There's more than just a little difference in the time scales involved.
Seems to me that the strawman here is that time matters rather than the importance ascribed to the event. Crucification is still big time important to a lot of people today.
Perhaps is was people that realize being pro-censorship for your own pet causes is always hypocritical?
Did you even read the links you provided, or do you just like to defame an organization as you whine about about defaming others?
Oh I read them, and I read them in the context in which they were offered. Only an apologist would try to equate:
Many viewers of this particular episode have told us they found the segment distasteful, and even dangerous.
We hope that in future you will consider these sensitivities before airing segments that contain unfiltered expressions of bigotry or anti-Semitism.
with:
It is unfortunate that Mr. Cohen chose to make jokes at the expense of Kazakhstan. It would have been better to have used a mythological country, rather than focus on a specific nation.
The first is a very clear "shut the hell up" and the second is a wishy-washy, "oh its too bad, but OK go ahead"
And as to your misleading comments implying they only care when Jews are harassed, here's one of many examples
The difference between the press release you've cited and the ones I have cited is that this thread is talking about censorship, not "condemning violence." You want to rebut my post instead of playing the any-criticisim-of-a-jewish-organization-makes-you- a-closet-anti-semite game? Post an ADL press release where they advocate for someone with anti-israeli or even just anti-jewish opinions to be allowed to speak. As far as I know, they have been pretty consistent in their calls for censorship against people they don't like, but you are welcome to prove me wrong. Just skip the red herring this time, ok?
Both of the articles you linked to contain a nuanced message which points out the problems with aspects of Borat's humour while at the same time recognizing what Borat is about.
The nuances do not matter when they are ignored by the conclusion of the message and have no effect on the advocacy of those messages. In each case, my blunt summaries are accurate summaries of the messages intended effects of selective censorship.
In addition, freedom of expression is not a topic of nuance either you are for it or against it. Only being against it in certain 'nuanced' situations is effectively the same thing as being outright against it - benign expression does not need protection, by definition it is only the expressions that various people feel to be distasteful and offensive that require protection in the first place. The ADL's 'nuanced' opposition to certain kinds of expression is what makes the GP's post about the ADL being the Anti-Nazi Nazis such a perfect characterization.
How can they expect anyone to take them seriously when they are happy to endorse the exact same kind of defamation they claim to oppose as long as it is aimed at some other ethnic group besides their own?
Well you could just RTFA if you are interested in details. Linus: "(with my patches, double-clicking on the title bar isn't a special event: it's configurable along with right- and middle-clicking, and with the exact same syntax for all)"
You are correct, I just RHTFA (h=half) and stopped after his first description which said only:
The code is actually _cleaner_ after my patches, and the end result is more capable. We'll see what happens.
Sorry kneejerkers, but its going to require a much more detailed description of those patches than simply "cleaner and more capable" before we can make a good evaluation of whether Linus's patches should be accepted.
After all, if someone submitted patches to the linux kernel to grab the local weather report and print it out on boot, that would be adding capability that Linus would never accept in a million years because it is outside of the scope of the kernel. If Linus's patches are similarly outside the scope of the official design goals of Gnome, then any expectation that they would be accepted is just a red herring.
It is a common service that merchants use to attract business, similar to the 30-day price guarantee, and accepting returns of non-defective goods. The merchants use those services to attract business, but they are not obligated to provide the service if they don't advertise it.
As a rule, customers do not advertise that the merchants they do business with can come back for price corrections after the fact.
So, it is not a double-standard, it is simply a matter of each party living up to their contractual obligations.
I have posted this elsewhere by under the law there is a concept known as unjust enrichment. Basically if someone looses money by an honest mistake there is a legal obligation to return the money.
There is one major point left out of the article summary. Amazon corrected the glitch on their website within hours of it going live. That correction demonstrates that Amazon was aware of the problem. Some orders shipped out 6-8 hours later that day, but many of them did not ship until 3-4 days later.
At the very least those later orders, and perhaps even the same day ones, were shipped with Amazon's full knowledge. Amazon decided that it was easier or cheaper to just let those orders go out the door than it was to try and stop them.
At that point it is no longer a mistake, it was a deliberate business decision on Amazon's part. Apparently Amazon has changed its mind about that decision, but it was not an honest mistake to ship those orders. An error in judgement, a miscalculation perhaps, but not the kind of honest mistake that a claim of unjust enrichment would apply to.
Mainly guards at the border- who aren't even issued AMMO anymore.
Sounds like a damn good thing too. We would never stand for the police shooting people who commit other misdemeanors - if the cops shot a shoplifter or someone with an open bottle in public, that cop would be fired right away. As long as illegal entry into the country is classified as a misdemeanor, we had better not be shooting at them. And don't give me any silliness about drugs, because the DEA has plenty of ammo.
And you are so special you want to act unfairly and jump ahead of them in line? What case makes YOU so selfish to get special treatment in a land that values equality under the law above all else?
This country does no such thing. Equality by money is what rules. Other countries may be worse, but we have rich man's justice here just like anywhere else. If enforcing that fairness really was so important to the US, then the penalties would be way worse than a civil fine or misdemeanor. Life ain't fair, if we shared a land border with the rest of the world, you can bet your bippy plenty of those legal immigrants would be trying to take advantage of the situation too.
Um, changing the subject and the object of a sentence changes its meaning.
Lol, is that the best you can do? Cognitive dissonance must really have y'all shook up. The groups of people changed, but the severity of their 'crimes' did not, thus the meaning stayed the same.
So when I say that illegal immigrants kill Americans, that's astounding but when you say stopping them is "burning them at the stake" that's, what, reasonable?
No neither are reasonable because they are the exact same argument. All I did was ape your own argument substituting different perps and different victims and you suddenly saw the light about how ridiculous your argument was, you just didn't realize it was your argument.
Unfortunately, HDCP implementation sucks. Standard procedure for the problems almost everyone has with HDCP-enabled cable boxes is to *reboot the box*. Apparently, in the exchange of encryption keys a handshake sometimes gets dropped, and nobody has a firmware solution.
No, the implementations of HDCP TOTALLY RAWK!
This way, people who would normally never care enough about DRM and copy prevention to even notice are getting a big steaming cup of wake-up. Anyone who has to put up with HDCP handshake failures on a regular basis will come to utterly loathe HDCP and that's just one step away from utterly loathing all DRM. It might just be enough to kill it before it grows, I say kill it before it grows!
Of course, even it worked right, HDCP would still suck.
That you would equate being denied illegal entry to a country and burning at the stake is simply astounding.
That you would equate illegal entry to a country with murder and vehicular manslaughter is simply astounding. See my original post about popping a vein because you just did.
I'm going to have to give you that picture of the bunny with the pancake on his head. But to elucidate, it's clear that those in charge of the executive branch don't want to stem the tide of illegal immigrants and they set policy. Far be it from politicians to set policy that supports their positions.
Aethism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby. In other words there has been no law passed, no directive made, no active intervention that PREVENTS the collection of these statistics. Every response you have to that will be based on your opaque assertion of transparency.
Numbers with error bars are better than putting one's thumb to the wind
Hello? Do you even understand basic statistics? If any of those studies even published error bars, they would be no more meaningful than the baseline numbers. You can not create valid information from bad data.
You seem to be under the impression that if there weren't illegal immigrants Americans would have to do the killing instead.
So, your argument boils down to - illegal immigrants are not saints, so they should burn at the stake. That same argument can be applied to any population, illegal or not, and is a direct path to a police state. Just look at the correlation between men under 30 and the murder rate, much much higher than the average, let's lock them for 10 years if they get a speeding ticket or are busted for littering. Hell, let's lock up every man for the most trivial offense because after all, there is no quota on murder, if those damn dirty speeders were in jail they wouldn't be killin anyone.
No, like so many others posting in this thread, you don't know how AACS works. Which is shameful since wikipedia spells it out.
Each volume key is encrypted a couple of thousand times and stored on the media. Each encryption is done with an individual device key. If your player's device key was not used for any of those volume key encryptions (as in it was revoked), your player will not be able to decrypt the volume key and thus will not be able to decrypt the movie. So there is no way to simply patch a routine to always return "OK" because it doesn't return OK, it returns the key needed to decrypt the movie.
Time window is tiny anyway, they only need to decrypt the volume key once, which is itself only 128 bits. Since the device key must be used in the registers to do any decryption anyway, making sure it never exists outside of the registers does not change the search space at all.
While you are at it, go back and read Marxist Hacker's claim that being an illegal alien is a FELONY - by your own words, the context of the NY AG's opinion does not validate that claim either.
Go back and read my initial post before you go on about yanking a phrase out of context. The context you provided is exactly in sync with my initial disputed claim that overstaying your visa is a civil offense.
Wow, I knew the East Coast was rather relaxed by Pacific Northwest standards
Try WA, CA, IL, HI, and TX as non-east coast states where speeding tickets are civil. I am sure there are plenty more, those are just the ones where I lived and looked it up at the time.
And as for the NY Attorney General- well, he's not federal is he? NOR does he have anything to say about immigration, which is a FEDERAL offense, which in practice, is nothing more than a cite-and-realese, albeit release in country of origin.
Would you PLEASE back up your claim with a citation that shows overstaying a visa is a federal FELONY as you originally claimed. You are so confident that you doubt the word of the attorney general of a state with one of the highest numbers of illegal immigrants, you must have some basis for it.
Saying that it's not hack-proof implies that you think it's pretty good.
Wow, I guess there is some other meaning to "not hack-proof." Good of you to make it up for me. I'll be sure to use it the next time I propose a security implementation to a client "It is not hack-proof, but since you are trying to keep out the hackers, I think it is pretty good!"
As I understand it the government has been prevented from keeping a close tally on this
Yeah, prevented in the same way that atheism is a religion.
so the numbers given are the best available data
Crap is crap, it doesn't matter if it came out of a prince or a pauper, it is still just as useless.
Even if they're not exactly right it's still a problem. Even if it's off by an order of magnitude (900 instead of 9000) it's still a problem.
No, not really. Given the estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the US (10-20 million), 900 deaths, half of them by traffic accident puts them between just at and half the national average murder rate of 420 per 10M and significantly better than the 1,500 per 10M national average of traffic deaths per capita. Those numbers don't even account for manslaughter, just murders and traffic deaths. Making them significantly better than the average legal resident.
Couldn't you still load the program into gdb and get the register values that way? Or is there something in the modern versions of MS Windows that prevents using a debugger?
Under most versions of unix, only one debugger can attach to a process at a time. So an easy trick to prevent being debugged is to make the program attach to itself, thus locking out other debuggers. Some unices don't let a process attach to itself, but for those it may be possible to fork a child and have each process mutually debug the other. I'm not an NT programmer, but I would bet something along those lines works the same there too.
Don't get me wrong, nothing is fool-proof (and I said so in my first post) the best these guys can do is make it difficult. So far, the windvd/powerdvd guys just wiped the device key from memory after use which is about the bare minimum - they could have done lots more without too much effort.
Slashdot Mirror
There's more than just a little difference in the time scales involved.
Seems to me that the strawman here is that time matters rather than the importance ascribed to the event. Crucification is still big time important to a lot of people today.
Perhaps is was people that realize being pro-censorship for your own pet causes is always hypocritical?
Did you even read the links you provided, or do you just like to defame an organization as you whine about about defaming others?
Oh I read them, and I read them in the context in which they were offered. Only an apologist would try to equate:with:The first is a very clear "shut the hell up" and the second is a wishy-washy, "oh its too bad, but OK go ahead"
And as to your misleading comments implying they only care when Jews are harassed, here's one of many examples
The difference between the press release you've cited and the ones I have cited is that this thread is talking about censorship, not "condemning violence." You want to rebut my post instead of playing the any-criticisim-of-a-jewish-organization-makes-you
Both of the articles you linked to contain a nuanced message which points out the problems with aspects of Borat's humour while at the same time recognizing what Borat is about.
The nuances do not matter when they are ignored by the conclusion of the message and have no effect on the advocacy of those messages. In each case, my blunt summaries are accurate summaries of the messages intended effects of selective censorship.
In addition, freedom of expression is not a topic of nuance either you are for it or against it. Only being against it in certain 'nuanced' situations is effectively the same thing as being outright against it - benign expression does not need protection, by definition it is only the expressions that various people feel to be distasteful and offensive that require protection in the first place. The ADL's 'nuanced' opposition to certain kinds of expression is what makes the GP's post about the ADL being the Anti-Nazi Nazis such a perfect characterization.
The ADL have become (maybe they always were, I haven't paid that much attention) one of the most pro-censorship advocacy groups out there and in an unbashedly biased fashion too - take their stance on Borat - at first they wanted him off the air for encouraging anti-semitism, but someone must have explained the joke to them because a year or two later they issued a second press release saying it's too bad that Borat uses Kazakhs as the butt of his jokes, but its OK after all since they aren't jews, so we don't want Cohen censored after all.
How can they expect anyone to take them seriously when they are happy to endorse the exact same kind of defamation they claim to oppose as long as it is aimed at some other ethnic group besides their own?
You are correct, I just RHTFA (h=half) and stopped after his first description which said only:
Sorry kneejerkers, but its going to require a much more detailed description of those patches than simply "cleaner and more capable" before we can make a good evaluation of whether Linus's patches should be accepted.
After all, if someone submitted patches to the linux kernel to grab the local weather report and print it out on boot, that would be adding capability that Linus would never accept in a million years because it is outside of the scope of the kernel. If Linus's patches are similarly outside the scope of the official design goals of Gnome, then any expectation that they would be accepted is just a red herring.
It is not a double-standard.
It is a common service that merchants use to attract business, similar to the 30-day price guarantee, and accepting returns of non-defective goods. The merchants use those services to attract business, but they are not obligated to provide the service if they don't advertise it.
As a rule, customers do not advertise that the merchants they do business with can come back for price corrections after the fact.
So, it is not a double-standard, it is simply a matter of each party living up to their contractual obligations.
I have posted this elsewhere by under the law there is a concept known as unjust enrichment. Basically if someone looses money by an honest mistake there is a legal obligation to return the money.
There is one major point left out of the article summary. Amazon corrected the glitch on their website within hours of it going live. That correction demonstrates that Amazon was aware of the problem. Some orders shipped out 6-8 hours later that day, but many of them did not ship until 3-4 days later.
At the very least those later orders, and perhaps even the same day ones, were shipped with Amazon's full knowledge. Amazon decided that it was easier or cheaper to just let those orders go out the door than it was to try and stop them.
At that point it is no longer a mistake, it was a deliberate business decision on Amazon's part. Apparently Amazon has changed its mind about that decision, but it was not an honest mistake to ship those orders. An error in judgement, a miscalculation perhaps, but not the kind of honest mistake that a claim of unjust enrichment would apply to.
Mainly guards at the border- who aren't even issued AMMO anymore.
Sounds like a damn good thing too. We would never stand for the police shooting people who commit other misdemeanors - if the cops shot a shoplifter or someone with an open bottle in public, that cop would be fired right away. As long as illegal entry into the country is classified as a misdemeanor, we had better not be shooting at them. And don't give me any silliness about drugs, because the DEA has plenty of ammo.
And you are so special you want to act unfairly and jump ahead of them in line? What case makes YOU so selfish to get special treatment in a land that values equality under the law above all else?
This country does no such thing. Equality by money is what rules. Other countries may be worse, but we have rich man's justice here just like anywhere else. If enforcing that fairness really was so important to the US, then the penalties would be way worse than a civil fine or misdemeanor. Life ain't fair, if we shared a land border with the rest of the world, you can bet your bippy plenty of those legal immigrants would be trying to take advantage of the situation too.
Um, changing the subject and the object of a sentence changes its meaning.
Lol, is that the best you can do? Cognitive dissonance must really have y'all shook up. The groups of people changed, but the severity of their 'crimes' did not, thus the meaning stayed the same.
Lawrence Watt-Evans, an author friend of mine,
Yeah, well Piers Anthony is my author friend! Name-dropper!
So when I say that illegal immigrants kill Americans, that's astounding but when you say stopping them is "burning them at the stake" that's, what, reasonable?
No neither are reasonable because they are the exact same argument. All I did was ape your own argument substituting different perps and different victims and you suddenly saw the light about how ridiculous your argument was, you just didn't realize it was your argument.
Unfortunately, HDCP implementation sucks. Standard procedure for the problems almost everyone has with HDCP-enabled cable boxes is to *reboot the box*. Apparently, in the exchange of encryption keys a handshake sometimes gets dropped, and nobody has a firmware solution.
No, the implementations of HDCP TOTALLY RAWK!
This way, people who would normally never care enough about DRM and copy prevention to even notice are getting a big steaming cup of wake-up. Anyone who has to put up with HDCP handshake failures on a regular basis will come to utterly loathe HDCP and that's just one step away from utterly loathing all DRM. It might just be enough to kill it before it grows, I say kill it before it grows!
Of course, even it worked right, HDCP would still suck.
Amen!
Now you tell me- is it right to break a law merely because it is unenforced?
Hello? Who said it is unenforced? You just admitted that it isn't even a misdemeanor, it is a civil violation aka not a crime.
That you would equate being denied illegal entry to a country and burning at the stake is simply astounding.
That you would equate illegal entry to a country with murder and vehicular manslaughter is simply astounding. See my original post about popping a vein because you just did.
I'm going to have to give you that picture of the bunny with the pancake on his head. But to elucidate, it's clear that those in charge of the executive branch don't want to stem the tide of illegal immigrants and they set policy. Far be it from politicians to set policy that supports their positions.
Aethism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby. In other words there has been no law passed, no directive made, no active intervention that PREVENTS the collection of these statistics. Every response you have to that will be based on your opaque assertion of transparency.
Numbers with error bars are better than putting one's thumb to the wind
Hello? Do you even understand basic statistics? If any of those studies even published error bars, they would be no more meaningful than the baseline numbers. You can not create valid information from bad data.
You seem to be under the impression that if there weren't illegal immigrants Americans would have to do the killing instead.
So, your argument boils down to - illegal immigrants are not saints, so they should burn at the stake. That same argument can be applied to any population, illegal or not, and is a direct path to a police state. Just look at the correlation between men under 30 and the murder rate, much much higher than the average, let's lock them for 10 years if they get a speeding ticket or are busted for littering. Hell, let's lock up every man for the most trivial offense because after all, there is no quota on murder, if those damn dirty speeders were in jail they wouldn't be killin anyone.
No, like so many others posting in this thread, you don't know how AACS works. Which is shameful since wikipedia spells it out.
Each volume key is encrypted a couple of thousand times and stored on the media. Each encryption is done with an individual device key. If your player's device key was not used for any of those volume key encryptions (as in it was revoked), your player will not be able to decrypt the volume key and thus will not be able to decrypt the movie. So there is no way to simply patch a routine to always return "OK" because it doesn't return OK, it returns the key needed to decrypt the movie.
Time window is tiny anyway, they only need to decrypt the volume key once, which is itself only 128 bits. Since the device key must be used in the registers to do any decryption anyway, making sure it never exists outside of the registers does not change the search space at all.
While you are at it, go back and read Marxist Hacker's claim that being an illegal alien is a FELONY - by your own words, the context of the NY AG's opinion does not validate that claim either.
Go back and read my initial post before you go on about yanking a phrase out of context. The context you provided is exactly in sync with my initial disputed claim that overstaying your visa is a civil offense.
Wow, I knew the East Coast was rather relaxed by Pacific Northwest standards
Try WA, CA, IL, HI, and TX as non-east coast states where speeding tickets are civil. I am sure there are plenty more, those are just the ones where I lived and looked it up at the time.
And as for the NY Attorney General- well, he's not federal is he? NOR does he have anything to say about immigration, which is a FEDERAL offense, which in practice, is nothing more than a cite-and-realese, albeit release in country of origin.
Would you PLEASE back up your claim with a citation that shows overstaying a visa is a federal FELONY as you originally claimed. You are so confident that you doubt the word of the attorney general of a state with one of the highest numbers of illegal immigrants, you must have some basis for it.
Saying that it's not hack-proof implies that you think it's pretty good.
Wow, I guess there is some other meaning to "not hack-proof."
Good of you to make it up for me. I'll be sure to use it the next time I propose a security implementation to a client "It is not hack-proof, but since you are trying to keep out the hackers, I think it is pretty good!"
As I understand it the government has been prevented from keeping a close tally on this
Yeah, prevented in the same way that atheism is a religion.
so the numbers given are the best available data
Crap is crap, it doesn't matter if it came out of a prince or a pauper, it is still just as useless.
Even if they're not exactly right it's still a problem. Even if it's off by an order of magnitude (900 instead of 9000) it's still a problem.
No, not really. Given the estimates of the number of illegal aliens in the US (10-20 million), 900 deaths, half of them by traffic accident puts them between just at and half the national average murder rate of 420 per 10M and significantly better than the 1,500 per 10M national average of traffic deaths per capita. Those numbers don't even account for manslaughter, just murders and traffic deaths. Making them significantly better than the average legal resident.
Congratulations, you and a half dozen other people have now proven themselves illiterate.
Either that, or there is some other meaning to the phrase "Even that approach isn't hack-proof" that I am unaware of.
Couldn't you still load the program into gdb and get the register values that way? Or is there something in the modern versions of MS Windows that prevents using a debugger?
Under most versions of unix, only one debugger can attach to a process at a time. So an easy trick to prevent being debugged is to make the program attach to itself, thus locking out other debuggers. Some unices don't let a process attach to itself, but for those it may be possible to fork a child and have each process mutually debug the other. I'm not an NT programmer, but I would bet something along those lines works the same there too.
Don't get me wrong, nothing is fool-proof (and I said so in my first post) the best these guys can do is make it difficult. So far, the windvd/powerdvd guys just wiped the device key from memory after use which is about the bare minimum - they could have done lots more without too much effort.