For those of you who don't know, this Ashton Ished character is none other than the TD plague formerly know as "Out_of_the_Blue" who trolled this site for quite some time. Successfully, I'll add.
There's no use responding to it. There's no point. Just don't even bother.
How we rid ourselves of this disease before was to auto report any of its posts and just ignore it. Trolls need attention to survive. For those who didn't know better and did respond, they got reported as well (even while their points were often valid and correct). In this way we suffocated it and it left us alone for a while. Seems to be time to do it again.
I encourage everyone to report this troll, ignore it, and report any responses.
the agency’s Tailored Access Operations group has extraordinary capabilities to hack into and “exfiltrate” data from specific computers, even if those computers are highly secured and not connected to the Internet.
How is this even possible? I looked through the linked article and found no mentions of this capability. I understand that in their operations where they intercept packages and add mal/hard-ware to products these could then be subverted to access another network that is connected to the "target" PC/network, but if the systems are fully isolated (and not having wireless capability built-in or attached) I don't see how this could be possible.
I suppose part of the payload they add to a package could be wireless transmitters and they could set up receivers nearby, but that's the only situation where I can imagine getting access to a fully isolated system. Or am I missing something?
Here's right about it being a "gateway", but not in the way he thinks he is ...
This seems very similar to something I've thought/said about pot being called a gateway drug. You're fed all this crap ala "Reefer Madness" about how terrible marijuana is, how it will ruin your live, how it will turn you into some kind of maniac, etc."
But then, you meet people who smoke pot. And they're as "normal" as everyone else. Hell, maybe you even try it yourself. And then it dawns on you: "All this time they've been lying to me about how bad this stuff is. They must be lying about cocaine, heroin, etc."
But, it turns out they're not lying. Too late for too many people.
Crying wolf there about the negative effects of pot is much like the wolf they're shedding tears over that is file sharing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Nice try.
It's not like everyone can see that the "random" avatar on your comments is exactly the same every single time. It's comical that you think you can disown the comments you've been making by pretending that I have you confused with someone else.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Seriously.
I'm REALLY interested to see where you (might think you) presented ANY evidence that going against a corporate strategy (or even a TOS) is against the law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
I've got a friend ...
Citation needed.
... who is an auto electrician and the majority of his tools now are a multitude of diagnostic computers for different manufacturers , and for the large part if you don't have the right one the car ain't getting fixed.
And therein lies the problem. They are attempting to create Vendor Lock-in (which they are absolutely free to try to do), but pretending that going against their corporate strategy (i.e. finding a way to fix the equipment that you OWN without their tools) is in some way illegal is asinine.
Just because you are so willing to prostrate yourself to your corporate masters doesn't mean that the rest of us are.
But in the end, it matters little what the actual laws are. If powerful interests want to put you away, then they'll find something to charge you with, whether it's conspiracy, fraud, or whatever else they can creatively construct and try to make fit out of the millions of laws on the books.
Thanks for proving that your original assertion ("it's illegal to modify a game console or cable modem that you own") is exactly, 100% bullshit.
Do you have any clue that what you just said is: modding is not actually illegal, but they will find some other way to fuck you over.
Who's position is being "completely rejected" again?
I imagine you must feel exactly how this guy felt. In that case, though, I kind of feel sorry for the guy. In your case, because you're such a condescending prick, not so much.
It's confirmation bias on your part to argue that the state is using the term of art incorrectly because there's some other statute written by probably some other people that you don't like.
Clearly you have no idea what Confirmation Bias is. Here's the link again. Try reading it and educating yourself for a change.
Nice use of weasel words, too ("probably", "some other", "somewhere") instead of addressing the specific ruling I referenced, the ruling that you yourself brought up. The very same ruling that comes out of a backwater state that has a loooooong history of idiotic laws. That very same ruling which James B. actually explained to you means the fucking opposite of what you think it means.
And you think I am the one who lacks a legal education? Bwahahahahaha.
Oh, and here's another thing (actually two points on the same thing)
You state: I cite to authority
You may not realize it (I'm actually quite sure you don't) that when you say that you "cite TO authority" you're revealing how much you are incapable of thinking for yourself.
To put it another way, this would be you: "I can see that the sky is blue. But my Masters are telling me it is yellow. The Masters are never wrong, therefore, the sky must be yellow. Damn my lying eyes!"
I would suggest that you get your nose out of your law book (or Westlaw or Google Scholar or whatever) and instead actually educate yourself rather than delving further into the morass of Confirmation Bias you are currently wallowing in.
The fact that you're asking me explain the subtleties that you don't grasp is pretty strong evidence that you are incapable of grasping them. It's pretty much the definition of being obtuse.
But, just for the sake of argument, here's just one:
Somehow you manage to cling to that single (and wrong) opinion of the court that James Burkhardt totally dismantled as proving the opposite of what you thought it proved.
That's a pretty good example (just one of many) of you being blunt and dull. It doesn't help your case at all that you couldn't be bothered to respond to either of the assertions I linked to.
So go ahead and fire up Westlaw or Google Scholar and find some other idiotic citation that in a VERY NARROW sense seems to support your position and continue to demonstrate to us all how you just don't (or, more likely, can't) get it.
“The difference between stupid and intelligent people – and this is true whether or not they are well-educated – is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. ”
- Neal Stephenson
It's pretty obvious that you fall into the "well-educated" camp but sadly on the stupid side. Just because you somehow learned enough to use Westlaw (or whatever) to find citations that you think agree with your opinion doesn't make you smart.
In fact, it shows your inability to think for yourself.
On the post: Apple Informs Bloggers It Will Be Using Their Content In Its 'News' App Via An Opt-Out Only 'Agreement'
Report and move on
There's no use responding to it. There's no point. Just don't even bother.
How we rid ourselves of this disease before was to auto report any of its posts and just ignore it. Trolls need attention to survive. For those who didn't know better and did respond, they got reported as well (even while their points were often valid and correct). In this way we suffocated it and it left us alone for a while. Seems to be time to do it again.
I encourage everyone to report this troll, ignore it, and report any responses.
Report every post in this thread. Even this one.
On the post: Apple Informs Bloggers It Will Be Using Their Content In Its 'News' App Via An Opt-Out Only 'Agreement'
It's come to this again ...
On the post: Bruce Schneier: Sure, Russia & China Probably Have The Snowden Docs... But Not Because Of Snowden
How is this even possible? I looked through the linked article and found no mentions of this capability. I understand that in their operations where they intercept packages and add mal/hard-ware to products these could then be subverted to access another network that is connected to the "target" PC/network, but if the systems are fully isolated (and not having wireless capability built-in or attached) I don't see how this could be possible.
I suppose part of the payload they add to a package could be wireless transmitters and they could set up receivers nearby, but that's the only situation where I can imagine getting access to a fully isolated system. Or am I missing something?
On the post: Should Your Self-Driving Car Be Programmed To Kill You If It Means Saving A Dozen Other Lives?
Re: Re: Re: Re: We Need to Aim for Perfection not this Crap Story
On the post: Torrent Madness: UK Cybercrime Official Argues That File Sharing Is A Gateway Drug To Crime
Here's right about it being a "gateway", but not in the way he thinks he is ...
But then, you meet people who smoke pot. And they're as "normal" as everyone else. Hell, maybe you even try it yourself. And then it dawns on you: "All this time they've been lying to me about how bad this stuff is. They must be lying about cocaine, heroin, etc."
But, it turns out they're not lying. Too late for too many people.
Crying wolf there about the negative effects of pot is much like the wolf they're shedding tears over that is file sharing.
On the post: Dark Markets Continue To Grow, Despite Silk Road Trial
Re:
On the post: Chris Christie: Your NSA Fears Are Bullshit And Civil Liberties Advocates Are Extremists
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it involves removing the created fiction that corps are people. Pretty simple.
On the post: Border Patrol Agents Tase Woman For Refusing To Cooperate With Their Bogus Search
Re: Yea!
On the post: John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
It's not like everyone can see that the "random" avatar on your comments is exactly the same every single time. It's comical that you think you can disown the comments you've been making by pretending that I have you confused with someone else.
On the post: John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
I'm REALLY interested to see where you (might think you) presented ANY evidence that going against a corporate strategy (or even a TOS) is against the law.
On the post: John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Where?
On the post: John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Now, how about responding to the substance of the rest of the comment?
On the post: John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Citation needed.
... who is an auto electrician and the majority of his tools now are a multitude of diagnostic computers for different manufacturers , and for the large part if you don't have the right one the car ain't getting fixed.
And therein lies the problem. They are attempting to create Vendor Lock-in (which they are absolutely free to try to do), but pretending that going against their corporate strategy (i.e. finding a way to fix the equipment that you OWN without their tools) is in some way illegal is asinine.
Just because you are so willing to prostrate yourself to your corporate masters doesn't mean that the rest of us are.
On the post: John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a tiny stretch
Thanks for proving that your original assertion ("it's illegal to modify a game console or cable modem that you own") is exactly, 100% bullshit.
Do you have any clue that what you just said is: modding is not actually illegal, but they will find some other way to fuck you over.
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
On the post: Rightscorp Wins Anti-SLAPP Claim Against Guy Who Sued After Being Bullied With Robocalls
Re:
And then ... there's this. Doh!
Who's position is being "completely rejected" again?
I imagine you must feel exactly how this guy felt. In that case, though, I kind of feel sorry for the guy. In your case, because you're such a condescending prick, not so much.
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly you have no idea what Confirmation Bias is. Here's the link again. Try reading it and educating yourself for a change.
Nice use of weasel words, too ("probably", "some other", "somewhere") instead of addressing the specific ruling I referenced, the ruling that you yourself brought up. The very same ruling that comes out of a backwater state that has a loooooong history of idiotic laws. That very same ruling which James B. actually explained to you means the fucking opposite of what you think it means.
And you think I am the one who lacks a legal education? Bwahahahahaha.
On the post: Our New IP Czar Gives His First Speech... And It Is Not Encouraging At All
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ouch.
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You state:
I cite to authority
You may not realize it (I'm actually quite sure you don't) that when you say that you "cite TO authority" you're revealing how much you are incapable of thinking for yourself.
To put it another way, this would be you: "I can see that the sky is blue. But my Masters are telling me it is yellow. The Masters are never wrong, therefore, the sky must be yellow. Damn my lying eyes!"
Secondly, an Appeal to Authority is one of -- if not the most -- well known examples of Logical Fallicies
I would suggest that you get your nose out of your law book (or Westlaw or Google Scholar or whatever) and instead actually educate yourself rather than delving further into the morass of Confirmation Bias you are currently wallowing in.
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of them?
The fact that you're asking me explain the subtleties that you don't grasp is pretty strong evidence that you are incapable of grasping them. It's pretty much the definition of being obtuse.
But, just for the sake of argument, here's just one:
Your pathetic attempt use a citation from a state that has a bevy of idiotic and unconstitutional laws as "proof" of your position.
Somehow you manage to cling to that single (and wrong) opinion of the court that James Burkhardt totally dismantled as proving the opposite of what you thought it proved.
That's a pretty good example (just one of many) of you being blunt and dull. It doesn't help your case at all that you couldn't be bothered to respond to either of the assertions I linked to.
So go ahead and fire up Westlaw or Google Scholar and find some other idiotic citation that in a VERY NARROW sense seems to support your position and continue to demonstrate to us all how you just don't (or, more likely, can't) get it.
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- Neal Stephenson
It's pretty obvious that you fall into the "well-educated" camp but sadly on the stupid side. Just because you somehow learned enough to use Westlaw (or whatever) to find citations that you think agree with your opinion doesn't make you smart.
In fact, it shows your inability to think for yourself.
Next >>