And I'd suggest NOT doing this (unless you've been attacked by Jack personally). If PA want to file a complaint, then they're wel within their rights, but the last thing the Florida Bar association wants is 10000 angry geeks demanding he be censured.
They will still have a list of people who bought that type of printer. If the owner of the specific printer hasn't sent in their registration card, eliminate everyone who has done. Detectives probably know how to narrow the list further.
Not that I'm too worried. The amount of legwork required means this is going to be impractical for anything other than a major crime.
Rememebr, if you want to be a counterfeitter, buy a printer in a different state (or better - a different country) with a stolen credit card. Cash might be too suspicious.
Alternatively, steal the printer.
One of the benefits of counterfeitting is that almost any incidental crime you commit is going to have a considerably smaller effect penalty than counterfeitting.
I turn my computer on and off at least once a day. I also keep it longer than a tpyical replacement cycle. I have yet to need to replace any component in a computer. Unlike an electric lightbulb, there's no heavy strain operations like heating and cooling a filament. Computers are really quite reliable.
Most of those computers listed by thegrandparent would have been experienced in the home. Something like an Amiga or and Apple II was considerably cheaper than a contemporary PC, and could do most of what the PC could do. Windows required a hard disk at the very least, and a lot of memory. If Microsoft didn't exist, we'd still have a computer in every home. It may even have been better.
What, like bringing BASIC programming to the masses? Standing up to Apple to prove that they don't own the WIMP GUI? Setting up the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation?
And what harm has he done? Reduced choice for a load of rich geeks? Competed unfairly with some other companies, thus making some highly employable people have to find other jobs?
Anyone who uses "A Modest Proposal" as a title is clearly not very good at satire [1]. When Swift used it, the title itself was ironic. These days it's used to bludgeon people with the idea that it's satire. The subtlety is lost.
[1]Except Jonathan Swift of course, since he was being original.
Remember a while ago, a kid was murdered, and the tabloids associated it with the game Manhunt (before it was discovered that thr game belonged to the victim). A slimy US lawyer offered to represent the family of the victim. That was Jack Thomspon.
Oh no... It was satire. At least the game proposal was inherently satrical and actually seemed fairly amusing, albeit a little in your face. He was saying that if we think it's so harmless, we should make ourselves the target. Otherwise we're just a bunch of hypocrites. So a bunch of modders did so, proving we're not a bunch of hypocrites, using the literary device of irony.
It's the offer of $10000 that we didn't think was satiricial because, as you say, there's no satire involved. It sounds like a geniune enticement.
The only people who listen to him now are people who hate him. Anyone with credibility realises that he's not a safe person to associate with.
Seriously - have you seen any of his reported conversations? Any response to a gamer seems to be something that 12 year old would write on IRC. He uses ad hominenm attacks, and false accusations. He accused Janet Reno of being a closet lesbian being blackmailed by the Mafia. Anyone who associates with him can easily be warned off.
If this is genuinely to gather evidence than that's fair enough, and in this case, it's probably a net good. Can't say I'm totally happy about it though. The problem is I keep getting the impression this has been done specifically to shut him down, and the "gathering evidence" was simply a pretext.
Has he been tried and convicted for these crimes, and sentenced to have his computers confiscated? If not, then legally speaking, he's not guilty.
Yes, he probably has been doing something wrong, but he's being punished for it without a fair trial. Do we really want the government punishing people without absolute proof?
If this was a comparable crime, then why wasn't he arrested and charged? Anyone with mounds of crack, or kiddie porn or anything like thatwould have been arrested on the spot.
Yeah, because I'd love it if my employer could be shut down and put me out of a job simply because he was accused but was not neccesarily guilty of a crime.
They may have had a warrant, but what if he wasn't doing anything wrong? Then he's being deprived of his property by the government despite being not doing anything wrong.
Thats true, but I don't see that as a problem. I've known a lot of geeks with that sort of personality. Arrogance is esential for progress. A lot of steps forward have been made because some geek dismissed established theory.
Okay - The most recent terror attack I recall was on the Lonodn Underground. This used suicide bombers. We also saw a large attack on trains in Spain, involving planted bombs and another suicide attack involving hijacked planes. There seems to be no evidence that terrorists have any substantial technological capabilities.
All of these were possible without maps.
The locations of most public buildings is already very well known. Government tends not to keep its existence a secret.
I just don't quite see how the information gleaned from google maps is really going to help a terrorist organisation any more than, say, mobile telephones and large bags.
Come on. Bill Gates gave $28 billion to Charity over a period when Larry Ellison of Oracle (who is almost as rich) gave $321 million. If the tax benefits were worth it, all the billionaires would be donating comparable amounts.
Well... perhaps. But then you get to a pointless analogy and bickering until both sides have an analogy that while being perfectly analogous, doesn't actually clear up the whether the company should be held responsible.
But lets stick with this for now. Just how much responsbility should a car company take over security? If the locks didn't lock, should they be held accountable? If there is an easily exploitable flaw then should they be held accountable? What if they bought their locks from another supplier (which most companies will do). Who should be held responsible? Should the designer of the lock also be held responsible?
Hold the vendors responsible. They are responsible for 100% of all problems that are not the fault of the customer.
The vendor then holds the devloper responsible. They are responsible for 100% of all vendor bugs that are not the responsibility of the vendor.
The developer then holds the programmer responsible. He or she is responsible for 100% of all developer bugs that are not the responsibility of the developer.
It's the way it works everywhere else. If you have a faulty product, you take it back to the shop. They then take it back to the manufacturer and if it's a fault caused by a specific individual, they either sack him or train him properly. The purchaser would generally not sue the guy on the production line or the designer, even if it was their fault.
There are good reasons for doing things this way. It preents people from passing the buck. It means each entity along the line is wholly responsible for ensuring quality.
I mean, the "hot coffee" mod was pretty lame, all things considered. If you were tittilated by the poorly pixilated hanky panky that happened in that mod, you haven't seen a naked chick or had sex, and probably spank your monkey while sitting in a chat room.
Even then, it was no more erotic than Team America. Anyone who downloaded it did it for one of two reasons. Either they thought it was funny, or they wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
Slashdot Mirror
And I'd suggest NOT doing this (unless you've been attacked by Jack personally). If PA want to file a complaint, then they're wel within their rights, but the last thing the Florida Bar association wants is 10000 angry geeks demanding he be censured.
Besides - that would be harrassment.
His address is fairly public. He probably gets plenty of spam already
They will still have a list of people who bought that type of printer. If the owner of the specific printer hasn't sent in their registration card, eliminate everyone who has done. Detectives probably know how to narrow the list further.
Not that I'm too worried. The amount of legwork required means this is going to be impractical for anything other than a major crime.
Rememebr, if you want to be a counterfeitter, buy a printer in a different state (or better - a different country) with a stolen credit card. Cash might be too suspicious.
Alternatively, steal the printer.
One of the benefits of counterfeitting is that almost any incidental crime you commit is going to have a considerably smaller effect penalty than counterfeitting.
I turn my computer on and off at least once a day. I also keep it longer than a tpyical replacement cycle. I have yet to need to replace any component in a computer. Unlike an electric lightbulb, there's no heavy strain operations like heating and cooling a filament. Computers are really quite reliable.
Most of those computers listed by thegrandparent would have been experienced in the home. Something like an Amiga or and Apple II was considerably cheaper than a contemporary PC, and could do most of what the PC could do. Windows required a hard disk at the very least, and a lot of memory. If Microsoft didn't exist, we'd still have a computer in every home. It may even have been better.
What, like bringing BASIC programming to the masses? Standing up to Apple to prove that they don't own the WIMP GUI? Setting up the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation?
And what harm has he done? Reduced choice for a load of rich geeks? Competed unfairly with some other companies, thus making some highly employable people have to find other jobs?
God. He's evil.
Anyone who uses "A Modest Proposal" as a title is clearly not very good at satire [1]. When Swift used it, the title itself was ironic. These days it's used to bludgeon people with the idea that it's satire. The subtlety is lost.
[1]Except Jonathan Swift of course, since he was being original.
In fact, GTA itself is satirical.
Perhaps Jack should find out the what the word "irony" means as well.
Remember a while ago, a kid was murdered, and the tabloids associated it with the game Manhunt (before it was discovered that thr game belonged to the victim). A slimy US lawyer offered to represent the family of the victim. That was Jack Thomspon.
Oh no... It was satire. At least the game proposal was inherently satrical and actually seemed fairly amusing, albeit a little in your face. He was saying that if we think it's so harmless, we should make ourselves the target. Otherwise we're just a bunch of hypocrites. So a bunch of modders did so, proving we're not a bunch of hypocrites, using the literary device of irony.
It's the offer of $10000 that we didn't think was satiricial because, as you say, there's no satire involved. It sounds like a geniune enticement.
Because it's so much fun.
The only people who listen to him now are people who hate him. Anyone with credibility realises that he's not a safe person to associate with.
Seriously - have you seen any of his reported conversations? Any response to a gamer seems to be something that 12 year old would write on IRC. He uses ad hominenm attacks, and false accusations. He accused Janet Reno of being a closet lesbian being blackmailed by the Mafia. Anyone who associates with him can easily be warned off.
I think he does more harm to his cause than good.
If this is genuinely to gather evidence than that's fair enough, and in this case, it's probably a net good. Can't say I'm totally happy about it though. The problem is I keep getting the impression this has been done specifically to shut him down, and the "gathering evidence" was simply a pretext.
Has he been tried and convicted for these crimes, and sentenced to have his computers confiscated? If not, then legally speaking, he's not guilty.
Yes, he probably has been doing something wrong, but he's being punished for it without a fair trial. Do we really want the government punishing people without absolute proof?
If this was a comparable crime, then why wasn't he arrested and charged? Anyone with mounds of crack, or kiddie porn or anything like thatwould have been arrested on the spot.
Yeah, because I'd love it if my employer could be shut down and put me out of a job simply because he was accused but was not neccesarily guilty of a crime.
But the principle is still unjust.
They may have had a warrant, but what if he wasn't doing anything wrong? Then he's being deprived of his property by the government despite being not doing anything wrong.
Thats true, but I don't see that as a problem. I've known a lot of geeks with that sort of personality. Arrogance is esential for progress. A lot of steps forward have been made because some geek dismissed established theory.
Okay - The most recent terror attack I recall was on the Lonodn Underground. This used suicide bombers. We also saw a large attack on trains in Spain, involving planted bombs and another suicide attack involving hijacked planes. There seems to be no evidence that terrorists have any substantial technological capabilities.
All of these were possible without maps.
The locations of most public buildings is already very well known. Government tends not to keep its existence a secret.
I just don't quite see how the information gleaned from google maps is really going to help a terrorist organisation any more than, say, mobile telephones and large bags.
What I find fascinating is that Bill took a couple of hours to get it, but he kept plugging away until eventually he got it.
I find that sort of tenacity quite remarkable.
Why aren't they outsourcing this to China?
Come on. Bill Gates gave $28 billion to Charity over a period when Larry Ellison of Oracle (who is almost as rich) gave $321 million. If the tax benefits were worth it, all the billionaires would be donating comparable amounts.
Well... perhaps. But then you get to a pointless analogy and bickering until both sides have an analogy that while being perfectly analogous, doesn't actually clear up the whether the company should be held responsible.
But lets stick with this for now. Just how much responsbility should a car company take over security? If the locks didn't lock, should they be held accountable? If there is an easily exploitable flaw then should they be held accountable? What if they bought their locks from another supplier (which most companies will do). Who should be held responsible? Should the designer of the lock also be held responsible?
Hold the vendors responsible. They are responsible for 100% of all problems that are not the fault of the customer.
The vendor then holds the devloper responsible. They are responsible for 100% of all vendor bugs that are not the responsibility of the vendor.
The developer then holds the programmer responsible. He or she is responsible for 100% of all developer bugs that are not the responsibility of the developer.
It's the way it works everywhere else. If you have a faulty product, you take it back to the shop. They then take it back to the manufacturer and if it's a fault caused by a specific individual, they either sack him or train him properly. The purchaser would generally not sue the guy on the production line or the designer, even if it was their fault.
There are good reasons for doing things this way. It preents people from passing the buck. It means each entity along the line is wholly responsible for ensuring quality.
I mean, the "hot coffee" mod was pretty lame, all things considered. If you were tittilated by the poorly pixilated hanky panky that happened in that mod, you haven't seen a naked chick or had sex, and probably spank your monkey while sitting in a chat room.
Even then, it was no more erotic than Team America. Anyone who downloaded it did it for one of two reasons. Either they thought it was funny, or they wanted to see what all the fuss was about.