it could be integrated into a mail server with company=outgoing email address, but yes people who dont thing about who they give addresses to will get spam. There are tools to prevent this spam, and those who neglect them should not complain that spam in unavoidable. People should solve the problem, not complain about it and do nothing.

its reasonable, but yes you should have one computer set to upgrade and hour before the rest, and large deployments could use a local mirror. Its smart unlike a regular proxy server.

alias="foo"
company="company"
key = Digest::SHA1.hexdigest("#{ARGV[0]}-#{ARGV[1]}-#{Secret}")

email = "#{alias}-#{company}-#{key}@#{Domain}"

they already have this, its called defdiff and i think there are some debian mirrors that host them. But it makes more sense to use the full thing, and then have a local caching server. diffs would be more bandwidth where there are multiple installs from differnt starting packages.

just install apt-cacher-ng, WAY easier than a local repository, and doesnt waste bandwidth on stuff you never install.

yeah sorry, wrote without thinking.

It doesnt have licences is the same way as commercial apps. Also agreeing to the licence is not mandatory to simply use the software, unlike the presumptions made by proprietary licences. In that way its licence is very different, but I did use the wrong words.

In not one of these cases have the shown any evidence of such things, nor have they even spoken of any actual damages. If this took place then they could make that case, show proof, and provide a reasoned estimate of damages. This has not occured because no, negligble, or at least much less damages have taken place than the RIAA/MPAA would like people to presume. It is upon burden of the plaintiff to show damages, and in not a single court case have they done so.

Mere speculation of possible future events has no place in these preceding, merely because something may happen does not mean it has. And if something has not taken place then there is no grounds.

open source software doesn't have licenses. It is free. Well, at least free software is, "open source" is kind of a wash word as its been stretched to mean anything.

then he can proxy the dns through the only sacred ports--80 and 443

such a term is highly subjective

its SSL, if you all all noticed the s, that means that almost all sniffing is averted.

FTW

Its very hypocritical for the Obama administration to try to use to stand behind the law that they criticized so much, but i guess parties are expected to use whatever law they can to defend themselves.

...but of wait. This isn't necessarily in their own interests to defend. Its merely to defend a horribly unconstitutional attack on everyones rick to safety through privacy, or even through using the existing law on wiretapping. Its not like anyone in the Obama administration would actually have a desire to turn this society into a police state?

Honestly, the Obama administration should be ashamed of defending such a case at all, since the case really isn't against them, only the powers their official positions presumably (presumed by the Bush Administration) carry. And so by continuing they make a mockery of themselves: Their only reason to defend this case is if the Obama Administration has something invested in these false powers, and wishes to continue burying American constitutional rights. (or that they they are so much self-endowed into the infallibility of fellow government agencies that they cannot let the NSA and others defend their actions without the Executive, that they feel some moral obligation to protect the justice and process of other agencies.)

also there is of course tunneling and the sort..... ...im mainly just pointing out that most "blocking" is nothing of the sort, the internet can't be blocked in the ways people attempt to block it.