of sentencing. There's no reason it has to be fully declared in advance. At sentencing trial #1, judge says, "I sentence you to prison." Prisoner asks, "How long?" Judge answers: "I don't know. Ask me again in 5 years." Whoa.
It could be fun. Judge: "I sentence you to death." Prisoner: "Oh crap." Firing Squad: "Ready .. aim .." Judge: "Just kidding." Firing Squad: "Oh crap."
I've seen this kind of thing before, and it surprises me that so many people have such a deep misunderstanding of copyright law.
The GPL ***CAN'T*** define what a derived work is; it lacks the power to do that. Congress (not FSF and not Microsoft), through copyright law, does that.
Reading pages at FSF may clarify the issue, simply because those pages are written by presumably well-versed people (though beware: they may try to persuade you, rather than inform you).
You're right, and it's good for people to know that.
But: If you have any need for supporting HDCP, then something has already gone terribly wrong with your setup. HDCP is for people with Bluray players and cable boxes. But when you buy into that stuff, you know you're locking yourself into HDCP dependency and that you're creating a legacy where you're pretty much guaranteed to get fucked pretty hard.
Plan ahead and avoid it altogether. So my advice to the guy is: if hacker-friendly means no HDCP (and it does), and no HDCP is a problem, then deal with your lockin/DRM problem first. Then buy a TV. Get out of jail before you start tweaking the fine details of freedom.
We always have the option, it's just that the option is exercised long before election day. We can sometimes abandon our duty and miss an election cycle, but DMCA has been on the books for over a decade now. If we still don't have candidates to even run and lose, I can't blame Hollywood.
I don't take all the responsibility, just about a hundred millionth of it. So it's not like there's a lot of self-loathing here. But it's something. I hope everyone reading this, feels their share of the shame, too.
We know what will happen if we wait until November 2010 to act. We can choose that destiny, or try for something else. That's voting. Tonight I'll probably go home and drink beer: another vote to keep DMCA.
It's about judgment, not power. Deciding whether or not to shoot someone might not always be easy, but at least the short-term consequences are clear: they die. (And it hardly ever starts World War 1.) But when you tell your girlfriend exactly when you'll be coming back from your Daiquiri storage depot bombing run (coming in from the north below their radar), you might not realize that she might mention your return time to someone, with the info eventually getting back to the enemy.
And that's just the cover reason. There's also the problem of soldiers saying "it sucks here and it's clear that we're not actually serving our own country's interests by being here; I joined to serve my country, not harm it, and I don't want civvies treating me like a Vietnam vet when I get back," which in turn could result in political pressure and a president deciding to stop spending so much money. That can be bad for contractors' business. If I were a contractor, I would pressure the military to shoot any soldier who voices any opinions or posts any of their torture videos to MySpace. The public needs to stay uninformed about the [lack of] utility of the mission or the plug could get pulled. And then nobody wins except the taxpayers. Can't have that.
So that's how they cut the power. They're not just animals.
I admit I'm probably over-generalizing "you." Maybe a tiny handful of you, Slashdot users, actually did. But most of you voted for keeping DMCA. I did too. I hate DMCA, but when I was in the booth, for all seats in Congress in all the time since DMCA became law, I voted exclusively for Democrat and Republican candidates. No one else was running, in my state. Presidents have been the only positions where I've voted against the worst of the bad guys, and I'm not even sure my presidential candidates actually favored repealing DMCA. I don't remember them talking about that particular law.
Name a candidate for any office, legislative or executive, that ran on repealing DMCA. If you can name one, then: did you vote for him? Three presidents and hundreds of congressmen can't be wrong, especially when the voters continually say they are right.
If we want government to not be evil, then we need some serious candidates for government. Who is willing to actually step up and run on a non-evil platform?
BTW, how can you call yourself a purist? That is not "real security." That's a practical (in)convenience, just the kind of advantage (as opposed to "real security") that I was talking about and the last thing I'd expect from a "purist." If people can see it, they can write it down. They can paraphrase. The person has the information (that's why you sent it to them). You've just removed easy copy-and-paste.
Sometimes there's no defense, because we're not always talking about court. So what if you don't have solid proof that person X leaked? You still know (pretty darn sure) that they did it.
If you're Steve Jobs, you fire 'em. So you don't have proof? Fine, their unemployment claim goes through. Or they're demoted to beta tester and if they don't like knowing the cool secrets, they can quit. You're no longer giving secrets to leaky people.
If you're a Bond Villain, you just kill the leaker; they don't have a trial. You're pretty sure you killed the right guy. And if it's actually James Bond's plot to get you to kill all your henchmen, that's fine, because you're playing the part that the movie-goers came to see.
I think the shock here isn't the activity itself. It was that that this defendant is a law student (theoretically and ideally, a lot more informed than most Slashdotters about how courts work in the real world) and had a lot of pre-trial swagger, as though he had found a statute (or more likely, a decision) that covered his ass and was sure he was going to win and embarrass Sony.
Now we have a story that not only has Fair Use been ruled out (almost a minor point) but a strong suggestion that Fair Use (?!) was this guy's case.
Lame, Tenenbaum. Extremely lame.
Christians are not experts on Life, the Universe, and Everything. Christians have no special insights, education, access to data, nor have they devoted more time (on average) to studying the big picture and investigating problems, compared to anyone else.
Climate scientists are experts. They've actually looked at the problem 1000x more than most people. They've studied it. They've poured over numbers that you don't even know, off the top of your head, where to get.
Trusting them to tell it like it is, is still dogma (appeal to authority). But as dogma goes, it's the best there is. If I blindly accept the anti-scientists' position that global warming isn't happening, that's just as dogmatic. I'm either going to look into it myself, or listen to the people who know what they're talking about. Listening to the people who don't know what they're talking about, is the least smartest option.
But do leakers do that? Always?
People get caught when their guard is down. People fuck up. People think, "nobody's out to get me."
Sometimes they're wrong. Every single day, people die by that principle. They won't get mugged. They can drive home drunk and probably not crash. They can forgo the condom this time. It's true they're not guaranteed to lose. But sometimes they still do.
You're right that it's not a general solution that you can count on, to find your opponent. But at the same time, you know plenty of damn fools will get caught by it.
It's not security through obscurity; it's advantage through security.
is that you don't know who your peers are. They might not even be "peers" in the everyday commonly-understood sense.
Solution: remove anonymity, or at least replace it with pseudo-anonymity. I don't know who the guy that signs his chunks with keyid 0xDEADBEEF is, but I know he's never sent me garbage in the past. The owner of keyid 0xF00C1000 sends me chunks that don't match up with the rest of the content. My computer has a hard disk. It can remember things like this.
Gnutella blacklists mediasentry IPs. IPs are ephemeral. What they ought to do is use a signed protocol, and blacklist bad signing keys. Or better yet, greylist everyone by default and whitelist the ones who show a history of integrity. No wait, program the client to do all that, and don't distribute any lists at all.
Because all Slashdotters (100% of them) use the Internet.
Networks are about communication and interoperability. Software patents got a lot of attention, starting in 1989 when the LZW thing came up in DDJ, because they prevent interoperability. You were not allowed to implement a side of a conversation, such as decoding a GIF.
Quicksort can be replaced with other sorts; nobody really needs Quicksort to get their project working. A Quicksort patent holder would have an advantage in his apps, not a monopoly. If patents had never been applied in a way where they impacted file formats, codecs, and protocols, then hackers would see other people's patents as something that merely gave them competitive disadvantage, rather than being a complete exclusion.
I don't mind being told the other guy gets a leg up, especially if he was clever and deserved it. So I'm playing with a handicap? Fine. Bring it on! I might show the other guy a thing or two.
I do mind being told that I am simply not allowed to compete at all, and this will be enforced by government courts.
My own fucking government, demanding that a market not exist. That pisses me off. (And this is in America, of all places. Doesn't exactly fit the Free Market stereotype, does it? They told me the Commies lost the cold war, so how did I get an anti-business government? How did it happen that the so-called "socialist" countries got this right when we got it wrong? I think somebody lied to me.)
Competition good, monopolies bad. That's pretty simple.
and an XT clone isn't one of them.
They don't. But most ISPs offer it as a service, and most DHCP clients automatically accept the offer. If you're not a computer dork, it appears that they're in control, whereas in practice, you actually did opt in.
The reason they offer this service (whether it's done well, according to the specs, or done brokenly, as Comcast is doing here), is that it's more efficient.
When they do it correctly, you come out ahead by letting your ISP do this for you (instead of running Bind yourself). Translating a name into an address requires multiple queries to multiple authorities. Because your ISP's links are faster than yours, they can look stuff up faster. And if more than one user is sharing the service, then some of the queries can be skipped and served by a prior user's cached results instead.
It's actually a good thing .. technically. The catch is that you're trusting them with something, and some of them are starting to act untrustworthy.
It's just like caching web proxies, NNTP servers, etc. Great tech, if you're doing business with someone who feels they have a reputation to lose. Not so great if you're doing business with an entity that people choose by default (or have chosen for them by their local government), e.g. "I'll just get internet through the local cable TV company."
Then everyone ought to be furious at the government for pressing totally bullshit charges instead of addressing what she did.
Imagine if I bite you, you die of the resulting infection, and then I eat your brain, and the government's reaction is to charge me with pedophilia. Eventually, I'm going to walk (my lawyer is going to bring up your age, the lack of any evidence that I raped you, and the recording of the conversation where you said, "ok, you can eat my brain"), instead of going to jail for murder+cannibalism.
Blame me, but blame the government too. The government didn't charge Drew with trying to get someone to die; they charged with for "hacking."
It means it just got roughly 400 times faster.
There's obviously some indication, because your web browser doesn't show that input.
It's not hard for a scraper to understand that if a container isn't shown, then the things inside that container aren't shown. That's a very basic aspect of CSS, and if one piece of software (browser) "gets it" then so can another.
This only works for as long as spammers don't care about it. I think anyone who can figure out the HTML resulting from javascript, can also figure out the style of an element.
What's really funny about this problem is that we used to talk about using captchas to tell the robots apart from the meatbags, so that you could discriminate against robots. But now people want the robots to make sense of their page (so that they get referrals from Google) but they don't want the robots to make sense of their page (so that their email box doesn't get referrals from spambot). You're on the web or you're not. Choose.
That's one of the most damning things you can say about a package.
You will understand "progressives" a lot better, once you realize that the above statement is ideology.
Seriously, there are people who disagree with that statement. What's amazing is that they are the majority. Most people in the US now, think that the law is incomplete and implies things rather than says things.
Look at any SCOTUS case, let's say (here's a good recent one): Do convicted prisoners have the constitutional right to a DNA test to prove their innocence? Almost everyone thinks giving convicts a DNA test (in cases where there is DNA known from the perpetrator to compare with) to re-verify their guilt is, at worst, harmless. Among that group, probably most people think it's a good idea to go ahead and do it.
Progressives look at the situation and say, well, since the DNA testing is a good idea, then it's a constitutional right. DNA testing is the mainstream technology du jour, and therefore, implicitly part of "due process." It's that simple.
Conservatives read the law and say, "I don't see anything in the constitution about DNA. I just can't find DNA mentioned anywhere in that 1780s document, maybe my browser's search function is broken." So they'll say it's not constitutionally protected, but many probably think it's a good idea and might vote for it if they happen to hold office as a state legislator. It's that simple.
They're both spouting ideology, but most conservatives don't realize that "the courts should apply the law impartially" is idealogy because they remember (or think they remember, but that's another topic) when such statements were common sense shared by 99% of the population. When ideology is unanimous and not divisive, we don't think of it as ideology. But you have to pay attention to the growing population that sees the current laws as being so unfair, that those laws must not really be The Law. Once that group becomes big enough, what was once common sense is now just one group's ideology.
"But it's obvious!!" you might think. The law is so clear. Don't forget, though, that the real law is not a document or set of ideals. It's not code, no matter how many times some people say it is. The law is ultimately whatever whoever has the most force of arms wants. It can mean mass murder to make room for the master race, or it can mean double-checking that convicts are really guilty. The law is whatever we want it to be, and I think that when you look at it that way, progressives (whether their ideals are wise or foolish) have reality on their side.
"Explicit" is an even stupider way to describe porn than "graphic" is, because it always applies to way more than what you really mean. If you mean porn, then say "porn."
It always amused me when music albums used to come with an "parental advisory: explicit lyrics" warning; they might as well have just said, "look out, this album isn't all just instrumental" or "warning: not much abstract symbolism, the writer actually knows how to write."