Thing is, they already DO display "teaser" results in the Google results page. What Murdock wants is money or no results, period.
So in effect, he's losing money now because he can't get people to pay to read. And so he wants none of his precious content leaving the sanctity of his website without payment up front.
Meanwhile, those news organisations that have readable content will get read, and Murdock will lobby Congress for more "Net Neutrality" laws to make it difficult to get news at all unless you pay for it, and make pay for news services a licensed and "regulated" industry.
What I don't get is why would he want the site indexed, but not allow them to display the partial results? Does he think people are going to just pretend that they found what they were looking for at his pay-as-you-look site? What? He's only going to slam the door in his own face and send the news-searchers to whomever has news they can READ!
That is like painting the windows on the news-stand box black so you can't see the paper until you put in a coin...STUPID!
Well drilling had better be "better than random chance" or you will drill nothing but dirt! See above post.
This stuff goes back a long way too. The "Rod" that god sent Moses into the desert with was a divinig rod to find water.
My dad taught me how to "water witch" when I was 10. I can't really explain it either, but it works. He and my grandpa got paid to find good sites for wells and they regularly did better than the "scientists". Go figure. I use a metal detector now and the only difference to me is the metal detector has audio and faster return time on the detection. It also sees alot more than I want it too!
It got the WGA notification as soon as it became aware and added new hardware.
As long as Microsoft is involved in the project, I think all it will amount to is a sucking of money from the Defence department. Everything they do will be closed, secret and proprietary. No one will want to talk to anyone else about how their stuff works. And eventually the burden of the bureaucratic secrecy machine will eat up all the project funds. Plop goes the project.
Buddy, the Ad world may be mind control to you, but it is not real control. Sure, you might get that "I'm right" feeling looking at the stupid clock, but we know how film is produced, and we know it's an editing error. We know these people are actors. We also know that this scenario is so completely un-real that only a moron would even consider such a thing as a comming out party for Windows!
Your mind controllers may have control over YOUR thoughts, feelings and emotions, but they missed mine by a MILE! This conspiracy of thought that they are supposedly engineering your emotional chemistry with only has an effect on you if you let it.
Stop believing in the power of suggestion. Start believing in the control YOU have of YOUR mind.
Ok! I got to see the Video. Yawn.
I got a better, more realistic party in mind. Hookers and Windows 7!! Woo Hoo! Not only can you and your guests watch porn on your new Windows 7 setup and get drunk together, but you can get infected too! And the Follow up party will be a Clinic Party where everyone gets treated for the STD's they got at the other party! And Windows 7 can be the guest of honour there too! See how easy it is to rid Windows 7 of all those nasty little bugs it got while you were having sooooo much FUN using it? Wow! We'll take shots of PCcillin and, if that fails we'll have a re-install Party too! Boy oh boy, the fun never ends with Microsoft!
I couldn't load it in time, and the video portion wouldn't play. Only the audio. THAT was creepy enough! It sounded like a setup for Jahova's Witness intervention or something.
So, Muffy, have you accepted Windows 7 as your personal Sav- uh - I mean Operating System?
Exactly! You should read Jeffrey Tucker's work at www.mises.org on IP. He changed my mind and agrees with you on the economic benefits of IP free artistic production.
So does Trent Reznor, who has the #1 spot at Amazon for Paid Downloads of CDs, even though he gives them away on his own site for free!
Once people know you are there, they will generally pay for your work in some way.
No it doesn't. I reduces obcurity, and generates sales of tangible BOOKS. Online copies of works make the content knowable to the market. THAT is what sells the BOOKS, the hard-copy edition.
Without the online version, there is no knowledge to the market of the artist's existence. The only exceptions are the popular artists, currently. That is to say that today, you know of only a few that are in the limelight, today.
Small market artists are discovering that if they publish online some of their work for free, they expand their fan base and generate sales of their tangible products that they would not have gotten otherwise because of obscurity.
Check out www.mises.org and look up IP copyright and patent.
The difficulty in IP lies in the issuance of positive rights. Positive rights are imposed on others by decree. It is a right that infringes on others by fiat.
Negative rights are things like, "You can't hurt me and I can't hurt you." We have a right to do as we wish, so long as we don't infringe on the same rights as others.
The other problem with IP is that unlike other forms of tangible property, IP is not lost at all if the material is copied.
As far as the financial aspects of IP are concerned, there are two areas to consider:
1. IP MUST be made known to others for it to have any value to them, so they already are aware of it's content and meaning.
2. Because of #1, there is no market for the IP until it is disclosed.
What is slowly being discovered in the music industry is that the music itself is not the product that generates sales in and of itself. It is the followup sales of CDs, T-shirts, higher quality production releases, posters and performances that generate revenue from product.
(See NIN)
With books, it's the book itself that is the product, signed copies, lectures etc. that are the true product and property. The content is the draw to purchace.
Doctrow is right when he says Obscurity is worse. Copyright, his right, prevents his work from reaching his audience. Creative Commons was created in part, to circumvent the restrictions that Copyright places on the options of the author, because of the restriction placed on the audience. Copyright and patent are a double edged sword! They open the door to litigation that ultimately favors only those with deep pockets and big lawyers. Many authors have no right to their own work anymore, or there is no access to an author's work, because Copyright prevents those works from being distributed by other means, even though the author was the originator of the IP. There are numerous works lying in obscurity because the publisher owns part or all of the rights, and refuses to publish because of the percieved limits of the market and the capital it would take to enter, or re-enter production. And rather than return the rights to the author, they just sit on the work until he dies.
Patents are even worse. Even if you think of a device yourself, and produce a product, which you have every right to, I can prevent you from utilizing your own invention because I won the race to the patent office. How is that a right?
The solution is simple. No Copyright. First to market with a salable work will "extract" all the "potential" you can get from any salable product. If nobody is buying, then there is no potential profit. Time to write another one that IS salable.
Second, most publishers purchase the copyright as a condition of publication. If the work fails to sell, the publisher can limit the printing to none if they choose. The author, is then left holding a contract and no book, with no recourse to find another publisher. This is a common practice among publishers. With NO COPYRIGHT, this problem never occurs. If another publisher can print work from that author too, and does, then the author can work with them next time, giving them "first to market" exclusivity.
Keep in mind that the law protects only the producer of the product, the book, the music, the movie etc. Not the author, unless the author is self publishing.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009681.asp
Microsuck Vacuum Cleaners? I don't know about that. When you turn it on it takes a minute or two to boot up, find the WiFi, phone home, check the status of your license, and then, a little animated maid (or dog, or something equally stupid) pops up on the little display (they were left over from the Zune project) asks you, "Do you want to clean your house?" You reply by using the mouse attachment and clicking on "Turn off animated Character" after which you happily see the back of it.
So you plug in the attachment you need to use to vacuum the floor....click on the "Floor" icon, and a window pops up on the screen. "What kind of floor?" You choose the kind of floor you have and it asks "What kind of dirt" You open the on-screen keyboard and type "Dirt Dirt".
"I'm sorry, that's not a valid response"
"F***ing Dirt!"
"I'm sorry..."
"Pet Dirt"
"OK! Let's suck Pet Dirt!"
"Please wait while I check MicroSuck Update for Pet Dirt....I'm sorry, Pet Dirt is only available on MicroSuck Professional."
Yup, That's the Vacuum Cleaner Company for me! (NOT)
Absolutly TRUE!!
You don't know until MS is gone! I did the switch over at home about two years ago. I have two teenage girls and the infection rate on the home laptops was causing me to to "work" when I got home!
De-lousing Laptops is what I did EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT!!!
Now, with all running Linux, I can have a BEER instead!
I'm slowly making the change in my client's offices. I am leveraging VMs for MS stuff, and putting Linux on the Workstations for Internet, Email and personal use tools.
So far, It works Better than before. Users are able to take work home, deal with sick kids and such because the VMs are available remotely. And the Workstations don't crap out from virii and stuff just because the user browsed a shopping link.
When I got my Asus EEE 1000H, It came with MS Home installed. I fired it up with that and went on the net to download AVG, and other essencials.
This machine spent a total of 1.5 hours on the internet. After 1.5 hours it already had 14 spyware infections!!! Linux deffinately reduces stress.
I'm finding that your opinion is correct. My clients are already dumping MS for OpenOffice. They need the file format capabilities, which I found include docx since OO 2.4.
There are some areas of discomfort. Envelopes, Mailing Lables are the two most complained about. Other than that, everyone is happy with OO.
I'm having the same problem. My solution so far has been to push the existing XPs from the workstation up to a VM. Install Linux on the workstaion (SUSE) and use that for personal Internet access and remote access to the VM.
This solves several transition problems. One, no more virus problems on the hardware. Two, VMs that are clean, can be copied(backed up), and re-copied if the active VM gets an infection or other fault. Three, it puts windows in a sandbox for the whole enterprise, and can be restricted to only the "host" network. Lastly, by having simple software on the new desktop, users get to ease in to using Linux rather than a full on everything-is-new experience.
Works for me. Bye Bye Balmer!
A gag order may have reasonable fear, but no evidence of damage. A gag order is a precognitive assumption of un-realized facts.
A judge is only for judgement, not law. You too are a judge of the law. The constitution's interpretation is open to interpretation by all. And even if a judge deems something lawful, you have recourse to persue an alternate interpretation. In some cases, you can vote the judge off the bench and replace him with someone with better judgement.
Unfortunately we have had the immediate needs of society made to appear more important than the long term needs of society. The confusion comes from the thinking that the short term pain of discovery out wieghs the long term effects of restraint. This is false. The first ammendment is a protection of individual freedom to act(speak) for the long term protection of society at large. The content of the speech does not enter into it. Content of speech is a short term concern, and any effects of that speech are dealt with AFTER THE FACT, not before! After something is said, then we can judge it's merrits. To restrain speech before the fact is to pass judgement on the character of the person speaking and to deny them their right to speak their mind.
Let them speak. Then judge what they say. To do otherwise, and to make such restraint a common occurance, is to undermine the integrity of society as a whole, and removes the freedom to act from all members of that society, including you.
This is not to say that one should not weigh the merrits of what one is about to say before saying it. Personal restraint and thoughtful reasoning should always be employed before one speaks. But do not tell me, or my neighbor, or any of my fellow free people that they cannot speak because you think that what they are about to say is false or dangerous. That is pre-judgement without evidence. You cannot judge what you cannot know, and so neither can the law. Prior restraint is un constitutional because it is illogical and dangerous to free society.
Prior restraint is and has been used by people in positions of power to maintain and further those positions. The founding fathers knew this by example in their time and through their own knowledge of history.
Look around you. Who benefits from prior restraint? In the end, only a very few. But the restraint is justified by them by pointing out the impact on a larger number of people because of the damage that would be done to the powerful few. This is not a valid justification. To act on prior restraint pre-supposes damage as well as pre-supposes intent, and everything else. It is an illusion of safety from something that was imagined to exist!
Speak. Then the thought and speech become fact.
Prior restraint is an assumption of knowledge of someone's intent and personal knowledge. Prior restraint assumes an ability to read ones mind and know what they are thinking before they tell you.
Self restraint is the only logical answer to the problem. Reasonable thought prior to the action of speaking is the only means that we have as individuals to protect society at large and ourselves. The first ammendment places the responcability prior restraint upon the individual only, and to place it any where else is wrong and dangerous in the long term.
But as free speakers we are not justified in shouting fire in a crowded theater. We are not justified in speaking un-truths about someone that damages them in some way. We must exercise our own restraint on ourselves or we loose our freedom to speak.
Do not cry "wolf" when there is no wolf. Do not lie to people. Choose your speech wisely and causiously. That way, when are heard, people will know you speak the truth.
Do not tell others that they cannot speak their minds. You will be next to be gagged if you do, and you will find yourself tasting the spit of your neighbor in the gag you placed in his mouth that you now find shoved into yours!
Like what? They (the MIT Students) didn't publish the findings Publicly. The Lawyers for the MBTA did. That was definately stupid, unless they used the filing of the restraining order to get the info into the public eye on purpose to expose the MBTA director's mishandling of the security.
Just saying something or someone is stupid is not an argument. Back up what you say with some logical reasoning.
I found a security breach once, tracked it, reported it to the authorities in charge of the company and got fired! They were the ones doing the dirty deed! It was a fraud scheme used to make money under the table and launder money from other nefarious ventures.
So even if you do figure it out, Who are you gonna call?
In My case I had to tell the owners of the company.
But in the case of a Public Entity, It's the public that should be told. If the truth is inconvienient, so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is, they already DO display "teaser" results in the Google results page. What Murdock wants is money or no results, period. So in effect, he's losing money now because he can't get people to pay to read. And so he wants none of his precious content leaving the sanctity of his website without payment up front. Meanwhile, those news organisations that have readable content will get read, and Murdock will lobby Congress for more "Net Neutrality" laws to make it difficult to get news at all unless you pay for it, and make pay for news services a licensed and "regulated" industry.
What I don't get is why would he want the site indexed, but not allow them to display the partial results? Does he think people are going to just pretend that they found what they were looking for at his pay-as-you-look site? What? He's only going to slam the door in his own face and send the news-searchers to whomever has news they can READ! That is like painting the windows on the news-stand box black so you can't see the paper until you put in a coin...STUPID!
Well drilling had better be "better than random chance" or you will drill nothing but dirt! See above post. This stuff goes back a long way too. The "Rod" that god sent Moses into the desert with was a divinig rod to find water.
My dad taught me how to "water witch" when I was 10. I can't really explain it either, but it works. He and my grandpa got paid to find good sites for wells and they regularly did better than the "scientists". Go figure. I use a metal detector now and the only difference to me is the metal detector has audio and faster return time on the detection. It also sees alot more than I want it too!
It got the WGA notification as soon as it became aware and added new hardware. As long as Microsoft is involved in the project, I think all it will amount to is a sucking of money from the Defence department. Everything they do will be closed, secret and proprietary. No one will want to talk to anyone else about how their stuff works. And eventually the burden of the bureaucratic secrecy machine will eat up all the project funds. Plop goes the project.
Buddy, the Ad world may be mind control to you, but it is not real control. Sure, you might get that "I'm right" feeling looking at the stupid clock, but we know how film is produced, and we know it's an editing error. We know these people are actors. We also know that this scenario is so completely un-real that only a moron would even consider such a thing as a comming out party for Windows! Your mind controllers may have control over YOUR thoughts, feelings and emotions, but they missed mine by a MILE! This conspiracy of thought that they are supposedly engineering your emotional chemistry with only has an effect on you if you let it. Stop believing in the power of suggestion. Start believing in the control YOU have of YOUR mind.
Ok! I got to see the Video. Yawn. I got a better, more realistic party in mind. Hookers and Windows 7!! Woo Hoo! Not only can you and your guests watch porn on your new Windows 7 setup and get drunk together, but you can get infected too! And the Follow up party will be a Clinic Party where everyone gets treated for the STD's they got at the other party! And Windows 7 can be the guest of honour there too! See how easy it is to rid Windows 7 of all those nasty little bugs it got while you were having sooooo much FUN using it? Wow! We'll take shots of PCcillin and, if that fails we'll have a re-install Party too! Boy oh boy, the fun never ends with Microsoft!
I couldn't load it in time, and the video portion wouldn't play. Only the audio. THAT was creepy enough! It sounded like a setup for Jahova's Witness intervention or something. So, Muffy, have you accepted Windows 7 as your personal Sav- uh - I mean Operating System?
I've had the same thought! That patch needs removing, and making it useful at the same time is....Capitalism at it's best!
20% of my client base in the last year. Same story, they are all amazed at the performance and reliability of the system. It just works.
Exactly! You should read Jeffrey Tucker's work at www.mises.org on IP. He changed my mind and agrees with you on the economic benefits of IP free artistic production. So does Trent Reznor, who has the #1 spot at Amazon for Paid Downloads of CDs, even though he gives them away on his own site for free! Once people know you are there, they will generally pay for your work in some way.
No it doesn't. I reduces obcurity, and generates sales of tangible BOOKS. Online copies of works make the content knowable to the market. THAT is what sells the BOOKS, the hard-copy edition. Without the online version, there is no knowledge to the market of the artist's existence. The only exceptions are the popular artists, currently. That is to say that today, you know of only a few that are in the limelight, today. Small market artists are discovering that if they publish online some of their work for free, they expand their fan base and generate sales of their tangible products that they would not have gotten otherwise because of obscurity.
Check out www.mises.org and look up IP copyright and patent. The difficulty in IP lies in the issuance of positive rights. Positive rights are imposed on others by decree. It is a right that infringes on others by fiat. Negative rights are things like, "You can't hurt me and I can't hurt you." We have a right to do as we wish, so long as we don't infringe on the same rights as others. The other problem with IP is that unlike other forms of tangible property, IP is not lost at all if the material is copied. As far as the financial aspects of IP are concerned, there are two areas to consider: 1. IP MUST be made known to others for it to have any value to them, so they already are aware of it's content and meaning. 2. Because of #1, there is no market for the IP until it is disclosed. What is slowly being discovered in the music industry is that the music itself is not the product that generates sales in and of itself. It is the followup sales of CDs, T-shirts, higher quality production releases, posters and performances that generate revenue from product. (See NIN) With books, it's the book itself that is the product, signed copies, lectures etc. that are the true product and property. The content is the draw to purchace. Doctrow is right when he says Obscurity is worse. Copyright, his right, prevents his work from reaching his audience. Creative Commons was created in part, to circumvent the restrictions that Copyright places on the options of the author, because of the restriction placed on the audience. Copyright and patent are a double edged sword! They open the door to litigation that ultimately favors only those with deep pockets and big lawyers. Many authors have no right to their own work anymore, or there is no access to an author's work, because Copyright prevents those works from being distributed by other means, even though the author was the originator of the IP. There are numerous works lying in obscurity because the publisher owns part or all of the rights, and refuses to publish because of the percieved limits of the market and the capital it would take to enter, or re-enter production. And rather than return the rights to the author, they just sit on the work until he dies. Patents are even worse. Even if you think of a device yourself, and produce a product, which you have every right to, I can prevent you from utilizing your own invention because I won the race to the patent office. How is that a right?
The solution is simple. No Copyright. First to market with a salable work will "extract" all the "potential" you can get from any salable product. If nobody is buying, then there is no potential profit. Time to write another one that IS salable. Second, most publishers purchase the copyright as a condition of publication. If the work fails to sell, the publisher can limit the printing to none if they choose. The author, is then left holding a contract and no book, with no recourse to find another publisher. This is a common practice among publishers. With NO COPYRIGHT, this problem never occurs. If another publisher can print work from that author too, and does, then the author can work with them next time, giving them "first to market" exclusivity. Keep in mind that the law protects only the producer of the product, the book, the music, the movie etc. Not the author, unless the author is self publishing. http://blog.mises.org/archives/009681.asp
Cheers to that Pal!
Microsuck Vacuum Cleaners? I don't know about that. When you turn it on it takes a minute or two to boot up, find the WiFi, phone home, check the status of your license, and then, a little animated maid (or dog, or something equally stupid) pops up on the little display (they were left over from the Zune project) asks you, "Do you want to clean your house?" You reply by using the mouse attachment and clicking on "Turn off animated Character" after which you happily see the back of it. So you plug in the attachment you need to use to vacuum the floor....click on the "Floor" icon, and a window pops up on the screen. "What kind of floor?" You choose the kind of floor you have and it asks "What kind of dirt" You open the on-screen keyboard and type "Dirt Dirt". "I'm sorry, that's not a valid response" "F***ing Dirt!" "I'm sorry..." "Pet Dirt" "OK! Let's suck Pet Dirt!" "Please wait while I check MicroSuck Update for Pet Dirt....I'm sorry, Pet Dirt is only available on MicroSuck Professional." Yup, That's the Vacuum Cleaner Company for me! (NOT)
Absolutly TRUE!! You don't know until MS is gone! I did the switch over at home about two years ago. I have two teenage girls and the infection rate on the home laptops was causing me to to "work" when I got home! De-lousing Laptops is what I did EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT!!! Now, with all running Linux, I can have a BEER instead! I'm slowly making the change in my client's offices. I am leveraging VMs for MS stuff, and putting Linux on the Workstations for Internet, Email and personal use tools. So far, It works Better than before. Users are able to take work home, deal with sick kids and such because the VMs are available remotely. And the Workstations don't crap out from virii and stuff just because the user browsed a shopping link. When I got my Asus EEE 1000H, It came with MS Home installed. I fired it up with that and went on the net to download AVG, and other essencials. This machine spent a total of 1.5 hours on the internet. After 1.5 hours it already had 14 spyware infections!!! Linux deffinately reduces stress.
I'm finding that your opinion is correct. My clients are already dumping MS for OpenOffice. They need the file format capabilities, which I found include docx since OO 2.4. There are some areas of discomfort. Envelopes, Mailing Lables are the two most complained about. Other than that, everyone is happy with OO.
I'm having the same problem. My solution so far has been to push the existing XPs from the workstation up to a VM. Install Linux on the workstaion (SUSE) and use that for personal Internet access and remote access to the VM. This solves several transition problems. One, no more virus problems on the hardware. Two, VMs that are clean, can be copied(backed up), and re-copied if the active VM gets an infection or other fault. Three, it puts windows in a sandbox for the whole enterprise, and can be restricted to only the "host" network. Lastly, by having simple software on the new desktop, users get to ease in to using Linux rather than a full on everything-is-new experience. Works for me. Bye Bye Balmer!
Having the images ON the camera is the proof! No Forensics nessesary.
I am thinking I am on the moon? I am not knowing. I am new to the area.
A gag order may have reasonable fear, but no evidence of damage. A gag order is a precognitive assumption of un-realized facts. A judge is only for judgement, not law. You too are a judge of the law. The constitution's interpretation is open to interpretation by all. And even if a judge deems something lawful, you have recourse to persue an alternate interpretation. In some cases, you can vote the judge off the bench and replace him with someone with better judgement. Unfortunately we have had the immediate needs of society made to appear more important than the long term needs of society. The confusion comes from the thinking that the short term pain of discovery out wieghs the long term effects of restraint. This is false. The first ammendment is a protection of individual freedom to act(speak) for the long term protection of society at large. The content of the speech does not enter into it. Content of speech is a short term concern, and any effects of that speech are dealt with AFTER THE FACT, not before! After something is said, then we can judge it's merrits. To restrain speech before the fact is to pass judgement on the character of the person speaking and to deny them their right to speak their mind. Let them speak. Then judge what they say. To do otherwise, and to make such restraint a common occurance, is to undermine the integrity of society as a whole, and removes the freedom to act from all members of that society, including you. This is not to say that one should not weigh the merrits of what one is about to say before saying it. Personal restraint and thoughtful reasoning should always be employed before one speaks. But do not tell me, or my neighbor, or any of my fellow free people that they cannot speak because you think that what they are about to say is false or dangerous. That is pre-judgement without evidence. You cannot judge what you cannot know, and so neither can the law. Prior restraint is un constitutional because it is illogical and dangerous to free society. Prior restraint is and has been used by people in positions of power to maintain and further those positions. The founding fathers knew this by example in their time and through their own knowledge of history. Look around you. Who benefits from prior restraint? In the end, only a very few. But the restraint is justified by them by pointing out the impact on a larger number of people because of the damage that would be done to the powerful few. This is not a valid justification. To act on prior restraint pre-supposes damage as well as pre-supposes intent, and everything else. It is an illusion of safety from something that was imagined to exist! Speak. Then the thought and speech become fact. Prior restraint is an assumption of knowledge of someone's intent and personal knowledge. Prior restraint assumes an ability to read ones mind and know what they are thinking before they tell you. Self restraint is the only logical answer to the problem. Reasonable thought prior to the action of speaking is the only means that we have as individuals to protect society at large and ourselves. The first ammendment places the responcability prior restraint upon the individual only, and to place it any where else is wrong and dangerous in the long term. But as free speakers we are not justified in shouting fire in a crowded theater. We are not justified in speaking un-truths about someone that damages them in some way. We must exercise our own restraint on ourselves or we loose our freedom to speak. Do not cry "wolf" when there is no wolf. Do not lie to people. Choose your speech wisely and causiously. That way, when are heard, people will know you speak the truth. Do not tell others that they cannot speak their minds. You will be next to be gagged if you do, and you will find yourself tasting the spit of your neighbor in the gag you placed in his mouth that you now find shoved into yours!
Like what? They (the MIT Students) didn't publish the findings Publicly. The Lawyers for the MBTA did. That was definately stupid, unless they used the filing of the restraining order to get the info into the public eye on purpose to expose the MBTA director's mishandling of the security. Just saying something or someone is stupid is not an argument. Back up what you say with some logical reasoning.
I found a security breach once, tracked it, reported it to the authorities in charge of the company and got fired! They were the ones doing the dirty deed! It was a fraud scheme used to make money under the table and launder money from other nefarious ventures. So even if you do figure it out, Who are you gonna call? In My case I had to tell the owners of the company. But in the case of a Public Entity, It's the public that should be told. If the truth is inconvienient, so be it.
But people should also recognize that what the MIT students did is stupid. People should also recognize that arguments like yours are stupid.
What is stupid about it? What is stupid about knowing the truth? What a pointless statement.