Stealing data, even if the person is not going to use it for anything malicious, can still land said person in dog shit land. What he should have done was use this on his and his friends passport. Maybe asked a few colleagues to help. But instead he collected the information of innocent bystanders. How would you feel if it was your info? How do you know this guy won't sell the information, leak it, or accidentally lose it? Now these people (hopefully they will find out it was them) will need to get new passports to be sure this guy doesn't have up-to-date info. Even worse these people may get flagged so the next time they try to board a plane they get the extra TLC from the TSA.
Had to reply to myself since I got the other one modded as flamebait. THis is in protest to the moderation system. People mod you down with things like troll/flamebait when they don't agree with what you say - it doesn't matter if what you say is not a troll/flamebait message.
How much extra does it cost MS to segregate the versions? Why not just ship the ultimate cd and ask, during installation or upgrade, whether the user wants a basic installation, a home media center installation, or a professional installation? There's already a widget in the control panel (or whatever they'll call it in this edition) that allows the installation of microsoft programs.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply send a single CD out?
(Yes, you'd miss the fanbois shelling out an extra $100 so they could say they bought "ultimate"; is it really that big a loss with most licenses going out through OEMs for nominal fees?)
1) You don't know their costs, but CD pressing has been done for such a long time I doubt it costs them that much extra. Changing the label at the bottom of the windows logo from Basic to ultimate to... is not a major deal
2) Anyone potentially confused about 6 versions is not going to know what to install so will most likely say "install it all". And why not? if i paid for something I want it all....if their computer can't handle it all they now have to upgrade their hardware - or complain and return the product saying it failed. Those who don't understand will have someone help them with what to buy/install
3) Actually, you think MS would sell a one disk package and charge the Home Basic price or emerging markets price? They will charge the Ultimate price...meaning the price for grandma just went up.
4) netbooks or emerging markets pc's do not need the bells and whistles on gimped computers
5) Businesses don't need the bells and whistles and would rather save a few bucks from Enterprise to Ultimate edition...if its $10 per cd and your company needs to license for say 10,000 computers....that's a lot of money (no not exactly 100,000 due to enterprise license - but still a lot of money.
Versioning is fine - you wil either know what you want and will buy it (potentially saving money if you go for the reduced version) or you will get someone to help you who knows.
There is no benefit for anyone, but Microsoft. They could offer a modular windows and let everyone choose what they want for one price. In this way they want to squeeze more money from the market.
Ok MS gives only one version. They charge the Ultimate price $300. Now grandma, who only needs basic, is charged $300 because she has the option in this version to install everything...which she doesn't need. What a waste of money for grandma.
Versioning helps those who don't need all the extras keep their cost down. So there *IS* a benefit for people.
Actually - it is the "charge less money". They charge less for the reduced versions. So if ultimate is $300 and they only sell ultimate everyone pays $300. But if grandma only needs Basic features then why have her pay $300? Why not have her pay $200 and get only what she needs. Also, the lesser versions - since they have fewer features - will be less of a hardware hog meaning the computer hardware will be cheaper since they don't need to get the best.
See it's not hard to think of the positive. We don't have to be negative nancies.
Because grandma is going to know the difference between BSD and Developer Tools or how to set that up? If MS lists their version description just like in the article then it will be VERY easy for people to figure out. More then likely grandma will stick with Vista and only upgrade if her grandchild tells her to and then he will make the decision on which version.
I am pretty sure nobody here on/. wil be confused.
XP worked out well, so did 98. Though I remember when XP came out people screamed (for over a year) "bloatware" "Suckware"....and now it is being touted as an great OS. The only issues I had with Vista are the constant nagging reminders (even as admin user) - the inability to permenantly remove the toolbar warning that I do not have my security settings on (well cause the inability to save program files annoyed me). Performance is fine for me.
I have windows 7 beta on my laptop - so far so good. When it comes out I will buy it for my desktop...My only annoyance is I will need to buy it twice (64 bit desktop, 32 bit laptop). Setting up the laptop to work with my wireless network was easy as pie actually. Least amount of configuration ever.
It is artificial - duh - but the price is also artificially cheaper then the bigger versions. You get what you pay for. It's like saying "Well his Nissan Maxima has leather seats and Bose stereo, mine doesn't - that's an artificial decision"...response "So is the price tag".
If someone doesn't like the 3 app rule then they can get the upgraded version and run more apps. 3 apps is actually decent. You can run an e-mail app, browser app, and document editor at the same time. Right now on my computer I have excel, outlook and IE. No biggie. Would this version work for me? No...then again I am a power user. I hardcore game, I work in IT and frequently have 6-9 apps open (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Outlook, IE, IM, Notepad is VERY common for me).
What's so hard to understand? First off, they list - in a concise paragraph - what each version is. Second off, grandma-sue who barely knows how to use e-mail is not goign to perform an upgrade so she doesn't need to understand. People who perform upgrades, a task that is timeconsuming, will either 1) research, 2) pay someone (or ask a friend), or 3) buy a new computer and take what it comes with.
BTW - there will be 12 versions, not 6. They forgot to mention 32 bit vs 64 bit.
This is beneficial. Not everyone needs ultimate. Grandma who barely checks e-mail doesn't need every single bell and whistle. Emerging markets - those who can barely afford computers - I doubt they will be buying the latest and greater computers or the latest and greatest games...do you really need the latest and greatest in drivers if you don't have a video card for it? If 6 versions of windows is too complex I wonder what the author feels like when he goes to buy a car.
Let's say you write a new spreadsheet program, and it's good. Of course people shouldn't just be allowed to steal it, sell it as their own without paying you etc etc.
But that doesn't mean that any software that has a grid of cells, relations between them, etc etc infringes your IP. The goal or result is the same, but how it does it could be quite different.
I agree, just because I create a spreadsheet program does not mean I can claim a patent on grid cells, relational databasis, etc. Those are prior art - I didn't invent them. The/. crew, for the most part, would disagree with your first part. They believe it should all be open, including my new spreadsheet program. They believe that I should get paid if people want to "donate", and that I should get a "reasonable" pay (whatever that means) from those donations.
No, they make it easier to reap rewards, or to reap rewards out of proportion to what was invested.
Since the quantity of the reward is arbitrary (who is to say if they should make 5%, 20% or 1000% profits) they try and limit it to time. Also, by limiting the potential for great reward you will limit the amount of people who will take a chance. In pharmacy - for all the billions they make in medicine, they also take a LOT of risk. They should get rewarded. How much is not for you to decide.
The monopoly power granted in order to do this is clearly harmful (especially so in fast-moving industries), and is not strictly necessary in order for new development to be profitable.
Your opinion. My opinion is that it lets companies reap rewards for products people want to buy. So they will invest XYZ dollars and hopefully make that money plus a profit.
The question is whether the benefits (additional innovation) are greater than the downsides (stagnation from higher barriers to entry)...
If someone creates a popular, but restricted piece of software and allows add-ons it could spur other businesses. Look at Windows. Closed source, but look at all the companies that make STUPID amounts of money on products based on Windows...for example Blizzard. Patented, closed source, highly restricted software caused another business to flourish...in MS' case they have helped thousands of businesses/gov'ts/personal folks to flourish with their software. But there are alternatives.
I've seen decent arguments in Against Intellectual Monopoly that historically the downsides have not been smaller than the benefits (sometimes significantly greater, but sometimes closer to even), for software the downsides should be relatively much greater, because the barriers to entry are so very low without such interference and because the fast pace makes the stagnation last relatively longer.
I've seen decent arguments for IP, though monopoly is harder then it seems. People claim MS is a monopoly - but they aren't....Apple, Linux, etc. Barriers to entry into the software industry is what you can program. All you need is a computer software engineering skills and a computer.
You really pulled that one out of your ass didn't you. If they were hacked, which they claim to have been, they would not be liable for anything. It would be similar if someone shot someone with your gun. You proved you weren't the trigger man, or even involved, but went to jail for murder.
That won't stop someone from sueing, but I don't think comcast lawyers are losing any sleep.
They claimed to have been hacked. As long as the investigation supports being hacked then no they will not get fined. The FCC is not some ridiculous organization that goes on witch-hunts. Even if it was not a hacker - it was a technical foul-up, not an intended viewing. The FCC are smart enough to realize that computers have glitches and shit happens.
I could see someone sueing them under the pretense "my baby got scarred from this".
What happens when that embryo develops into a baby - whatever form that baby is?
Embryonic research is OK, I agreed (though many do not) it is not sentient life. But while the first goal of these scientists may have been to fertilize the egg, the next logical step in the search for knowledge "let's see if it comes to term and we now have a new species." It's morally DARK area and potential reprecussions could be severe if the experiment goes bad (e.g. it has cancer, it develops a disease that jumps to us, it eats your face."
The Nazi community defined that Jews were subhuman.
I'm a jew and an israeli, a by-product of th Holocaust. Stop playing the Holocaust card - it demeans what happend. People pop that word around way too much and it does nothing but getting people sick of hearing it.
The NAZI's were not the majority of society, they were the vast minority. And even in that minority there were many who did what they were told because they were told to do so by their leaders. This is not uncommon (there was a study done about people following authority even if it meant hurting innocents).
Not to also forget - imprisoning, torturing, killing, enlsaving people is flat out wrong. It is not a gray side. If you need confirmation of that then ask yourself this - would you be ok if smoeone imprisoned you, tortured you, enslaved you and then killed you? If the answer is "hell f'n no" then you know it is morally wrong.
Inventing new life should not be taken lightly. Mixing species that have never been done before? Make sure you don't accidentally create a species that will eat us, or cause disease in us, or cause moral issues "how do we treat it"
So if I have the money to do research that is considered inhumane I should be able to do it because I can? I have a gun, I can shoot someone, I guess I should do it. There are consequences in life and we have to think about the reprecussions before we move on.
Once they create a life, saying "oh maybe this wasn't a bad idea, kill it" could be more wrong. Then how do you deal with it if you don't? The prejudice it will deal with (trust me we have plenty to go around). What if it dies horribly due to germs/diseases...or it kills us because of it's germs/diseases? Evolution takes time, and to jump-start it or cross boundries has a lot of risk.
When you start messing with things like this it is ok for people to step in and say "no this is a bad idea". And yes, we can draw the lines. There absolute blacks and whites, and those are easy moral choices - the gray choices are the hard ones.
Nutshell: Think about the potential dangers - if they are there then do some pre-research before conducting your work.
I am a fairly reasonable person and have yet to be convinced why software patents are useless and/or harmful. Like anything else, if abused they can be harmful but if applied correctly they allow a company/person reap rewards on the time/money they spent developing something. I can't fault someone who wants to get paid for their work...namely because I like getting a paycheck for the work that *I* do - and so do the rest of you.
I hope they make a ruling that prevents patents of items that are currently improbable/possible and too vague. For example "I patent a teleporting device, that transforms objects to atoms, transmits them to another location, and then reforms the atoms into it's previous state." should not be allowed if the person doesn't 1) have such a device or 2) have the plans to develop it. And by plans meaning "If i had the money this would be REAL, but I don't have the money so it's only on paper".
Software patents are frivolous when they patent technology/methodologies that have already been in use (I think the click-to-buy is one of those situations). But to patent, say MS Office is OK if it helps protect MS office owners when/if someone tries to reverse engineer/pirate/etc the product.
basically: Squash the morons who want to patent things like "Compressing the human lung and then uncompressing the human lung in an automatic, and rhythmic manner to allow a constant flow of gaseous substances from inside and outside of the human body," but protect those who create something that is innovative.
Link to articles? How does this fall under the whistleblower laws? You are thinking of anti-retaliation whistleblower laws which protect someone who reports a company doing something illegally. So he would not have gotten fired for that, he would have gotten fired for sueing them - which does not get protected by whistleblower laws.
According to this article he got a job there with the intent to get information. Again link yours and what makes you determine that MS is wrong.
Yea I don't get it, why would this be bad? Why would we be proud/happy if they didn't have permission and contacted them anyhow? Life in space, while cool, is very dangerous. The people up there need to know who they are speaking with - especially IF it is a prank caller trying to make themselves come off as NASA.
Yeah, after all, it's not as if Microsoft ever steals other companies (cough Netscape, Corel) ideas or software, or been involved in U.S. or EU patent infringement cases and found guilty. I'm sure they are completely innocent with nothing to hide and would comply with a court order to turn-over information, rather than shred documents.
Yup, then they get sued. They have to spend tons of money on legal council. Then, if they lose, they have to pay millions. I guess this guy should have to pay millions...oh wait it's OK what he did because he did it against Microsoft and it's now not information stealing since it is not tangeable...right?
Slashdot Mirror
Stealing data, even if the person is not going to use it for anything malicious, can still land said person in dog shit land. What he should have done was use this on his and his friends passport. Maybe asked a few colleagues to help. But instead he collected the information of innocent bystanders. How would you feel if it was your info? How do you know this guy won't sell the information, leak it, or accidentally lose it? Now these people (hopefully they will find out it was them) will need to get new passports to be sure this guy doesn't have up-to-date info. Even worse these people may get flagged so the next time they try to board a plane they get the extra TLC from the TSA.
Had to reply to myself since I got the other one modded as flamebait. THis is in protest to the moderation system. People mod you down with things like troll/flamebait when they don't agree with what you say - it doesn't matter if what you say is not a troll/flamebait message.
How much extra does it cost MS to segregate the versions? Why not just ship the ultimate cd and ask, during installation or upgrade, whether the user wants a basic installation, a home media center installation, or a professional installation? There's already a widget in the control panel (or whatever they'll call it in this edition) that allows the installation of microsoft programs. Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply send a single CD out? (Yes, you'd miss the fanbois shelling out an extra $100 so they could say they bought "ultimate"; is it really that big a loss with most licenses going out through OEMs for nominal fees?)
1) You don't know their costs, but CD pressing has been done for such a long time I doubt it costs them that much extra. Changing the label at the bottom of the windows logo from Basic to ultimate to... is not a major deal
2) Anyone potentially confused about 6 versions is not going to know what to install so will most likely say "install it all". And why not? if i paid for something I want it all....if their computer can't handle it all they now have to upgrade their hardware - or complain and return the product saying it failed. Those who don't understand will have someone help them with what to buy/install
3) Actually, you think MS would sell a one disk package and charge the Home Basic price or emerging markets price? They will charge the Ultimate price...meaning the price for grandma just went up.
4) netbooks or emerging markets pc's do not need the bells and whistles on gimped computers
5) Businesses don't need the bells and whistles and would rather save a few bucks from Enterprise to Ultimate edition...if its $10 per cd and your company needs to license for say 10,000 computers....that's a lot of money (no not exactly 100,000 due to enterprise license - but still a lot of money.
Versioning is fine - you wil either know what you want and will buy it (potentially saving money if you go for the reduced version) or you will get someone to help you who knows.
There is no benefit for anyone, but Microsoft. They could offer a modular windows and let everyone choose what they want for one price. In this way they want to squeeze more money from the market.
Ok MS gives only one version. They charge the Ultimate price $300. Now grandma, who only needs basic, is charged $300 because she has the option in this version to install everything...which she doesn't need. What a waste of money for grandma.
Versioning helps those who don't need all the extras keep their cost down. So there *IS* a benefit for people.
Actually - it is the "charge less money". They charge less for the reduced versions. So if ultimate is $300 and they only sell ultimate everyone pays $300. But if grandma only needs Basic features then why have her pay $300? Why not have her pay $200 and get only what she needs. Also, the lesser versions - since they have fewer features - will be less of a hardware hog meaning the computer hardware will be cheaper since they don't need to get the best.
See it's not hard to think of the positive. We don't have to be negative nancies.
Because grandma is going to know the difference between BSD and Developer Tools or how to set that up? If MS lists their version description just like in the article then it will be VERY easy for people to figure out. More then likely grandma will stick with Vista and only upgrade if her grandchild tells her to and then he will make the decision on which version.
/. wil be confused.
I am pretty sure nobody here on
XP worked out well, so did 98. Though I remember when XP came out people screamed (for over a year) "bloatware" "Suckware"....and now it is being touted as an great OS. The only issues I had with Vista are the constant nagging reminders (even as admin user) - the inability to permenantly remove the toolbar warning that I do not have my security settings on (well cause the inability to save program files annoyed me). Performance is fine for me.
I have windows 7 beta on my laptop - so far so good. When it comes out I will buy it for my desktop...My only annoyance is I will need to buy it twice (64 bit desktop, 32 bit laptop). Setting up the laptop to work with my wireless network was easy as pie actually. Least amount of configuration ever.
It is artificial - duh - but the price is also artificially cheaper then the bigger versions. You get what you pay for. It's like saying "Well his Nissan Maxima has leather seats and Bose stereo, mine doesn't - that's an artificial decision"...response "So is the price tag".
If someone doesn't like the 3 app rule then they can get the upgraded version and run more apps. 3 apps is actually decent. You can run an e-mail app, browser app, and document editor at the same time. Right now on my computer I have excel, outlook and IE. No biggie. Would this version work for me? No...then again I am a power user. I hardcore game, I work in IT and frequently have 6-9 apps open (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Outlook, IE, IM, Notepad is VERY common for me).
What's so hard to understand? First off, they list - in a concise paragraph - what each version is. Second off, grandma-sue who barely knows how to use e-mail is not goign to perform an upgrade so she doesn't need to understand. People who perform upgrades, a task that is timeconsuming, will either 1) research, 2) pay someone (or ask a friend), or 3) buy a new computer and take what it comes with.
BTW - there will be 12 versions, not 6. They forgot to mention 32 bit vs 64 bit.
This is beneficial. Not everyone needs ultimate. Grandma who barely checks e-mail doesn't need every single bell and whistle. Emerging markets - those who can barely afford computers - I doubt they will be buying the latest and greater computers or the latest and greatest games...do you really need the latest and greatest in drivers if you don't have a video card for it? If 6 versions of windows is too complex I wonder what the author feels like when he goes to buy a car.
Let's say you write a new spreadsheet program, and it's good. Of course people shouldn't just be allowed to steal it, sell it as their own without paying you etc etc. But that doesn't mean that any software that has a grid of cells, relations between them, etc etc infringes your IP. The goal or result is the same, but how it does it could be quite different.
I agree, just because I create a spreadsheet program does not mean I can claim a patent on grid cells, relational databasis, etc. Those are prior art - I didn't invent them. The /. crew, for the most part, would disagree with your first part. They believe it should all be open, including my new spreadsheet program. They believe that I should get paid if people want to "donate", and that I should get a "reasonable" pay (whatever that means) from those donations.
No, they make it easier to reap rewards, or to reap rewards out of proportion to what was invested.
Since the quantity of the reward is arbitrary (who is to say if they should make 5%, 20% or 1000% profits) they try and limit it to time. Also, by limiting the potential for great reward you will limit the amount of people who will take a chance. In pharmacy - for all the billions they make in medicine, they also take a LOT of risk. They should get rewarded. How much is not for you to decide.
The monopoly power granted in order to do this is clearly harmful (especially so in fast-moving industries), and is not strictly necessary in order for new development to be profitable.
Your opinion. My opinion is that it lets companies reap rewards for products people want to buy. So they will invest XYZ dollars and hopefully make that money plus a profit.
The question is whether the benefits (additional innovation) are greater than the downsides (stagnation from higher barriers to entry)...
If someone creates a popular, but restricted piece of software and allows add-ons it could spur other businesses. Look at Windows. Closed source, but look at all the companies that make STUPID amounts of money on products based on Windows...for example Blizzard. Patented, closed source, highly restricted software caused another business to flourish...in MS' case they have helped thousands of businesses/gov'ts/personal folks to flourish with their software. But there are alternatives.
I've seen decent arguments in Against Intellectual Monopoly that historically the downsides have not been smaller than the benefits (sometimes significantly greater, but sometimes closer to even), for software the downsides should be relatively much greater, because the barriers to entry are so very low without such interference and because the fast pace makes the stagnation last relatively longer.
I've seen decent arguments for IP, though monopoly is harder then it seems. People claim MS is a monopoly - but they aren't....Apple, Linux, etc. Barriers to entry into the software industry is what you can program. All you need is a computer software engineering skills and a computer.
Really? Computers/electronics cannot have glitches? Maybe you should answer your door, I hear Microsoft is looking for a new media director.
You really pulled that one out of your ass didn't you. If they were hacked, which they claim to have been, they would not be liable for anything. It would be similar if someone shot someone with your gun. You proved you weren't the trigger man, or even involved, but went to jail for murder.
That won't stop someone from sueing, but I don't think comcast lawyers are losing any sleep.
They claimed to have been hacked. As long as the investigation supports being hacked then no they will not get fined. The FCC is not some ridiculous organization that goes on witch-hunts. Even if it was not a hacker - it was a technical foul-up, not an intended viewing. The FCC are smart enough to realize that computers have glitches and shit happens.
I could see someone sueing them under the pretense "my baby got scarred from this".
What's so big about this football anyway?
Don't worry about it...just go back to playing your sorcerer of light.
What happens when that embryo develops into a baby - whatever form that baby is?
Embryonic research is OK, I agreed (though many do not) it is not sentient life. But while the first goal of these scientists may have been to fertilize the egg, the next logical step in the search for knowledge "let's see if it comes to term and we now have a new species." It's morally DARK area and potential reprecussions could be severe if the experiment goes bad (e.g. it has cancer, it develops a disease that jumps to us, it eats your face."
The Nazi community defined that Jews were subhuman.
I'm a jew and an israeli, a by-product of th Holocaust. Stop playing the Holocaust card - it demeans what happend. People pop that word around way too much and it does nothing but getting people sick of hearing it.
The NAZI's were not the majority of society, they were the vast minority. And even in that minority there were many who did what they were told because they were told to do so by their leaders. This is not uncommon (there was a study done about people following authority even if it meant hurting innocents).
Not to also forget - imprisoning, torturing, killing, enlsaving people is flat out wrong. It is not a gray side. If you need confirmation of that then ask yourself this - would you be ok if smoeone imprisoned you, tortured you, enslaved you and then killed you? If the answer is "hell f'n no" then you know it is morally wrong.
Inventing new life should not be taken lightly. Mixing species that have never been done before? Make sure you don't accidentally create a species that will eat us, or cause disease in us, or cause moral issues "how do we treat it"
So if I have the money to do research that is considered inhumane I should be able to do it because I can? I have a gun, I can shoot someone, I guess I should do it. There are consequences in life and we have to think about the reprecussions before we move on.
Once they create a life, saying "oh maybe this wasn't a bad idea, kill it" could be more wrong. Then how do you deal with it if you don't? The prejudice it will deal with (trust me we have plenty to go around). What if it dies horribly due to germs/diseases...or it kills us because of it's germs/diseases? Evolution takes time, and to jump-start it or cross boundries has a lot of risk.
When you start messing with things like this it is ok for people to step in and say "no this is a bad idea". And yes, we can draw the lines. There absolute blacks and whites, and those are easy moral choices - the gray choices are the hard ones.
Nutshell: Think about the potential dangers - if they are there then do some pre-research before conducting your work.
I am a fairly reasonable person and have yet to be convinced why software patents are useless and/or harmful. Like anything else, if abused they can be harmful but if applied correctly they allow a company/person reap rewards on the time/money they spent developing something. I can't fault someone who wants to get paid for their work...namely because I like getting a paycheck for the work that *I* do - and so do the rest of you.
I hope they make a ruling that prevents patents of items that are currently improbable/possible and too vague. For example "I patent a teleporting device, that transforms objects to atoms, transmits them to another location, and then reforms the atoms into it's previous state." should not be allowed if the person doesn't 1) have such a device or 2) have the plans to develop it. And by plans meaning "If i had the money this would be REAL, but I don't have the money so it's only on paper".
Software patents are frivolous when they patent technology/methodologies that have already been in use (I think the click-to-buy is one of those situations). But to patent, say MS Office is OK if it helps protect MS office owners when/if someone tries to reverse engineer/pirate/etc the product.
basically: Squash the morons who want to patent things like "Compressing the human lung and then uncompressing the human lung in an automatic, and rhythmic manner to allow a constant flow of gaseous substances from inside and outside of the human body," but protect those who create something that is innovative.
Link to articles? How does this fall under the whistleblower laws? You are thinking of anti-retaliation whistleblower laws which protect someone who reports a company doing something illegally. So he would not have gotten fired for that, he would have gotten fired for sueing them - which does not get protected by whistleblower laws.
According to this article he got a job there with the intent to get information. Again link yours and what makes you determine that MS is wrong.
Hopefully the government uses this magnificent tool wisely when it gets it in 2012
Yup, they will be the first people able to play Crysis.
Ummm, folks? They're Canadian college students, tech school level, not university. They designed and built a 2m band 5 watt transceiver.
Dude..."They're Canadian" is enough. All they have to do to impress the world is manage to breathe!
Yea I don't get it, why would this be bad? Why would we be proud/happy if they didn't have permission and contacted them anyhow? Life in space, while cool, is very dangerous. The people up there need to know who they are speaking with - especially IF it is a prank caller trying to make themselves come off as NASA.
Yeah, after all, it's not as if Microsoft ever steals other companies (cough Netscape, Corel) ideas or software, or been involved in U.S. or EU patent infringement cases and found guilty. I'm sure they are completely innocent with nothing to hide and would comply with a court order to turn-over information, rather than shred documents.
Yup, then they get sued. They have to spend tons of money on legal council. Then, if they lose, they have to pay millions. I guess this guy should have to pay millions...oh wait it's OK what he did because he did it against Microsoft and it's now not information stealing since it is not tangeable...right?