Wireguard over 443/udp is also a neat trick. No need to make it look like quic although I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes the effort to make it that stealthy.
Whatever the AI, the point is valid and I had a similar train of thought reading TFA. This comment section took a different turn but hey, what can be used for good can be abused for bad. Gee whizz!
It's not a net-neutrality issue because they're not banking on any alternative.
Net-neutrality law doesn't work like that. Service providers still get to filter stuff.
What's illegal for an ISP is e.g. to give VoIP services other than their own a lower priority. That would tie in customers to use their own service and they could even charge more for it. Net neutrality means a level playing field for services on the Internet.
If you ask your ISP to do filtering, that's perfectly legal. If they filter specific traffic for the purpose of maintaining service, that's okay too.
Now if there was no alternative and they'd try to sell their product by blocking telnet, they could be sued.
Oh wow, yes I remember now, I used to type `Alt+F` and then `S` immediately because Notepad didn't support `Ctrl+S` back then. Thanks for giving me nostalgia!
I've still got the very fast muscle memory of "Alt-F S", I used to do it habitually in Word and Excel. Still do it occasionally, then having to then undo whatever it does now (luckily it's usually nothing), but sometimes it leaves the Alt press 'open' so the next letter I press does something unpredictable.
Clicking an unknown link shouldn't result in compromise. Fortunately, MS-Windows disallows running anything not vetted by MS unless you figure out how to bypass the "SmartScreen" filter. This filter is super annoying to many a techie or gamer, but for MS-Windows refusing to run "unknown" programs is a feature, not a bug.
So yes, MS will likely denounce this as not their problem and move on.
This is from and old post on a news group a long time ago and I can't find it anymore, so here's citing from my murky brain:
Q: Did Microsoft really pay Mick Jagger $3M to license "Start Me Up" by the Rolling Stones during the Windows 95 product launch event?
A: No. They paid $3M to license only a part of the song. They omitted the lines "You made a grown man cry" and "You made a dead man cum"
The Bible never ceases to amaze. I keep a copy just to flick through and find shocking sections at random every now and then. Deuteronomy is particular spicy. I hadn't found this one, though. Nice. Incestuous rape and possibly involving children! I wonder what "meaning" and "moral" people are able to dream out of this one.
Incest laws weren't given to Israel until Moses and the Exodus.
As for meaning:
Lot was date raped by his daughters. It shows the moral corruption of Sodom had affected his family.
It's also a historical and genealogical account of how the nations of Moab and Ammon began. Abraham's nephew Lot, and his daughters, though originally close family to Abraham, became the progenitors of nations that later oppressed the nation of Israel.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
1. we don't know their age, we only know they were virgins
2. they could be adult virgins
3. they deliberately made him drunk so he won't know anything and forced him to have sex with them not remembering it
not sure how is this CSAM, just because it's incest, doesn't mean it's CSAM, and by your logic they were his "children", then everyone is someone's child and literally all porn is CSAM then
The situation was such that they lived far off because their city was destroyed. There would've been no more offspring. Oddly enough, Lot is a man and his daughters slept with their father.
Anyway, the sex was incestuous and therefore your conclusion is invalid because it disregards that fact. Of course when adults of different families have sex it's not child abuse, that goes without saying.
But you do have a good point that the age of the 2 daughters wasn't mentioned.
Whatever their age was, they were betrothed to be married to men who didn't evacuate when warned:
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
reply