Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A year? Seriously? (Score 1) 196

by shaitand (#46695467) Attached to: Five-Year-Old Uncovers Xbox One Login Flaw
Maybe the summary was misleading and I didn't read beyond that so I'm not about to argue the details. Either way, the cost of a single live account subscription for Microsoft is essentially nothing regardless of duration. A lifetime access account is great PR spin... just one year makes them seem cheap.

Actually with the way they changed the subscription models regarding families they already look pretty greedy, might as well make it cheap and greedy.

Comment: Re:A year? Seriously? (Score 1) 196

by shaitand (#46685403) Attached to: Five-Year-Old Uncovers Xbox One Login Flaw
The bypass would work for any xbox live account. He could write down random id's from rankings and the internet and bypass their login credentials to use their live accounts. He could just shift from account to account if any subscriptions expired.

So yes, this exploit at the very least allows for what is effectively permanent play... or least until the bug was fixed.

Comment: Re:Crypto-coin advocates = anarchists or libertari (Score 1) 221

by shaitand (#46501699) Attached to: The Future of Cryptocurrencies
Bitcoin is not subject to, artificially limited by, nor of value due to copyright. You are not stealing bitcoin, you are stealing the value that bitcoin represents. That value is not some abstract hypothetical potential profit loss but a fairly easy (within a reasonable margin for exchange variation) to quantify amount of spending power in any currency in the world.

If I steal your credit card number (and bitcoin is ultimately nothing more than a secret number that allows you to unlock a persons money and spend it) and then buy something with it I've stolen pretty much the same thing. A number that allows me buy goods using a system that operates entirely on streams of bits.

If I hack your bank account and transfer the money out, that money also is a stream of bits. The same of your paypal account.

These things are unique and set up in such a way that the value, just like an individual tangible CD, can only be possessed by one person.

Software does not actually belong to the guy who holds a copyright in the case of copyright violation the software actually belongs to the guy sharing it and violating the copyright. You can steal a copyright, you can't steal the software. If you copy the software, you both now have copies and nothing is lost from the source. Software that is shared becomes no less functional no matter how much it is shared, software can be possessed by every person and they will all have the same thing with the same intrinsic value.

Comment: Re:Crypto-coin advocates = anarchists or libertari (Score 1) 221

by shaitand (#46482599) Attached to: The Future of Cryptocurrencies
And you'd pay the same amount less in either CC or cash without it. Since the average person never or nearly never is able to use the chargeback mechanism on a CC and most who do are lying and claiming unauthorized use (since you do NOT qualify for a Chargeback if you are unhappy with a purchase) we are almost universally worse off for it existing.

Comment: Re:It shouldn't be illegal even if they were nude (Score 1) 519

by shaitand (#46458997) Attached to: Massachusetts Court Says 'Upskirt' Photos Are Legal
"Hmm. I suppose the question is where to draw the line. I think we would agree that if I were to touch someone else's clothes and *create* their wardrobe malfunction, it would clearly be *over* the line. I guess I'm focusing on that line between "action taken by viewer" and "accident occurring to viewed". I see placing a camera in a non-normal viewing position below the skirt to be as much a personal attack as picking up that person's skirt to look (and by the way, if I were to like on the floor staring upwards I would expect skirt wearers to give me a wide berth), and I understand you to be drawing the line at contact - if it might be seen from below on a stairwell or ledge, then creating a viewpoint from below may be tacky but not illegal."

I agree. And in the woman in red moment you mention reactions would range all over the place. Some would feel shy and/or embarrassed in a strip club even though those women are intentionally giving the views for money. I was in a situation where a woman intentionally wore cut jean shorts and no panties and spread her legs to give a peek through to the guy sitting next to me. She was going for the pretend it was an accident aspect and looking circumspectly for his reaction. She noticed my more open smile and peek and gave me a dirty look.

Being perverted and horny might be something that is fair game to judge you and leave you single but it isn't criminal. Actually violating someone's space physically, is where I see a line being crossed. If the man had lifted the skirt with a stick I'd see a slap as a fair game response. A criminal record... not so much.

Cheerleaders wear short skirts, there is generally less visible under them than if they'd worn a revealing bikini.

Comment: Re:It shouldn't be illegal even if they were nude (Score 1) 519

by shaitand (#46452915) Attached to: Massachusetts Court Says 'Upskirt' Photos Are Legal
"A photograph taken from a camera held, say, below waist-level would have a viewpoint that the subject would not reasonably expect to be public"

That sounds like a very specific line targeted at a very specific piece of clothing. We shouldn't be making laws just to enable people to be protected from angles they didn't consider when choosing clothing that reveals their undergarments. Similar views would be found if walking up stairs or one had fallen down and legs splayed or as Paris Hilton showed us, climbing out of a car.

Really, the women have the option to select what can be seen under the skirt. They could wear nothing or shorts or anything between.

Never invest your money in anything that eats or needs repainting. -- Billy Rose

Working...