Slashdot Mirror
'UK Hackers' Condemn McKinnon?
An anonymous reader writes "Whitedust has some interesting commentary on this BBC article which claims that 'UK hackers' have condemned Gary Mckinnon's trial. From the article: 'Another example of some truly awful and misinformed mainstream tech reporting here. The article claims that UK hackers are almost all in support of Mr Mckinnon when in truth as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.'"
"Dr K, another UK hacker interviewed by the BBC News website, questioned why Mr McKinnon had to be extradited to be tried for the crimes for which he has already confessed.
/. article, as for what he would be tried under in this country, I saw it today on the BBC but cannot find it now, but it said he would be tried under the 'Computer Misuse Act' in this country. That link has real legal language beyond my comprehension, but I do notice 'Territorial scope of inchoate offences related to offences under this Act.' and 'Extradition where Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 applies.' mentioned. If you actually did read it, I would want to know what you thought if it. Thank-you for only mildly insinuating I am crazy, I appreciate fair-minded discussion.
"We have laws in this country to deal with this kind of trans-national data crime," he said, "Gary McKinnon should be tried here under UK law."
That's from the BBC page referenced by today's
I'd simply respond to that by pointing out to you the interesting read to be had at www.disclosureproject.org. If it's bullshit, it is at least thorough and mildly imaginative bullshit.
I have no evidence that you are not a 4' tall green lion from the planet ipthar typing telepathically to /. However, until I've seen documentation of 4' tall green lions from the planet ipthar *with* telepathy, I am just going to assume that you are a human using some sort of input device like everyone else.
/* At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen. */
Really, the logical extension of my argument. Excelsior to you. That is completely within the boundaries of my argument. And just as you correctly assume my essential human/computer/input device nature, despite the possibility you outline, I reasonably assume that McKinnon's assertions could be incorrect: A. He knows he didn't see any of this, or B. What he thinks he saw isn't what he saw. This, though, is despite 'C. The possibility that he could be right.' These are up in the air to me, as I am not a physicist.
However, some dude telling me that the Pentagon has free energy, even though I see tanks still using diesel (or jp4 or whatever those things use now) is just not enough evidence to get excited about, let alone examine.
Ordinarily it's not enough to pique my interest, would be in the 'readily dismissible' category save for the fact that the authorities are seeking to put him away for up to 70 years. What can I say? I can't deny this kind of story is interesting to me.
You are absolutely correct there. I have a belief in a law that has been proven over and over, and has *never*... *ever* been proven to not work. Does anyone really think that maybe I should believe in some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics?
You quote me too selectively there to be ignored. In the preceding sentence I add the caveat 'though it works as a system for us to make sense of the world'. I believe it is a good working model, but I dare to say it might change or be completely replaced, even by 'some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics'. You apparently do not.
But the historical evidence shows that every single person who bets against the law of conservation of energy has lost. Does that mean that it's always going to be? Well... not necessarily... but for now, I wouldn't disconnect from the local electric company.
Nor would I disconnect from my local electric company. I would merely read with great interest the whole event - the whole 'not necessarily' part - and keep fishing for what I can find out, within my mortal comprehension. C'mon, stop this nonsense, stop trying to polarise it so readily, please, I'm tired.
Why do I need to grow up? I was sincere in my beliefs, still am. They just happen to disagree with your flacid, neutral, USA-apologist viewpoint.