Seems right that a comment like this would come from an AC. Don't be a sympathizing dimwit. If the US military bothered to care and consider the consequences of their actions when(not if) news of them became public, then we likely wouldn't be here. The military failed to keep itself in check and now it's got some dirty laundry that's about to be aired, boo hoo. The People aren't here to help cover up the crimes of the ones who act in our name.
Exactly what is your dysfunction? Just heckling or do you honestly want to know how it will break the internet? Waving a flag screaming "I'm ignorant!" like a flamer at a pride parade and blaming Mike, or anyone else, for it in the process just makes you look foolish. If you honestly want to know: for ISP's to block sites, it would require them to hijack the traffic between users and DNS servers, altering the response or negating the request all together. In layman's terms, they would be "hacking" the data stream between your computer and various core service providers on the internet.
I have to wonder how their actions are no different than a DDoS attack or at the very least a ToS violation. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't garner themselves a fun-to-read C&D by Waze/Google's lawyers. Waze would almost need to if it hopes to prevent repeats by other LEO's.
I was thinking the same thing. Inability to properly monetize your project is not the same as your project being unappreciated. Just because you build it and they come doesn't mean that they come with money in tow, that requires some finesse.
Really glad someone pointed out the .Net OSS efforts. For those in the .Net circle, this is a HUGE thing and much of their frameworks built on top of .Net have been open source for several years now. MS does open source just fine, they even gave a bunch of money to Novell and Xamarin to help further the OSS Mono framework project over the years.
It's too obvious that this article could have used a bit more research and maybe wouldn't have been written at all.
One thing I still don't understand about the DMCA takedown system is how it doesn't violate prior restraint since unauthorized use of copyrighted material may still be non-infringing thanks to fair use.
Also, since the codes were created by a computer algorithm, is that "content" even copyrightable under US law? I realize MS doesn't state whether it believes there is a copyright but I can imagine such an argument being made.
A big bowl of bad idea. What of sites that carry no sensitive information or content and no forms to fill out, just a classic series of webpages? Even web apps like jsfiddle.net where it really doesn't need encryption because of the low risk to any sensitive information. Why should they carry the cost of an SSL cert when they have no logical need for it but if only to be penalized by Google otherwise? I also see it as a way of putting SSL up on a pedestal that it doesn't deserve, in turn giving people a false impression of security when they surf an encrypted site. As Heartbleed has proven, SSL is a tenuous solution at best and has neither earned nor deserves such credibility and trust.
On the post: Obama Administration Files Totally Clueless Argument Concerning Software Copyrights In Supreme Court Case
Re: Re:
On the post: Obama Administration Files Totally Clueless Argument Concerning Software Copyrights In Supreme Court Case
On the post: DOJ Redefines Separation Of Powers, Tells Court It Has No Power To Order Government To Hand Over Documents
Re:
On the post: Australians Get Their Own SOPA; Attorney General Doesn't Even Bother To See If His Censorship Regime Is Technically Feasible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Miami Cops Flood Waze With Bogus Speed Trap Data, Don't Understand How Crowd Sourcing Works
DDoS or ToS
On the post: The World's Email Encryption Software Relies On One Guy, Who Is Going Broke
Re: What Koch needs
On the post: Our Reply To A Totally Bogus Monkey Selfie Cease & Desist
Mic drop or...
On the post: Bill Gates Evidently Gets Open Access And Open Data: So What About Open Source?
Re: Microsoft makes use of Open Source
It's too obvious that this article could have used a bit more research and maybe wouldn't have been written at all.
On the post: Microsoft Takes Down A Bunch Of Non-Infringing YouTube Videos Over People Posting Product Keys In Comments
Prior Restraint
Also, since the codes were created by a computer algorithm, is that "content" even copyrightable under US law? I realize MS doesn't state whether it believes there is a copyright but I can imagine such an argument being made.
On the post: Google May Consider Giving A Boost To Encrypted Sites
bad idea
Next >>