Wtf, dude. This is not complicated. Of course people can organize to try to enact peaceful political change. BUT. This should not give them the right or power to essentially bypass all campaign funding restrictions by pretending that donated money is coming from a corporation (which is a legal FICTION) versus from powerful rich people. If a person wants to contribute financially to a politician, then they can do so, personally and legally.
Re: Re: Re: Detecting video in HTTPS is probably impossible
My, aren't you clever. I didn't realize that https meant encrypted until you did all caps bolded text at me. Oh wait, no, I do know that, and I don't have as high an opinion of https "encryption" as I guess you do.
Also, the metadata of the packets is *not* encrypted.
Also, you're the moron if you really think all big ISPs are not doing DPI constantly.
Well, also if the slowing effect also did cause the provider to lower the bitrate, thereby providing a still smooth albeit lower resolution stream. What I've been reading is that the throttling is not having that desired effect.
Note that he didn't say they couldn't tell the difference, only that they rate the video as higher quality. And actually, that makes sense, because super hi-def video is quite ugly, except in some rare, outdoorsy/naturey kind of settings. Hi-def video shows us stuff we don't want to see, and for those of us used to low-def all of our lives, it brings to mind the uncanny valley.
If a website makes a nice little request (but not holding the content hostage) to turn off my ad-blocker, I actually do consider it, and more often than not, I will turn it off, just to see how obnoxious the ads are. If they aren't too bad, I'll leave it off for that site. Win-win.
Both perfectly legal acts. I use an "encrypted website." (This apparently refers to Wickr, suggesting prosecutors really have no idea what they're actually dealing with.) I use Wickr and can quote from religious texts (even the unpopular ones).
Karl, do you think that if the government ever decided to come after you that they would *not* use this information against you?
Two daughters will be collecting money for a poem their mother wrote over 80 years ago and never once made a move to monetize during her 99-year lifespan. In fact, without The Big Bang Theory popularizing the poem -- nearly a century removed from its original creation -- there'd be nothing for the sisters to sue about, much less hope to collect on.
Mike, cut out the bullshit. You and I both know that Edith Newlin would never have written that poem if she hadn't known that her two daughters would be able to sue God and country almost a century later for infringement by a (possibly undeservedly) wildly successful TV show.