You seem to fail to realize that the only reason why Asus put Linux on their first eee pcs was as a way to bargain Microsoft into giving them cheap Windows XP licenses. It was never about trying to increase the adoption of Linux or even caring about Linux at all. This is why you found Windows XP driver CDs being shipped with the original Linux-only eee pcs.
In case you didn't actually bother to read the parent quote that started this thread:
They could also contain information about their other informants/sources, which journalists typically try to protect. Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.
This isn't saying that for sure there is some other unnamed sources they are trying to protect, but if there is and they are withholding this evidence to protect their identities than it very much is the height of journalistic integrity. Now it is also likely there are no other sources. We can't really say and Greenfield is mostly just blubbering.
He also violated a contract he voluntarily signed with the government in which he said that in exchange for being given access to classified information that if he ever leaked it during his life that he would face criminal charges. Whether or not what he did was for good reasons or not, he has to live with the consequences of violating that contract he signed.
This has to be one of the worst uses of a 1984 quote ever. How is it not the height of journalistic integrity to protect the identity of your sources that wish to remain anonymous? Are you saying that they should be giving up this material and thus compromising their source?
Still, i prefer the nice, simple look of the average Java windows. Reminds me of older times when OSes just had nice, simple windows, none of this shiny nonsense or stupidly high resource usage just for the sake of high resource usage "since it is there". (I would rather not use my GPU unless needed, thank you! Still have power to pay for now!)
You're correct. Java manages to both look like shit and be resource hungry. The worst of both worlds!
Isn't having a script to continually request a page for one web site the technical equivilant of marching back and forth in front of a building holding a picket sign?
No. A DDoS prevents anyone from accessing the store. A protest is only an annoyance but people can still go into the store by going around the protestors.
No, this proves that being worthless scum whores might have some consequences.
Which are what? A script kiddy mob is going to try to destroy your business in the name of "freedom"? While all that is being accomplished is the stifling of someone else's freedoms?
Mastercard, PayPal, Visa, EveryDNS and Amazon were all perfectly happy taking the money, they knew what they were taking money for and then chose later on to flip flop on the issue.
Bullshit. There is almost zero chance that any actual human was involved in the business transaction between Wikileaks and these companies until they were notified of the situation after the fact. It's all automated.
There was no business reason for Amazon to quit working with Wikileaks, they did nothing illegal. Amazon interfered in the freedom of Wikileaks to appease US and other governments.
So basically every company is somehow now obligated to do business with Wikileaks or else they have to face their business being interrupted by a bunch of script kiddies?
If we accept their behaviour USG can effectively destroy freedom of speech by proxy.
Because DDoSing these businesses is going to do anything but turn more people against Wikileaks? And why should Amazon suffer just because they choose not to do business with someone? Do they not also have the right to choose who they want to associate with?
What's to jailbreak? These are PS3s they bought a long while ago and they wouldn't be updating the firmware since playing the latest Blu-Rays and getting on PSN isn't a high priority for this lab.
But you aren't being shown the copyright agreement in that case, right?
So what? Copyrights are automatic and implicit. You don't need to be shown a copyright agreement in order to still be bound by the copyrights to the work.
So yes in general there are many circumstances when we should feel sorry for someone being punished when he breaks an agreements.
Why? Nothing of what has happened to him was forced upon him. He agreed to be punished in the manner in which he is receiving if he broke his agreement.
Because it's not like anyone has been able to find out how to game Google before, right? Right? Someone will spend plenty of time learning how this works and will use it to destroy people's page rank. This is guaranteed.
He was running his business to the letter of the law.
No, he wasn't. He wasn't running his business anymore to the letter of the law than if I try to claim that reselling a bunch of unencrypted backup copies of my DVDs is running a business according to the letter of the law. These exemptions cover when you do these actions for your own personal use, not so that you can do so in order to make a commercial business selling unlocked phones and unencrypted DVDs.
The notion of whether he claimed it was new or not is irrelevant. The point is that the exemption only covers jailbreaking phones for your own use. It doesn't cover jailbreaking phones and then reselling them as part of a business. This seems to be the point that Techdirt nor the rest of the whining idiots seem to realize.
If he was jailbreaking these phones for his own use it would be covered. The exemption doesn't cover when you do this and then try to sell those phones (or DVDs as in the second example I provided).
Exactly. Plus if he really did believe in his cause, he should be more than willing to man up and accept the consequences of his actions. It's funny how so many people on this site proclaim that people need to be held accountable for their actions and then think that people who willingly break the law, and in direct violation to a contract that he willingly signed, should just be able to evade the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to fail to realize that the only reason why Asus put Linux on their first eee pcs was as a way to bargain Microsoft into giving them cheap Windows XP licenses. It was never about trying to increase the adoption of Linux or even caring about Linux at all. This is why you found Windows XP driver CDs being shipped with the original Linux-only eee pcs.
Compromising which source, exactly?
In case you didn't actually bother to read the parent quote that started this thread:
They could also contain information about their other informants/sources, which journalists typically try to protect. Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.
This isn't saying that for sure there is some other unnamed sources they are trying to protect, but if there is and they are withholding this evidence to protect their identities than it very much is the height of journalistic integrity. Now it is also likely there are no other sources. We can't really say and Greenfield is mostly just blubbering.
He also violated a contract he voluntarily signed with the government in which he said that in exchange for being given access to classified information that if he ever leaked it during his life that he would face criminal charges. Whether or not what he did was for good reasons or not, he has to live with the consequences of violating that contract he signed.
This has to be one of the worst uses of a 1984 quote ever. How is it not the height of journalistic integrity to protect the identity of your sources that wish to remain anonymous? Are you saying that they should be giving up this material and thus compromising their source?
How about generics that don't require tons of boxing and unboxing operations?
Still, i prefer the nice, simple look of the average Java windows. Reminds me of older times when OSes just had nice, simple windows, none of this shiny nonsense or stupidly high resource usage just for the sake of high resource usage "since it is there". (I would rather not use my GPU unless needed, thank you! Still have power to pay for now!)
You're correct. Java manages to both look like shit and be resource hungry. The worst of both worlds!
The only positive result that can come out of these attacks is that the next tech companies might push back against the government harder,
No, the only thing to come out of this is to turn more people and companies against Wikileaks.
Isn't having a script to continually request a page for one web site the technical equivilant of marching back and forth in front of a building holding a picket sign?
No. A DDoS prevents anyone from accessing the store. A protest is only an annoyance but people can still go into the store by going around the protestors.
No, this proves that being worthless scum whores might have some consequences.
Which are what? A script kiddy mob is going to try to destroy your business in the name of "freedom"? While all that is being accomplished is the stifling of someone else's freedoms?
Mastercard, PayPal, Visa, EveryDNS and Amazon were all perfectly happy taking the money, they knew what they were taking money for and then chose later on to flip flop on the issue.
Bullshit. There is almost zero chance that any actual human was involved in the business transaction between Wikileaks and these companies until they were notified of the situation after the fact. It's all automated.
And if it does hurt Amazon and cause an economic impact, all it will do is turn more people against both Wikileaks and Anonymous.
And yet Amazon, Mastercard, etc are being denied their right to freedom of association.
There was no business reason for Amazon to quit working with Wikileaks, they did nothing illegal. Amazon interfered in the freedom of Wikileaks to appease US and other governments.
So basically every company is somehow now obligated to do business with Wikileaks or else they have to face their business being interrupted by a bunch of script kiddies?
If we accept their behaviour USG can effectively destroy freedom of speech by proxy.
Because DDoSing these businesses is going to do anything but turn more people against Wikileaks? And why should Amazon suffer just because they choose not to do business with someone? Do they not also have the right to choose who they want to associate with?
So Amazon doesn't agree with Wikileaks cause and blocked their business.
Blocked what? Since when are these companies obligated to provide services to Wikileaks?
They’re not funding a church, they’re funding a construction project that will generate tourism which happens to be owned and operated by a church.
Huh? They aren't funding the church... yet they are funding the church. Contradict yourself much?
What's to jailbreak? These are PS3s they bought a long while ago and they wouldn't be updating the firmware since playing the latest Blu-Rays and getting on PSN isn't a high priority for this lab.
Because PS3s are comparatively cheap as nodes to build a supercomputer with?
And what happens when a capsule full of something like corn syrup breaks?
I'm sorry but you seem to be using outdated technology. It is now referred to as "corn sugar".
But you aren't being shown the copyright agreement in that case, right?
So what? Copyrights are automatic and implicit. You don't need to be shown a copyright agreement in order to still be bound by the copyrights to the work.
So yes in general there are many circumstances when we should feel sorry for someone being punished when he breaks an agreements.
Why? Nothing of what has happened to him was forced upon him. He agreed to be punished in the manner in which he is receiving if he broke his agreement.
This kind of selective pressure will reward those companies who can afford to pay people to destroy the page ranking of their competitors.
FTFY.
Because it's not like anyone has been able to find out how to game Google before, right? Right? Someone will spend plenty of time learning how this works and will use it to destroy people's page rank. This is guaranteed.
He was running his business to the letter of the law.
No, he wasn't. He wasn't running his business anymore to the letter of the law than if I try to claim that reselling a bunch of unencrypted backup copies of my DVDs is running a business according to the letter of the law. These exemptions cover when you do these actions for your own personal use, not so that you can do so in order to make a commercial business selling unlocked phones and unencrypted DVDs.
The notion of whether he claimed it was new or not is irrelevant. The point is that the exemption only covers jailbreaking phones for your own use. It doesn't cover jailbreaking phones and then reselling them as part of a business. This seems to be the point that Techdirt nor the rest of the whining idiots seem to realize.
If he was jailbreaking these phones for his own use it would be covered. The exemption doesn't cover when you do this and then try to sell those phones (or DVDs as in the second example I provided).
Exactly. Plus if he really did believe in his cause, he should be more than willing to man up and accept the consequences of his actions. It's funny how so many people on this site proclaim that people need to be held accountable for their actions and then think that people who willingly break the law, and in direct violation to a contract that he willingly signed, should just be able to evade the consequences.