drivebyacct2

My mistake, I genuinely missed the "enhanced with Google part".

>https://startpage.com/eng/aboutstartpage/

Start page by ixquick.

Who thinks trading in Bitcoin makes them magically exempt from the tax laws of their country? Of course, pretty unsure of how they'd have any sort of accountability or venerability for self-reported Bitcoin income.

"On your 1099 please list all Bitcoin address you've sent or received money from". Right.

This is (very sadly) par for the course for pretty much everyone but Apple. The same thing happens with any sort of smartphone, any new ultrabooks, etc. I'm guessing this also comes without a price tag or launch date. "Cool story Samsung".

I'm so conflicted. Just as I'd decided to move on from Angular to Polymers, there seems to have been an explosion in interest and resources for Angular.

Oh, cool. That's very interesting. I curse it because it seems even more insidious and because I can't believe the next gen of consoles is even shipping with an internal optical drive... but I digress. Thanks for the link!

> Activation code becomes tied to the account until traded.

So, like: I should be able to just directly say "Give my Halo 5 license to bornhuetter" and then my disc stops working because my console doesn't have a license and yours can then download the digital copy or put the disc in and have it "unlocked" with the license.

I think that could work, still would require an online connection for any NEW games though, which I think MS is trying to avoid rather specifically (the blowback from overseas guys playing consoles, etc)

Or register the game to your account and then be able to share it immediately, wirelessly across the country with 10 "family" members and being able to resell the digital copy.

But noooooo, codes and short codes and registration verification sounds way better. >_<

I guess this is so frustrating for me because I worked on a licensing system and had to deal with the hundreds of little places it could be attacked in ways that aren't obvious if you haven't worked in the problem space before.

Okay, so now it's just two-for-one.

Now I get to buy and play Halo5 and then give the disc to my brother.

No. That's not true. That's true as of today with the new change. Before, that's absolutely not.

This just goes to prove that most of the ignorant internet rage was from people that didn't bother understanding just how much MS was really giving us with the previous setup.

You can't "phone home" with optical media, it's not serializable.

No, only as of today.

>There is absolutely no technical reason why the terms had to be so anti-consumer

Yeah, actually, there are plenty.

Step 1: Buy XBONE game.

Step 2: Load it on your console.

Step 3: Loan it to hundreds of friends and they load it on their console.

And now hundreds of people are playing one copy of the game with no way of preventing them from doing so. It would make the "piracy" scene on day one, the worst of any console experience ever, ever.

So how are you going to prevent that without requiring online connections?

>On the downside, there will be no digital "family" sharing as was previously announced, and disc-based games will require the disc to be in the tray to be played.

Nooooooooooooooooo. Please still allow me to opt in for digital downloads so I can finally stick the console somewhere where I don't have to see it, hear it or suffer it's heat wrath.

Great information, even cooler to see someone's got some code working alongside it, I might have to adapt it to Go if it's fairly reasonable to understand given my relative lack of experience with Unicode (heh as I'd mentioned and is probably obvious given your knowledge on hand).

Interesting, I felt foolish about an hour after having written this post, realizing that in most scenarios, it really shouldn't ever be any amount of effort minus half a second of planning and felt foolish for writing off unicode. (Normally I go the other route, unicode all the things).

I suppose I feel that I was probably right to call myself arrogant then, to find out what you noted about Spotify's creators/creation. Interesting, thanks for the perspective check

Right, I get that. But my point is thus:

First, who cares? Honestly, of all the things I'm upset about, pretty much the bottom of the list is "pictures from Tor get mirrored in an NSA facility". The "terrible" things about child porn come from it's production, distribution and sale. None of those things are happening by it getting picked up in a dragnet and put on a HD. No one's going to be motivated to stop the government over CP if they haven't over privacy.

Second, child porn is bad. But do we really have to take their bullshit strategy of "OHMHYGOD THE CHILDREN!?" when "OH MY GOD, ANY SENSE OF PRIVACY?" should suffice?

tltltl;dr: If a "legal technicality" were going to trip up the NSA, it ought to be the Fourth Amendment.

Are you speculating or speaking from experience? Either way, I'd like to imagine in these scenarios that the really, really secure stuff is kept offline or somehow on a non-Internet connected network.

Honestly, how do you people even bring yourselves to talk about these laws in the context of existing legal frameworks?

I'm not trying to be rude to you as much as I am express my frustration about what the government's doing, but look, nothing about this was particularly legal (we can debate the legality of FISA warrants off-thread, I'm happy to).

Certainly any sort of whole-sale capturing of traffic or messages or pictures or calls could cause the government to be in possession of materials that they shouldn't, but that's really not saying a whole lot, now is it?

I don't even think about these gross violations of our Constitution to even be a "legal" matter. How can you? It's not like a court can rule against these laws. The ruling is just suppresssed.

Does "having a second person" even really lend itself to prevent spy-leaks though?

I'm imagining an embedded spy with access to this data wouldn't have to work too hard to circumvent such seemingly honor-based access systems.

>What is this quote?

Sigh, no idea how that slipped onto my clipboard. I was looking up a good "hegemony" definition for an unrelated discussion. Sorry about that. I meant to reference the line in your post, but it's not important.

>Is there any reason you wouldn't want to do it this way

Hm, so I didn't spend a ton of time thinking about it, but it doesn't seem conventional to me and thus I'm inclined to think there's probably something "bad" obviously... but I'm not sure.

It seems like it would be hard to have work "properly", in terms of actual day-to-day usage. For example, what if I really do need to access hundreds of 1GB files all day? Or a thousands of tiny files? Or one massive file? Etc.

Additionally, you'd lose any advantage of having plain-text on server, like potentially losing collaborative editting/viewing, etc.

So is there a need for a TRULY idempotent equivalent of XMPP's nodeprep? Or one that handles more Unicode points? Or is it a calculated decision to support Unicode 3.2 points only? (Sorry for the nooby questions, but this was very interesting and I don't know a lot about Unicode)

But we don't know the details. We know the rounded, approximate number of "terrorist attacks" and we know of one vague storied "plot". There's no details to weigh or consider. We still don't have a complete picture of the surveillance in use, but as far as I'm concerned, a live and archived-accessible account of most all of my online dealings/writings/readings/purchases... constitutes a pretty huge loss of privacy, though clearly not "absolute".

Am I insensitive in wondering "Why not just limit it to lowercase, ASCII chars"?

> the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force

Sure, right, that's kinda what I implied with my post. As long as I have access to decrypted bytes in memory and I have access to: my eyeballs + pen + paper, then the jig is up.

The TPM+BitLocker scenario would protect the data on the hard disk and prevent offline attacks and would prevent someone from trying to extract the key from the running OS.

> the implied means of power, the threat of force, rather than by direct military force

Ding ding, exactly. That's why I mentioned "Group Policy". At best, you could attempt to restrict user access to the LIVE mounted decrypted data... but at that point you're trusting the client and a dedicated individual would get around it.

You'd almost need this:

Request remotely-stored invididual encrypted file -> Receive it locally -> Decrypt locally.

which would give you a chokepoint to be able to cut off access to the encrypted data, but there are a thousand problems with this scenario as well, just from a technical standpoint.

Right. When you find a way to magically control the bits read from one hard drive and can ensure that same sequence of bits isn't "copied" and written to a different storage medium... without a "second person".... well, you let me know.

I guess with some right group policy settings, a TPM and BitLocker, you could get close maybe. Still going to be challenging to keep me from booting the machine, logging into it and catting that file... somewhere. Give me `wget` and a script and I could transmit data using only GETs.

Did anyone notice where he (effectively) asked for Android widgets? Good luck.

The data that Facebook and Google have... have nothing to do with them trying to get me to install gay dating apps in their sidebars. It's my pictures, my texts, my messages, my friendships.

The important part of "the way the internet unfortunately evolved" has more to do with the fact that we didn't have the forethought to use encryption by default, or design the network in a truly "Free" way like other networks have been designed since then (but of course without any fraction of the size of the Internet)

The way this thread is going, one probably ought to say that or otherwise imply/explain it :S

So? You can download my public key and encrypt something with it... and only I'll be able to read it with my private key.

It's still "my" key even though you're signing or rather encrypting a message with it.

>79DEBE35 is a key in the possession of Wired

How do you know this?