- Jul 2, 2005
- 11,347
- 2,709
- 136
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/firefox-add-on-redirect/
as words get around, there will be more downloads.
as words get around, there will be more downloads.
feds say remove add-on mozilla says no
- Thread starter dawp
- Start date
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
Slashdot commentary here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05...-To-Disable-Mafiaafire-Plugin-Mozilla-Resists
DHS should go fuck themselves on this. They are responsible for protecting us against terrorist threats, not for propping up the music/film industry.
DHS should go fuck themselves on this. They are responsible for protecting us against terrorist threats, not for propping up the music/film industry.
masterxfob
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2001
- 7,366
- 5
- 81
don't plan on using the add-on, but i installed it anyhow
Look out for stealth helicopters.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
PottedMeat
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2002
- 12,363
- 475
- 126
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
Who's running DHS? Who does that person work for?
The truth is, you can't blame this on El'Presidente either way but that doesn't stop people, including yourself, from intentionally being partisan.
You don't know how our government works, do you? We have various departments, the president sets the leader of each who then set policy/direction for said department. Normally being guided by the president. Effectively this is called "the cabinet" or "the administration".
The more you know!
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Don't go there. It's his administration, no matter who started the department. Hell, I guess you could blame all stupid EPA regulations on Nixon by your logic.
reallyscrued
Platinum Member
- Jul 28, 2004
- 2,618
- 5
- 81
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
The whole homeland removing sites is just an end run around the law. Companies decided politicians were cheaper than lawyers so they opted against doing it the legal way of prosecuting site owners directly and using the courts. What is cheaper ? $200K to a politician to take down a bunch of sites you want gone for whatever reason ? Or pay a law firm $200K to sue a site and go through court and maybe lose ?
KeithP
Diamond Member
- Jun 15, 2000
- 5,664
- 201
- 106
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
exactly. its no longer "by the people for the poeple" but by the "business for the business".
When business start dictating laws that hurt the consumer but protect them something is fucked up.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
Nintendesert
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2010
- 7,761
- 5
- 0
highland145
Lifer
- Oct 12, 2009
- 43,973
- 6,336
- 136
Some sort of DNS redirect?
When the browser receives a request to go to www.whatever.com instead of using DNS to resolve the name and send you to the site it looks at it's own list to determine the IP of the site.
So essentially if your domain name was taken, through this ad-don you can specify a new IP for it and through the ad-don people can still type the address and reach your new IP.
??
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter