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.
The National Sheriffs’ Association is shocked and disappointed by the Department of Justice’s decision to suspend the equitable sharing of Asset Forfeiture Program funds to state, local, and tribal law enforcement. This is yet another blow to those who work every day to prevent terrorism and crime in our communities.
By rescinding nearly $1.2 billion from the Program, Congress and the Administration have openly chosen to focus on the financial bottom line over protecting communities. They should be ashamed because this decision will have severe and direct consequences for our communities.
TL;DR: Waaaah, if we don't get our piece of the money that we rightfully stole, we won't be able to stop turrism anymore!
You do make one vary good point, why would anyone buy a new copy if a "used" copy is available?
Actually, this is the simplest to answer. Early adoption. There are always those folks that want to be first to own the newest car, the best video card, the hottest new game. That comes at a premium of course, but they know this and accept it as the cost of getting it "first". And then there are the folks that will wait until a $60 game winds up in the $5 bin before they buy it. Digital selling doesn't really change anything on that score, except that the price will match a more "real" value quicker than it used to.
Actually, Denuvo has been doing a surprisingly good job of preventing piracy. I never thought I'd see the day, but the scene is having a very tough time cracking that nut. And so far, the software using Denuvo that has been cracked performs sub-optimally.
Yeah, was going to point out the same thing. They use one-time key codes to lock down the software, owning the disc doesn't really mean much of anything anymore. Whats worse, the disc often doesn't even have much if any of the actual content on it! You start the install from the disc, then Steam or some other online tool just downloads the actual files and installs them.
Amusingly, if I go directly to the WSJ link you listed, I can't read the article without signing in, blah blah blah. However, using Google to search for the article and then going to the article via the Google link, I can read the whole thing just fine.
That is why, in his address to the nation on Sunday, the President reiterated the Administration’s call for America’s technology community and law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials to work together to fight terrorism. American technologists have a unique perspective that makes them essential in finding new ways to combat it. They are the best and most creative in the world, and we need them to bring their expertise, innovation, and creativity to bear against the threat of terrorism.
As a card-carrying technologist, my input is this: technology cannot detect turrism. Also, there is no "safe" way to backdoor encryption.
He said the ability of terrorist groups to use encrypted applications while communicating is one of his biggest fears. "We cannot stop what we cannot see," he said in reference to recent attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., and Paris.
Let's make a deal, Rep. Michael McCaul. Since we now know that none of the largely publicized terrorist attacks used encryption in any meaningful way, why don't you stop what you fucking well CAN see before you start fighting shadows? When you're able to stop terrorist attacks that don't use encryption on a reliable basis, then we'll revisit the subject of encryption, ok?