Even better... What happens if you send traffic to a user with one of the "bad files" in it? They don't need to have a connection open in order for you to send a jpeg to them. Even if the user's computer simply drops the unknown data, the ISP will pick it up in their scan. If all the software does is scan the hash values of images transferred over common protocols, I seriously doubt that it goes and checks to see if the user actually REQUESTED it before crying foul.
One step further: make a file that has the same hash value of a "bad" file. This is trivial, especially if the file doesn't need to be valid for any application. If all that is checked is a hash of the traffic, then the actual contents of the file are meaningless.
So, this software will allow law enforcement to ruin your life (any implication crime involving sex and/or kids will do that, guilty or not), by simply seeing an unknown party send you a block of unintelligible data that happens to have the same hash as "pr0n." Great.
Anyone up for making an automated hash-spoofing packet forger? I'm sure something similar has already been done. With the speed of current connections, one could probably get the entire human race indicted for child pornography in under a week.
You weren't attacking beliefs. You were making statements of fact.
Palin never made any woman pay for any rape test. No one did.
Some women were made to pay for their rape kits, so your second statement is false. Your first statement is highly debatable.
I cited a source to back me up. What's yours?
this one has some merit, though Palin's precise role is unclear... Palin had been the mayor of Wasilla for four years at the time, and a local paper reported that the Wasilla police chief, Charlie Fannon, defended the practice, saying he had billed women and their insurance companies for these tests rather than placing a "burden" on taxpayers.
I'd say that SOMEONE made the victims pay. Palin herself, personally, obviously didn't hand someone the bills. The police chief that she hired didn't personally do it either, I'm sure. Policy is still policy. You can delegate authority, but not responsibility.
I truly despise the cowards on this site. You are all a fearful, petty, and downright obnoxious bunch.
But, here goes.
Pop scenario: Your father was allegedly murdered. Your mother calls the cops, and is handed a bill for $200,000 in order for them to investigate the crime. I mean, why should taxpayers pay for his death? Your mother could easily have lied about something in her life, so why wouldn't she be lying to the cops?
The "I have nothing to hide" argument has been covered at great length by Daniel Solove (great read, by the way).
How do you know your lawful activities will always be lawful? Every time I see someone react with "I'm not a criminal" fallacy, all I can think of is the question "Are you now, or have you ever been associated with a member of the Muslim faith?" We're not far away from a witch hunt of that flavor.
Even putting aside the threat of zealous elected officials with grocery lists, not all of your private information is fit for public consumption. Taken in the wrong context, almost any information about you can be used against you. Have you paid for a bar tab with a credit card? Through a certain lens, you could be painted as a raging drunk. Sure, there could be hundreds of valid explanations, but chances are you won't be present or able to defend yourself.
I trust the corporations even less. When the only risk that an entity must seriously consider is a possible monetary settlement, then the odds of your best interests being taken seriously are nil. Remember that.
My point was more to allude to the fact that DRM is an obnoxious inconvenience for paying customers, but ultimately useless when applied towards the intended target ("pirates").
So it sounds like MySpace has made a listening service that allows you to listen to music, but probably has something resembling DRM to keep you from keeping it, listening to it offline, or putting it on portable players.
If I can hear it, I can copy it. It may not have the same bitrate or clarity, but it's still able to be copied. No amount of coding wizardry can prevent this.
Some of us prefer to be able to play games we pay for for as long as we want. What happens when the validation servers are taken offline? Or when EA decides to decline your request for another install?
Slashdot Mirror
You missed Deuteronomy 20. Genocide is always a crowd-pleaser.
Even better... What happens if you send traffic to a user with one of the "bad files" in it? They don't need to have a connection open in order for you to send a jpeg to them. Even if the user's computer simply drops the unknown data, the ISP will pick it up in their scan. If all the software does is scan the hash values of images transferred over common protocols, I seriously doubt that it goes and checks to see if the user actually REQUESTED it before crying foul.
One step further: make a file that has the same hash value of a "bad" file. This is trivial, especially if the file doesn't need to be valid for any application. If all that is checked is a hash of the traffic, then the actual contents of the file are meaningless.
So, this software will allow law enforcement to ruin your life (any implication crime involving sex and/or kids will do that, guilty or not), by simply seeing an unknown party send you a block of unintelligible data that happens to have the same hash as "pr0n." Great.
Anyone up for making an automated hash-spoofing packet forger? I'm sure something similar has already been done. With the speed of current connections, one could probably get the entire human race indicted for child pornography in under a week.
Palin never made any woman pay for any rape test. No one did.
Some women were made to pay for their rape kits, so your second statement is false. Your first statement is highly debatable.
I cited a source to back me up. What's yours?
this one has some merit, though Palin's precise role is unclear...
Palin had been the mayor of Wasilla for four years at the time, and a local paper reported that the Wasilla police chief, Charlie Fannon, defended the practice, saying he had billed women and their insurance companies for these tests rather than placing a "burden" on taxpayers.
I'd say that SOMEONE made the victims pay. Palin herself, personally, obviously didn't hand someone the bills. The police chief that she hired didn't personally do it either, I'm sure. Policy is still policy. You can delegate authority, but not responsibility.
That the rape kits included emergency contraception.
My eyes are wide open now. It all makes sense. If I ever needed a reason to hate the Republican Party even more, I now have it.
I'm sure I'll have a "happy place" to live in your Gulag!
You are inferring that anyone who strongly supports victim's rights is a member of a brutal communist regime?
That's quite the stretch there.
Source. Many others are available.
I truly despise the cowards on this site. You are all a fearful, petty, and downright obnoxious bunch.
But, here goes. Pop scenario: Your father was allegedly murdered. Your mother calls the cops, and is handed a bill for $200,000 in order for them to investigate the crime. I mean, why should taxpayers pay for his death? Your mother could easily have lied about something in her life, so why wouldn't she be lying to the cops?
You misogynistic prick.
Uhm... You pay for every other part of a police investigation. Why punish a woman who has been raped?
(including people who paid NO taxes and earned NO income, but yet for some insane reason were allowed to get a "refund" anyway)
That isn't entirely true.
Cheap bastards get tons of chicks, right? (All of them HOT...)
Considering that the wealthiest people (self-made) tend to be the most frugal, your statement can be considered correct.
citations + evidence please.
Comedy gold.
at least it's not the New York Times; there's a chance that this story is not made up fiction.
I KNEW that the whole NSA domestic spying thing was a crock of shit! Silly New York Times, making up and then breaking sensationalist crap like that.
The "I have nothing to hide" argument has been covered at great length by Daniel Solove (great read, by the way).
How do you know your lawful activities will always be lawful? Every time I see someone react with "I'm not a criminal" fallacy, all I can think of is the question "Are you now, or have you ever been associated with a member of the Muslim faith?" We're not far away from a witch hunt of that flavor.
Even putting aside the threat of zealous elected officials with grocery lists, not all of your private information is fit for public consumption. Taken in the wrong context, almost any information about you can be used against you. Have you paid for a bar tab with a credit card? Through a certain lens, you could be painted as a raging drunk. Sure, there could be hundreds of valid explanations, but chances are you won't be present or able to defend yourself.
I trust the corporations even less. When the only risk that an entity must seriously consider is a possible monetary settlement, then the odds of your best interests being taken seriously are nil. Remember that.
Newspapers are excellent sources for some topics.
So what's the problem with him?
There is none. "QuantumG" (I assume he thinks he is the indivisible entity of a gangster) is just angry that people don't shun the "obvious" names.
An important update to your software is available! Please download and install "Windows Genuine Advantage" now!
My point was more to allude to the fact that DRM is an obnoxious inconvenience for paying customers, but ultimately useless when applied towards the intended target ("pirates").
So it sounds like MySpace has made a listening service that allows you to listen to music, but probably has something resembling DRM to keep you from keeping it, listening to it offline, or putting it on portable players.
If I can hear it, I can copy it. It may not have the same bitrate or clarity, but it's still able to be copied. No amount of coding wizardry can prevent this.
In many places, it's illegal to continuously file frivolous lawsuits.
Oh my gawd. This ... came from the White House?
I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day. Either that, or the absurdity of the proposal was glaringly obvious, even to them.
Are you done trolling yet? Blaming a standard market practice on a single consumer is like blaming a random guy at your local mosque for 9-11.
You still have yet to present evidence that the EULA was accepted prior to the point at which the purchase became non-refundable.
But, at least people who thought they were buying the game aren't going to have a nasty surprise later.
Some of us prefer to be able to play games we pay for for as long as we want. What happens when the validation servers are taken offline? Or when EA decides to decline your request for another install?