Charles Manson's behavior wasn't problematic to himself
I guess if he enjoyed going to jail, sure. Otherwise, his behavior led to others locking him away. Personally, I'd find that problematic, but to each his own I suppose.
Depends how you define that. If human learning is just based on strengthened signals between synapses, then a weighted neural net certainly DOES learn.
So you are asking "if someone says there is an island of trash in the middle of the ocean what do you expect to see there?" How about a freaking island of trash!?!?
Seriously, this does not warrant the flamebait mods it got. He WAS making money by providing a service that had, as one of its effects, allowing people to play pirated games. I feel pretty confident in saying that more than than one of his customers probably used it for that purpose, and that he knew this.
While I agree the law is wrong, I don't think it's so "grey" in this case.
In referring to your bolded sections of text, this guy was "offer[ing] to the public [a...] service" that meets sections 2A and 2C perfectly. The only part I can see questioned there is 2B, as it may have a "commercially significant purpose" in allowing homebrew games to be played, as you stated further down (when referring to a modchip's primary purpose). However, the protection method disallows the unsigned games from being played, so even if that was the only intended purpose, it still circumvents "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work", assuming the "work" is the device itself.
She was pissed at the "lowlives" who pump out baby after baby even though they couldn't get them what she deemed a good life and education, while people with PhD's simply don't have many kids, if any
crmarvin42, your posts in this thread have been the most informative and interesting things I have read all day, and quite possibly all week... or longer. +1 Internets to you, good sir.
Sustainable in an incredibly localized way, meaning just yourself and your family. Such growing practices are not able to sustain the current population of Earth, let alone whatever it will be in a few decades.
If the professionals don't get it, what chance does the end user have?
Some of them may not get it, but if you can't see why someone would just want a secure connection and not care about identity verification, then you aren't imaginative enough. They aren't talking about financial transactions, they are talking about simpler things that they want to be slightly more secure.
Slashdot Mirror
I swear to god they are highly relevant to the nature of my comments 95% of the time...
Maybe. Hold on while I grab my DSM, and I'll let you know.
Charles Manson's behavior wasn't problematic to himself
I guess if he enjoyed going to jail, sure. Otherwise, his behavior led to others locking him away. Personally, I'd find that problematic, but to each his own I suppose.
who has broken no law (which is innocent by mental defect/disease)
Woah, being found innocent by a judge due to mental defect is NOT the same as having not broken the law to begin with.
Then it would not be an *island*, would it?
Thank you.
We need to post a sign around here or something: "Please don't feed the trolls."
even the most advanced AI doesn't learn.
Depends how you define that. If human learning is just based on strengthened signals between synapses, then a weighted neural net certainly DOES learn.
So you are asking "if someone says there is an island of trash in the middle of the ocean what do you expect to see there?" How about a freaking island of trash!?!?
Seriously, this does not warrant the flamebait mods it got. He WAS making money by providing a service that had, as one of its effects, allowing people to play pirated games. I feel pretty confident in saying that more than than one of his customers probably used it for that purpose, and that he knew this.
So yes, it is definitely a legal grey area.
While I agree the law is wrong, I don't think it's so "grey" in this case.
In referring to your bolded sections of text, this guy was "offer[ing] to the public [a...] service" that meets sections 2A and 2C perfectly. The only part I can see questioned there is 2B, as it may have a "commercially significant purpose" in allowing homebrew games to be played, as you stated further down (when referring to a modchip's primary purpose). However, the protection method disallows the unsigned games from being played, so even if that was the only intended purpose, it still circumvents "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work", assuming the "work" is the device itself.
*I* *c*o*n*c*u*r*.* Now that's emphasis.
It's on the front page...
She was pissed at the "lowlives" who pump out baby after baby even though they couldn't get them what she deemed a good life and education, while people with PhD's simply don't have many kids, if any
Somebody thought Idiocracy was a documentary.
As soon as there's a WWII that's won by the instigator, that rule will be rewritten. :P
He hasn't started any wars so far. I also haven't heard of him condoning practices that violate international treaties. It's an OK start.
crmarvin42, your posts in this thread have been the most informative and interesting things I have read all day, and quite possibly all week... or longer. +1 Internets to you, good sir.
As you don't allow logic enter into your own comments...
it's a good way to promote sustainable practices
Sustainable in an incredibly localized way, meaning just yourself and your family. Such growing practices are not able to sustain the current population of Earth, let alone whatever it will be in a few decades.
Neither one was not... so both were? Crazy.
Yeah I had no idea what the hell this was about either.
Narcissism is bad, mmmkay?
WHAT??? Now you tell me... I could have saved ten grand on my last car!
You echoed my own thoughts exactly.
If the professionals don't get it, what chance does the end user have?
Some of them may not get it, but if you can't see why someone would just want a secure connection and not care about identity verification, then you aren't imaginative enough. They aren't talking about financial transactions, they are talking about simpler things that they want to be slightly more secure.
I don't authenticate my SSH sessions until after the encryption has begun... so obviously, YOU don't understand encryption.
Geez I screwed that one up... I mean to suggest that using self-signed encryption is better than no encryption at all.
So using no encryption at all is worse than sending everything plaintext? Why don't you enlighten us, oh wise AC.