What he did is called *harassment*, and is punishable by law. It's not a free speech matter, because the intent here was perfectly clear. He pleaded guilty. Feel free to disagree with prison as the punishment, though.
In a case he *didn't* plead guilty, the prosecutor would have to prove over any reasonable doubt that his intentions were malicious. Which would be pretty easy, as the evidence is there. Nothing this guy posted or did goes under satire either. It was done solely to cause severe distress.
You wouldn't use the free speech card on the right to bully someone in the workplace, or follow someone dead in their tracks for a whole day. It's harassment, stalking and/or antisocial behavior. That this was done via the Internet doesn't make any difference.
Phew, I thought I was the only one here with this opinion. It's not about what's right, it is about what is legal and not. I totally agree with Hotz; the laws are braindead. But to *knowingly* challenge the laws and then ask for donations when the shit hits the fan? He gets no help from me. I don't condone the means. The proper way to address this is with politics. SONY has him by the balls, no matter how unsound the laws are.
It is the responsibility of the company to keep the trade secret... secret. If they embed it into the things they sell people, and people find out, its not a secret anymore, and we aren't criminals.
They do *not* own the number in any way, but it's still probably illegal to associate the number with the specific usage in breaking the PS3, and exchange this fact with others.
Why should that be true?
You misunderstood my proposition here. I'm not making a case for what is morally right or wrong. My point is that there are laws that exist and are very real. The fallacy "It's just a number" is not something that will hold up in court and protect you from litigation. Simply because intent and context is of the essence.
So please stop using this stupid argument. It's not some silver bullet that will protect you from litigation.
The justice system also granted Sony the privilege to seize GeoHot's equipment for sharing three integers. That is flawed.
This is a fallacy. Reddit people didn't get it either. In the legal system intent can be important too. The number sequence GeoHot shared is *of course* not illegal to share. But sharing the numbers *and* the inherent meaning of the numbers in how they can be used to break the PS3 security might as well be. See the difference? Here is another analogy. No data is useful without understanding its meaning in some context. Books written in English are only useful for people who can read English. Otherwise it's just gibberish. Furthermore all data has a number representation. Do you think the stupid "it's just numbers" fallacy can be used to circumvent copyright? After all, files are "just numbers". The key was a Sony trade secret. They do *not* own the number in any way, but it's still probably illegal to associate the number with the specific usage in breaking the PS3, and exchange this fact with others.
I've coded AVR-code in C++ with the help of a simple linker script and clever use of the GNU binutils. That's an architecture where the hardware often only has kilobytes of storage and memory. Stop spreading FUD about C++ operator overloading. No one forces you to use that feature. C++ is perfectly fine for embedded programming, as long as you have a clue about what you're doing. Furthermore, there are no "convoluted implicit casting rules". Perhaps you mean implicit type promotion like 4 + 'a' becoming ints? It's no different from C. If you want to blame C++ for something obscure, rather take a potshot at the template system, where template candidates are chosen based on access specifiers and SFINAE. *That* is difficult to understand.
I praise EU for strengthening consumer laws, but I think this could be difficult to implement, depending on how strict it will be. Surely account information is often backed up by companies. Does this imply that they are forced by law to delete my accounts from backups as well? It sounds like a huge challenge. What if companies restore an old backup, including deleted account information?
I'm all for consumer protection, but let's file this together with "company liability for computer software". Both are well meaning, and maybe even "right" in principle, but would have bad effects in practice.
Movie censorship in the US of A is bad enough as it is. Skipping all the issues with the actual censorship process, movie companies effectively sensor themselves, which gives us a clusterfuck of PG-13 rated movies, just so they can cash in more on the extra audience/target group. I'm not saying all PG-13 movies are bad, but I'm personally left with a feeling that such movies don't show their true potential; especially when the story/theme inherently targets adults. I feel I was robbed for a better experience, just so some children's feelings won't get hurt. $deity forbid if they were to see a boob. I like games and movies that push the limits of what's considered 'proper' (by the US moralists and people in general), and I also enjoy my slasher/grindhouse/exploitation movies occasionally (Incidentally they're all made in the 70's). There is no reason to believe that game censorship won't have a similar side-effect. This could be remedied by stretching the limits of what is considered appropriate for teenagers, so most games could be made for this age demographic without having to butcher their expressiveness in the process. Be it scary scenes, violence, cussing, drug use or sex. But since the moral values of whomever makes these censorship laws are warped compared to most people who actually *watch* movies and *play* games, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
If the score and rankings don't match up properly because of cheaters, what's the point with scoring in the first place? Just local scores to beat your own personal records? In Starcraft 2? Give me a break. And "It's a game, so why take it so seriously" is a stupid fallacy. Just because something is for fun and recreation doesn't mean it can't or should not be taken seriously. In games with other players, people expect fairness for all players. It's a basic principle.
Multiple layers of security. If you outwit the millions of dollars in research we spent then we get you thrown out of the game with a lawsuit.
False. It is a criminal case, not a civil case. It was not the owner of the robot (Timber Hills) who took the case to court. It's the local court in Oslo, Oslo Tingrett who took the case from the finance police, who got tipped off by the Oslo stock exchange. Both men appealed, so this case will go to the Supreme Court (hoeyesterett).
If Stuxnet was designed by a hostile state to damage Iranian industry, it's quite possible that, lacking any good way to deploy it inside Iran, it was released into the wild in hopes that it would find its way in on its own.
The infection statistics are against you. 58% of all the infections are inside Iran. Clearly the worm was first released there. Read the report from Symantec. The top infected countries are: Iran 58%, Indonesia 17%, and India: 9% The fact that the worm spread to other countries is just collateral damage. It's a balancing game. If you don't infect enough, you won't infect your intended target. If you infect too much, you get collateral damage and potentially expose the worm to the public eye.
If you cared to read the report from Symantec, you would see that there are other indicators as well. For example, 58% of the infections were in Iran, beating the second place country 3 to 1. Obviously because the virus was originally seeded there, but perhaps you have a better explanation?
There is nothing that indicates that Israel or any specific country is behind Stuxnet, but there are really good indications that Iran infrastructure was the target. Unless machines in Iran somehow are much more vulnerable to attack compared to machines in the other 100+ countries.
What can be said about the attacks though, is that this was *not* in any way coded by a bedroom coder. It utilized four 0-day vulnerabilities, and compromised two digital certificates. On of them from Realtek and the other from JMicron. The worm's goal was to sabotage PLCs, and very specific one at that. It doesn't target any PLC. To be able to target the hardware Stuxnet does would require information from an insider.
It's like ripped out from a Tom Clancy novel.
Not to mention the handling of proprietary drivers, like certain Wireless-cards and nVidia display drivers.
They are kind of a mixed bag I think. It's not entirely obvious how to override it, but it's possible.
Either you love it, or you hate it.
You're kidding, but I wouldn't be so sure. Intellectual property is the only remaining goods the U.S exports. If anything could make the U.S start a nuclear war, it would be something that threatens its economy.
I abstain from buying because I don't think I can pay enough for so many games in good conscience. The games are decent, and the 20 USD I can afford now wouldn't do the games justice. The whole "experiment" is useless without this option, in my opinion. They're going to see a bunch of people paying 1 cent going to EFF and conclude "what a bunch of cheapskates", when there is a good amount of people who either could buy later (after the offer limit), or refuse to buy that many games hands-down, because they actually *value* those games at 70-80 USD and think it's too much money to spend.
These kind of people won't show up in the statistics.
How do you programmatically calculate a number or scale of the perceived entertainment value of a Mario level? Beside being able to complete the level and the difficulty, is there something objective one can measure, or does it boil down to simple taste?
If not, then the competition is kind of pointless, since the winner would be arbitrary.
A lot - and I speak from experience - of prospective games developers get so wrapped up in tweaking their engines that they never actually get around to writing one game, let alone a series. And that's why the Intartubes are littered with the sad corpses of hundreds of open source game engines, some of them rather good, in various states of disrepair and abandonment, and so few really outstanding open source games.
Also, just because you can code, doesn't mean you know how to create the necessary artwork. In my experience, good artists who want to contribute to open source software in general are a rare breed. And even less artists want to help out open source games.
If you don't understand the difference between a O(n) sorting algorithm and a O(n!) one, you're pretty much screwed as a programmer. If you don't know much math in general, *at least* learn time complexity for different algorithm operations. Perhaps this is why software is so slow nowadays?;-)
Judges from both the first case and the appeal claimed that Telenor *was* "aiding illegal copying", but that they could not be held responsible: http://www.tu.no/it/article240000.ece
Både Asker og Bærum tingrett og Borgarting lagmannsrett mener at Telenor medvirker til at det skjer ulovlige handlinger via The Pirate Bay, men at denne medvirkningen ikke er rettsstridig.
This is doublethink in my opinion. Simply granting access doesn't make the ISPs responsible. I can't help to feel that the courts should have been way more clear in this matter.
What inevitably happens, is that the media interest groups will lobby to make our ISPs liable for 'granting access' to copyrighted works. Our copyright law 'åndsverksloven' is up for reform/ratification this year. And the Norwegian Data Inspectorate's main spokesperson and director Georg Apenes is leaving his post soon, making this scenario even more likely. Georg Apenes has been extremely vocal regarding our individual rights to privacy since he entered his position in 1989, and the government resents him for it. He has been a barrier for 'progress', and I really doubt whoever replaces him will have even 10% of his integrity. Most probably they will replace him with a government-friendly, industry-friendly puppet.
To all those who think Ubisoft should just let the pirates win... you have no idea how frustrating it is to spend many millions of dollars and several years of our life making a game, and then see statistics from our update servers that 15 to 20 people are playing pirated copies for every legitimately purchased copy.
Have it ever crossed your mind that people who buy games with draconian DRM crack the game they bought? Do the in-house statistics take that into account? I had to crack my version of Splinter Cell : Pandora tomorrow for it to even run.
But after we spend 2+ years with hundreds of people working their ASSES off to make something just to entertain people, we would like them to pay us for it. Is it really so much to ask?
Yes, selling broken software and getting paid for it, is too much to ask. If Ubisoft want money, they should do the *opposite* of what they're doing now. Forget about the pirates, and focus on the consumer and his/her game experience. You know.. the ones that pay for software? Stop thinking about "how much one *could* have earned if no one pirated games". It's a slippery slope.
The PC port of Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance was not bad, it was horrible!
You had to map the keyboard/mouse/joystick to the Playstation 2 buttons via a config tool. I also never got the graphics to display correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
What he did is called *harassment*, and is punishable by law. It's not a free speech matter, because the intent here was perfectly clear. He pleaded guilty. Feel free to disagree with prison as the punishment, though.
In a case he *didn't* plead guilty, the prosecutor would have to prove over any reasonable doubt that his intentions were malicious. Which would be pretty easy, as the evidence is there. Nothing this guy posted or did goes under satire either. It was done solely to cause severe distress.
You wouldn't use the free speech card on the right to bully someone in the workplace, or follow someone dead in their tracks for a whole day. It's harassment, stalking and/or antisocial behavior. That this was done via the Internet doesn't make any difference.
Phew, I thought I was the only one here with this opinion.
It's not about what's right, it is about what is legal and not. I totally agree with Hotz; the laws are braindead. But to *knowingly* challenge the laws and then ask for donations when the shit hits the fan? He gets no help from me. I don't condone the means.
The proper way to address this is with politics. SONY has him by the balls, no matter how unsound the laws are.
The key was a Sony trade secret.
It is the responsibility of the company to keep the trade secret... secret. If they embed it into the things they sell people, and people find out, its not a secret anymore, and we aren't criminals.
They do *not* own the number in any way, but it's still probably illegal to associate the number with the specific usage in breaking the PS3, and exchange this fact with others.
Why should that be true?
You misunderstood my proposition here. I'm not making a case for what is morally right or wrong. My point is that there are laws that exist and are very real. The fallacy "It's just a number" is not something that will hold up in court and protect you from litigation. Simply because intent and context is of the essence. So please stop using this stupid argument. It's not some silver bullet that will protect you from litigation.
The justice system also granted Sony the privilege to seize GeoHot's equipment for sharing three integers. That is flawed.
This is a fallacy. Reddit people didn't get it either. In the legal system intent can be important too. The number sequence GeoHot shared is *of course* not illegal to share. But sharing the numbers *and* the inherent meaning of the numbers in how they can be used to break the PS3 security might as well be. See the difference?
Here is another analogy. No data is useful without understanding its meaning in some context. Books written in English are only useful for people who can read English. Otherwise it's just gibberish. Furthermore all data has a number representation. Do you think the stupid "it's just numbers" fallacy can be used to circumvent copyright? After all, files are "just numbers".
The key was a Sony trade secret. They do *not* own the number in any way, but it's still probably illegal to associate the number with the specific usage in breaking the PS3, and exchange this fact with others.
I've coded AVR-code in C++ with the help of a simple linker script and clever use of the GNU binutils. That's an architecture where the hardware often only has kilobytes of storage and memory. Stop spreading FUD about C++ operator overloading. No one forces you to use that feature. C++ is perfectly fine for embedded programming, as long as you have a clue about what you're doing.
Furthermore, there are no "convoluted implicit casting rules". Perhaps you mean implicit type promotion like 4 + 'a' becoming ints? It's no different from C. If you want to blame C++ for something obscure, rather take a potshot at the template system, where template candidates are chosen based on access specifiers and SFINAE. *That* is difficult to understand.
I praise EU for strengthening consumer laws, but I think this could be difficult to implement, depending on how strict it will be. Surely account information is often backed up by companies. Does this imply that they are forced by law to delete my accounts from backups as well? It sounds like a huge challenge. What if companies restore an old backup, including deleted account information? I'm all for consumer protection, but let's file this together with "company liability for computer software". Both are well meaning, and maybe even "right" in principle, but would have bad effects in practice.
Movie censorship in the US of A is bad enough as it is.
Skipping all the issues with the actual censorship process, movie companies effectively sensor themselves, which gives us a clusterfuck of PG-13 rated movies, just so they can cash in more on the extra audience/target group. I'm not saying all PG-13 movies are bad, but I'm personally left with a feeling that such movies don't show their true potential; especially when the story/theme inherently targets adults. I feel I was robbed for a better experience, just so some children's feelings won't get hurt. $deity forbid if they were to see a boob.
I like games and movies that push the limits of what's considered 'proper' (by the US moralists and people in general), and I also enjoy my slasher/grindhouse/exploitation movies occasionally (Incidentally they're all made in the 70's). There is no reason to believe that game censorship won't have a similar side-effect. This could be remedied by stretching the limits of what is considered appropriate for teenagers, so most games could be made for this age demographic without having to butcher their expressiveness in the process. Be it scary scenes, violence, cussing, drug use or sex. But since the moral values of whomever makes these censorship laws are warped compared to most people who actually *watch* movies and *play* games, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
If the score and rankings don't match up properly because of cheaters, what's the point with scoring in the first place? Just local scores to beat your own personal records? In Starcraft 2? Give me a break. And "It's a game, so why take it so seriously" is a stupid fallacy. Just because something is for fun and recreation doesn't mean it can't or should not be taken seriously. In games with other players, people expect fairness for all players. It's a basic principle.
Multiple layers of security. If you outwit the millions of dollars in research we spent then we get you thrown out of the game with a lawsuit.
False. It is a criminal case, not a civil case. It was not the owner of the robot (Timber Hills) who took the case to court. It's the local court in Oslo, Oslo Tingrett who took the case from the finance police, who got tipped off by the Oslo stock exchange. Both men appealed, so this case will go to the Supreme Court (hoeyesterett).
If Stuxnet was designed by a hostile state to damage Iranian industry, it's quite possible that, lacking any good way to deploy it inside Iran, it was released into the wild in hopes that it would find its way in on its own.
The infection statistics are against you. 58% of all the infections are inside Iran. Clearly the worm was first released there. Read the report from Symantec. The top infected countries are: Iran 58%, Indonesia 17%, and India: 9%
The fact that the worm spread to other countries is just collateral damage. It's a balancing game. If you don't infect enough, you won't infect your intended target. If you infect too much, you get collateral damage and potentially expose the worm to the public eye.
If you cared to read the report from Symantec, you would see that there are other indicators as well. For example, 58% of the infections were in Iran, beating the second place country 3 to 1. Obviously because the virus was originally seeded there, but perhaps you have a better explanation? There is nothing that indicates that Israel or any specific country is behind Stuxnet, but there are really good indications that Iran infrastructure was the target. Unless machines in Iran somehow are much more vulnerable to attack compared to machines in the other 100+ countries. What can be said about the attacks though, is that this was *not* in any way coded by a bedroom coder. It utilized four 0-day vulnerabilities, and compromised two digital certificates. On of them from Realtek and the other from JMicron. The worm's goal was to sabotage PLCs, and very specific one at that. It doesn't target any PLC. To be able to target the hardware Stuxnet does would require information from an insider. It's like ripped out from a Tom Clancy novel.
Not to mention the handling of proprietary drivers, like certain Wireless-cards and nVidia display drivers. They are kind of a mixed bag I think. It's not entirely obvious how to override it, but it's possible. Either you love it, or you hate it.
Hahahaha.. this really made my day!
You're kidding, but I wouldn't be so sure. Intellectual property is the only remaining goods the U.S exports. If anything could make the U.S start a nuclear war, it would be something that threatens its economy.
But low latency is just as important. Why is it always the bandwidth which is advertised in big numbers and not the latency?
I abstain from buying because I don't think I can pay enough for so many games in good conscience. The games are decent, and the 20 USD I can afford now wouldn't do the games justice.
The whole "experiment" is useless without this option, in my opinion. They're going to see a bunch of people paying 1 cent going to EFF and conclude "what a bunch of cheapskates", when there is a good amount of people who either could buy later (after the offer limit), or refuse to buy that many games hands-down, because they actually *value* those games at 70-80 USD and think it's too much money to spend.
These kind of people won't show up in the statistics.
How do you programmatically calculate a number or scale of the perceived entertainment value of a Mario level? Beside being able to complete the level and the difficulty, is there something objective one can measure, or does it boil down to simple taste?
If not, then the competition is kind of pointless, since the winner would be arbitrary.
A lot - and I speak from experience - of prospective games developers get so wrapped up in tweaking their engines that they never actually get around to writing one game, let alone a series. And that's why the Intartubes are littered with the sad corpses of hundreds of open source game engines, some of them rather good, in various states of disrepair and abandonment, and so few really outstanding open source games.
Also, just because you can code, doesn't mean you know how to create the necessary artwork. In my experience, good artists who want to contribute to open source software in general are a rare breed. And even less artists want to help out open source games.
If you don't understand the difference between a O(n) sorting algorithm and a O(n!) one, you're pretty much screwed as a programmer. If you don't know much math in general, *at least* learn time complexity for different algorithm operations. Perhaps this is why software is so slow nowadays? ;-)
This is doublethink in my opinion. Simply granting access doesn't make the ISPs responsible. I can't help to feel that the courts should have been way more clear in this matter.
What inevitably happens, is that the media interest groups will lobby to make our ISPs liable for 'granting access' to copyrighted works. Our copyright law 'åndsverksloven' is up for reform/ratification this year. And the Norwegian Data Inspectorate's main spokesperson and director Georg Apenes is leaving his post soon, making this scenario even more likely. Georg Apenes has been extremely vocal regarding our individual rights to privacy since he entered his position in 1989, and the government resents him for it. He has been a barrier for 'progress', and I really doubt whoever replaces him will have even 10% of his integrity. Most probably they will replace him with a government-friendly, industry-friendly puppet.
Yeah, I guess OnLive will work the day we break the speed of light, or invent time travel.
Yes, but how many furlongs?
Have it ever crossed your mind that people who buy games with draconian DRM crack the game they bought? Do the in-house statistics take that into account? I had to crack my version of Splinter Cell : Pandora tomorrow for it to even run.
Yes, selling broken software and getting paid for it, is too much to ask. If Ubisoft want money, they should do the *opposite* of what they're doing now. Forget about the pirates, and focus on the consumer and his/her game experience. You know.. the ones that pay for software? Stop thinking about "how much one *could* have earned if no one pirated games". It's a slippery slope.
The PC port of Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance was not bad, it was horrible!
You had to map the keyboard/mouse/joystick to the Playstation 2 buttons via a config tool. I also never got the graphics to display correctly.
From the movie Clear and present danger : http://www.mechcore.net/images/clear-and-present-danger-code.png