So he's an attention whore. That's all fine and dandy, but the last time I checked the FBI had better things to do. You just said it yourself: There's no evidence at all that he had anything to do with anonymous, its activities, or any of its affiliated groups, everything about the guy can be laid at the feet of the media, who are more than happy to sensationalize lies. If the layman on the internet knows that, the FBI knows that. So why are they raiding his house? What's there to gain? Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people. Oh right, that's what the FBI is for these days.
Barrett Brown's lack of affiliation with anonymous isn't what makes this newsworthy, it's that despite knowing that, the FBI were more than happy to ruin him in order to send a message.
The data will remain uninspected until after an appeal by the defendant. Not that I think the appeal will work mind you, but I feel this needs to be said, since the headline is misleading and makes it sound like the NYPD are tearing through the turned over twitters as we speak. This is not the case: twitter was forced to turn over the requested data to the court by today, or face stupidly high fines and a few contempt of court charges.
It's actually rather interesting: the Government is pretty used to Corporations lining up to give them all the data they ask for. These same companies steal millions from the public, and get a slap on the wrist. Then when somebody doesn't play ball, suddenly this corporation is obviously deserving of crippling fines!
So, you think Samsung should just have carte blanche to copy the iPhone 3GS (the issue that set this whole thing off) with no repercussions?
Do I think that? No, but this is the way these companies have chosen to operate over the years. They all copy from one another, and nobody says anything so long as everybody agrees to keep quiet. Samsung gets to copy the iPhone's design, and Apple gets to use transmission protocols that Samsung has patents on. Again, I think this this is an incredibly ass-backwards way of conducting business. I wasn't saying it was stupid from a moral standpoint. I'm saying it was stupid from a business-relations standpoint, because now Apple has made itself the target of every patent holding tech-firm. If Apple is willing to sue Samsung, they're willing to sue anybody else, right? So all the other companies are dog-piling Apple in the hopes that they back down out of fear of their business being crippled.
Why didn't these two companies realize this and come to some kind of truce before it ever got to court?
Because Apple made the stupid move of suing Samsung in the first place. The telecommunications and technology companies were previously in a sort of Mutually Assured Destruction scenario: where everybody held patents that they could sue almost any other company for, but they kept quiet so long as those other companies didn't sue in turn. It wasn't a good system by any means, but it more or less worked. Apple suing Samsung was the equivalent of throwing MAD out the window and jamming their finger on the big red button, and praying everybody is dead before they get a chance to fire back. Surprise surprise: Samsung is still alive, they also have a big red button, and they're pissed.
Not to you, but it does to Apple. They fired first, and now instead of taking the usual potshots at one another, all the other companies are just firing on Apple. At the very least, they seem determined to reduce Apple to a cinder before turning on each other.
Lobbyists only really flourish because of how divided the public is on most major issues; they can be shouted down when people are coordinated and loud enough. Remember that SOPA and PIPA had a many lobbyists, and a LOT of lobby money behind it. The problem right now is that your average person isn't concerned about the problems with patent law, either because they don't recognize the problem, or they consider the topic too difficult to invest time into. Let's just imagine, for a second, that Samsung wins this upcoming patent battle, and the iPhone 5 gets an import ban in the US. THAT will move the common man to action, and if it is explained to them that our broken patent laws are responsible, there will almost certainly be enough of an outcry for congress to do something that they'll do it, even if they have to step on a few lobbyist toes to do so.
With any luck, this tangled web of patent wars will go on for so long, and reach such an intensity, that legislatures will finally recognize the problems with current patent laws. If our court system has to be tied up into a knot who's density rivals that of dark matter in order to get the point across, then so be it.
Are you watching TV for the right reasons? Are you listening to music for the right reasons? Stop trying to single out Video Games as some sort of demon media that needs to be "justified" in some bizarre way before it's an acceptable activity. I play games for entertainment and to relieve stress; the same reasons that the majority of Americans spend hours in front of their televisions every day. That's all the justification anybody needs, period.
They don't just take that "Day One DLC" that everybody wants so much, and just makes it a part of the initial release at no extra charge. Why does it have to be DLC at all? It's already finished and ready to be played, right? So why isn't already on the disk with the rest of the content I bought? If people are finishing your game and complaining they want more to do, it doesn't mean people want to pay MORE for more content. It means people didn't feel they got $60 worth of content in the game, only for the publisher to turn around and demand more money if you want to be satisfied.
If somebody orders a full cake, you cannot only give them 3/4's of it, charge extra for the remaining 1/4, and then turn around and claim that people are obviously clamoring to pay for that extra 1/4. That's now how it works, Bioware.
The Internet is not required to bow to you or your beliefs. It exists for everyone, everywhere, and is ubiquitous enough that one organization crying foul does not and cannot force the entire system to bend over backwards to meet your desires. If you want to use the internet, use it. If something about it offends you so deeply that you can't stomach to see it continue, then don't use it.
This is not another state run media channel that the Saudis can mold to fit their twisted ideas of morality.
But I was under the impression that drones do eventually need to be refueled and repaired? Which means these things need to come back through national waters and national airspace, where they suddenly fall under the jurisdiction of whatever country they're in to be refueled. Not to mention whoever is doing the refueling is putting themselves at risk. It won't be hard to track where the piracy drone is heading to for its maintenance.
Sounds like a fun idea in theory, but I'm not to sure about the practice.
Slashdot Mirror
So he's an attention whore. That's all fine and dandy, but the last time I checked the FBI had better things to do. You just said it yourself: There's no evidence at all that he had anything to do with anonymous, its activities, or any of its affiliated groups, everything about the guy can be laid at the feet of the media, who are more than happy to sensationalize lies. If the layman on the internet knows that, the FBI knows that. So why are they raiding his house? What's there to gain? Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people. Oh right, that's what the FBI is for these days. Barrett Brown's lack of affiliation with anonymous isn't what makes this newsworthy, it's that despite knowing that, the FBI were more than happy to ruin him in order to send a message.
The data will remain uninspected until after an appeal by the defendant. Not that I think the appeal will work mind you, but I feel this needs to be said, since the headline is misleading and makes it sound like the NYPD are tearing through the turned over twitters as we speak. This is not the case: twitter was forced to turn over the requested data to the court by today, or face stupidly high fines and a few contempt of court charges. It's actually rather interesting: the Government is pretty used to Corporations lining up to give them all the data they ask for. These same companies steal millions from the public, and get a slap on the wrist. Then when somebody doesn't play ball, suddenly this corporation is obviously deserving of crippling fines!
So, you think Samsung should just have carte blanche to copy the iPhone 3GS (the issue that set this whole thing off) with no repercussions?
Do I think that? No, but this is the way these companies have chosen to operate over the years. They all copy from one another, and nobody says anything so long as everybody agrees to keep quiet. Samsung gets to copy the iPhone's design, and Apple gets to use transmission protocols that Samsung has patents on. Again, I think this this is an incredibly ass-backwards way of conducting business. I wasn't saying it was stupid from a moral standpoint. I'm saying it was stupid from a business-relations standpoint, because now Apple has made itself the target of every patent holding tech-firm. If Apple is willing to sue Samsung, they're willing to sue anybody else, right? So all the other companies are dog-piling Apple in the hopes that they back down out of fear of their business being crippled.
Can I come live in your country?
Why didn't these two companies realize this and come to some kind of truce before it ever got to court?
Because Apple made the stupid move of suing Samsung in the first place. The telecommunications and technology companies were previously in a sort of Mutually Assured Destruction scenario: where everybody held patents that they could sue almost any other company for, but they kept quiet so long as those other companies didn't sue in turn. It wasn't a good system by any means, but it more or less worked. Apple suing Samsung was the equivalent of throwing MAD out the window and jamming their finger on the big red button, and praying everybody is dead before they get a chance to fire back. Surprise surprise: Samsung is still alive, they also have a big red button, and they're pissed.
Steve Jobs is like a Japanese Emperor. Just because he's dead doesn't mean he isn't still considered the supreme ruler of his domain.
It doesn't matter who fired first anymore.
Not to you, but it does to Apple. They fired first, and now instead of taking the usual potshots at one another, all the other companies are just firing on Apple. At the very least, they seem determined to reduce Apple to a cinder before turning on each other.
Lobbyists only really flourish because of how divided the public is on most major issues; they can be shouted down when people are coordinated and loud enough. Remember that SOPA and PIPA had a many lobbyists, and a LOT of lobby money behind it. The problem right now is that your average person isn't concerned about the problems with patent law, either because they don't recognize the problem, or they consider the topic too difficult to invest time into. Let's just imagine, for a second, that Samsung wins this upcoming patent battle, and the iPhone 5 gets an import ban in the US. THAT will move the common man to action, and if it is explained to them that our broken patent laws are responsible, there will almost certainly be enough of an outcry for congress to do something that they'll do it, even if they have to step on a few lobbyist toes to do so.
With any luck, this tangled web of patent wars will go on for so long, and reach such an intensity, that legislatures will finally recognize the problems with current patent laws. If our court system has to be tied up into a knot who's density rivals that of dark matter in order to get the point across, then so be it.
sciencedebate.org Consider yourself slashdotted.
Are you watching TV for the right reasons? Are you listening to music for the right reasons? Stop trying to single out Video Games as some sort of demon media that needs to be "justified" in some bizarre way before it's an acceptable activity. I play games for entertainment and to relieve stress; the same reasons that the majority of Americans spend hours in front of their televisions every day. That's all the justification anybody needs, period.
They don't just take that "Day One DLC" that everybody wants so much, and just makes it a part of the initial release at no extra charge. Why does it have to be DLC at all? It's already finished and ready to be played, right? So why isn't already on the disk with the rest of the content I bought? If people are finishing your game and complaining they want more to do, it doesn't mean people want to pay MORE for more content. It means people didn't feel they got $60 worth of content in the game, only for the publisher to turn around and demand more money if you want to be satisfied. If somebody orders a full cake, you cannot only give them 3/4's of it, charge extra for the remaining 1/4, and then turn around and claim that people are obviously clamoring to pay for that extra 1/4. That's now how it works, Bioware.
The Internet is not required to bow to you or your beliefs. It exists for everyone, everywhere, and is ubiquitous enough that one organization crying foul does not and cannot force the entire system to bend over backwards to meet your desires. If you want to use the internet, use it. If something about it offends you so deeply that you can't stomach to see it continue, then don't use it. This is not another state run media channel that the Saudis can mold to fit their twisted ideas of morality.
Yo dog.
In other news, the sky is indeed still blue today.
They still have three years to perfect it before Back to the Future lied to us.
Unfortunately they turned down a personalized immune mouse, so nobody saw it coming.
But I was under the impression that drones do eventually need to be refueled and repaired? Which means these things need to come back through national waters and national airspace, where they suddenly fall under the jurisdiction of whatever country they're in to be refueled. Not to mention whoever is doing the refueling is putting themselves at risk. It won't be hard to track where the piracy drone is heading to for its maintenance. Sounds like a fun idea in theory, but I'm not to sure about the practice.