The two are one and the same. The thing most people don't get these days is that racism was never about racism. It was always simply a means to an end, and that end was profit.
If you look at historical documents of Southern slaveholders' anti-emancipation arguments, you find very little in the way of ideological justification for racism for its own sake. In fact, what you do find sounds surprisingly modern, basically boiling down to "if you force us to treat our laborers like human beings, it will DESTROY OUR ECONOMY!!!!!!"
The only real difference is, it used to be black laborers being oppressed, and now it's everyone.
Just a minor nitpick: a hash is not encryption, by definition. Encryption is something that can be decrypted back to the original plaintext if you have the key. With a hash, there is no key and no way to restore the original plaintext--which is why you use hashing, rather than encryption, to store passwords.
Problem is, this is not abuse of the DMCA. This is people using it exactly as designed: a process that allows content that someone claims violates the law to be removed under color of law without having to go to all the pesky effort and expense of actually proving that the law has been violated in court.
When the stated purpose of the law is to provide an end run around a legal system that filters out fraud and illegitimate business practices, it's hard to make any serious claim that using it for fraud and illegitimate business practices is "an abuse" of the DMCA. This is the DMCA takedown system doing exactly what it was designed to do: facilitate the legitimization of fraudulent copyright claims with no Presumption of Innocence, no Due Process, and no accountability.
I disagree about content creation, but to a certain degree it depends on what kind you're doing. Certain very specialized things are dependent on Windows software.
...or on Apple's, if you don't mind going from bad to worse. But it's hardly "very specialized things;" most of the most fundamental content creation tools simply aren't available. There's no Photoshop on Linux and no alternative to it, for example. (Some people who have never actually used both Photoshop and GIMP suggest GIMP as an alternative. Those who are actually familiar with both programs are much more likely to use it as support for my position. It's that bad.)
And there's a number of things you can do with Linux that you can't do with Windows (at least not without great difficulty).
Let's pretend, for a moment, that the "you" in question is not me, lifelong computer programmer, but rather John Q. Person, who sees computers as a tool to use rather than a thing to tinker with. How confident are you in that statement, and particularly in its relevance to things that I would actually ever care about doing?
Which sounds great, in theory, until you realize it can't actually do anything because all the programs are written for Windows. Particularly in this day and age when the advent of the mobile device has moved low-end work off of PCs, the main uses that are left are for heavyweight stuff like gaming (a vast, barren desert in Linux-land) and content creation (ditto.)
I saw a great cartoon in the paper once. For context, it was right after Jackson had escaped justice for his child molesting for the second time, and right around that same time, Allied forces in Iraq had overthrown Saddam Hussein's government and captured Saddam.
The cartoon depicted Saddam Hussein speaking with his lawyer, and the lawyer looks grim. "Mr. Hussein, I won't lie to you, things are pretty bleak. After reviewing all the evidence, it appears that the only chance we'd have of getting you cleared would be to have your case transferred to California."
Precisely. As has been said of others in the past, "I'm not glad he's dead but I'm glad he's gone." Whatever his musical talents may have been, his impact on the broader world of music, and its culture, was more negative than positive.
There are lots of problems with ECPA, but the big one that everyone points to is that it considers any communication that's on a server more than 180 days to be "abandoned" and accessible without a warrant. That perhaps made some amount of sense back in 1986 when the law was written, because everything was client-server and you downloaded your email off the server. But in an age of cloud computing and webmail it makes no sense at all.
In all fairness, how often do you go back and look at--or even care about--mail over 6 months old on your webmail account? It might as well be "abandoned," realistically speaking, no matter where it's stored, no?
If I want to go about booking a hotel, "booking.com" is descriptive of the service that is being offered at the site.
No, if you want to book a hotel, "booking" is descriptive of the service being offered. This is one case where "adding 'on a computer'", as it were, actually does make a fundamental difference. "Booking" is an action; "booking.com" is a specific tool to perform that action.
Having said that, if I want to go about booking a hotel, I generally just use Orbitz. :P