yxdfasdjkljasdf

3 ms·

1.
by yxdfasdjkljasdf 11y ago
Judging from the article it does: The author is clearly Apple and they are not responsible just as in the BSD license: The Capitan is AS-IS, of course. Unlike BSD, there is no source and a bunch of other very restrictive limitations, whic
2.
by yxdfasdjkljasdf 11y ago
Which is what Apple's license says, but with a bunch of additional terms unfavorable for the user and without access to the source code.
3.
by yxdfasdjkljasdf 11y ago
When you say "That is not how HTTP works" it suggests that your claim is that anything that HTTP allows is ethically OK to do. However that is clearly a ridiculous stance, since a DDoS attack is a stream of valid HTTP requests an
4.
by yxdfasdjkljasdf 11y ago
(Each line responds to a paragraph in order) Appeal to fear. No comment. No being able to determine a right cause doesn't prove a wrong. Loaded question.
5.
by yxdfasdjkljasdf 11y ago
I fail to see a problem you are trying to present. Even if identification was hard, which is not true because of how HTTP works, it is irrelevant because HTTP doesn't discriminate. If someone does, that is their problem, and should be
6.
by yxdfasdjkljasdf 11y ago
There is a clear distinction in the two. You are presenting a straw-man argument.
7.
by yxdfasdjkljasdf 11y ago
That is not how HTTP works; your analogy is not correct. Nobody is taking anything. If you don't want someone to access your page, then don't respond to their request.
8.
by yxdfasdjkljasdf 11y ago
That's just wrong. You haven't explained how is it wrong and why. None of those thing are "wrong" by itself. It is the malicious use, of any tool, that is unethical. Is there a website where we can blacklist IP addres