Every new platform is difficult if it's not what you've been doing. I don't feel sorry for these people; "
If a system is hard to develop for then the developers will be spending more time just making the game work instead of making the game great. Systems that are hard to develop for tend to fail. the Intel i860 cpu, the apx432, the Connection Machine... The Itantium is a classic example of how hard to develop for has in impact on success. It floundered early one because the compilers available at launch couldn't generate good code. "Exclusives are over-rated; that's why you see a lot less of them these days. " So then buy the cheapest system that will play them. That isn't the PS3. To pay a premium for a console there must be software that makes the premium worth while.
While I think the adding of PVR functionality to the PS3 is a good idea it does raise some issues. 1. Can you save the video on other mass storage devices? A home server? an external USB hard drive? 2. Can you use it as a DVR while your playing games? If not then you will miss a show or not get to play a game when you want to. 3. How much DRM will you have put up with? Can I take the show and put it on my PSP? Will I have the option of watching TV with my PSP? Could I forward a port on my fire wall and stream my shows to my PSP anywhere I have wifi? Can I put my shows on my video iPod without a bunch of hacks I get off the internet? Sony's track record makes me think that I will have to give my credit card number each time I watch any show or fast forward a commercial. 4. Will it be a good DVR? Yes it is nice that a game console can do something besides play games but it needs to play games first. It has to have good games. It has to be fun. It is nice if your car has a good stereo but if it doesn't drive well it is a bad car.
Gee I have been predicting this from the start. What I wonder in addition to all of your questions is. 1. Will it let you save the shows to a memory stick to watch on your PSP? 2 Will it let you use your PSP to watch shows over wifi served from your PS3?
Was that gross or net? I think people value Google in the market for it's name. It has also really attracted a lot of extremely talented people. I get the feeling that Google is planing on expanding into other areas and doing a lot of research. It may be over valued but I hop not. I am hoping that Google will be the next Bell labs. MySpace and all the social networking sites I feel are the biggest losers we are likely to see.
Google is making good money. The question is when people get tired of MySpace will the ad bubble burst? I don't really think so. Using the Internet is now totally ingrained in to our way of working. Need to find out where something is? Go to Google maps. What to find out about something Google it or use the Wikipedia. Weather? Sales? Internet. Now some of the "social" sites like MySpace, Facebook "they should have taken the billion", Flick'r, and maybe YouTube will go the way of the sock puppet but the Internet is going to be around forever.
Thank you that is exactly what I was saying. Now replace the deminging and nasty word "silly" with "different" and you will be on your way to being a tolerant person.
"To think someone has some silly beliefs does NOT mean you can't respect that person for other attributes or accomplishments."
Well the optimistic view point is that smart people can think ahead and see the consequences of their actions. Having sex at a young age does have consequences so for the benefit to out way the risks smart people tend to be more selective. My being more selective they increase their odds of being happy in the long run and having a successful life long relationship and pass those predispositions on to their children. They will not just have sex with anyone that will put out. The pessimistic view. Intelligence is now an evolutionary negative selector for reproduction. I hope that the first is true but I really fear that both are true.
Funny but I was thinking exactly the same thing. For 20 servers? Actually that would be almost as simple. Get a bunch of network serial servers. Modify each one so that RX conductor is snipped. Attach the servers to a private network to your logging machine.
"I wonder if IBM factored in the number oddball projects that require Windows systems in their server count? Windows won't run in a zSeries VM, and there is plenty of software out there that is still Windows only." Not on servers. IBM uses Lotus Notes so no need for Exchange Servers. They probably us DB2 for any SQL systems so no MSSQL servers. Frankly I can't think of many reasons that IBM would have to keep many Windows servers around except for testing IBM software running on a Windows server.
"And of course you shouldn't forget that there have been terrible things done by people of faith, as well as great things." And equally terrible things have been by people lacking faith or at the least professed atheists. Mao Zedong , Kim Il-sung, and Pol Pot come to mind.
Why do you think that I feel the need for you too take me seriously? I really don't care except that I am trying to teach tolerance and respect. I don't feel the need to convince you too share my faith. You must find your own answers. I am trying to teach you to respect others. But you make a point. Part of my faith is a belief that I must share it with others. In this case I am trying to share the teaching that one should respect others.
I must apologize with getting you two confused but the statements from you two are so close in tone and content that it is like getting caught between two Jesuits.
Actually the gentleman was speaking British not English. I doubt that anybody from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the US would have caught all the cultural references in the original post. That twelve quid for all the movies you can watch would have a great deal when I was a teen. I knew what was meant buy a tweleve quid movie pass but the Orange phones where a complete mystery to me.
"Wrong premise again. You just claimed that empirically minded people have no doubts about anything. That's a straw-man, and it's the opposite of reality." No you are making a wrong premise. My claim is those that claim that they are entirely empirically minded are deluding themselves. I know many people that are empirically minded. I am actually very empirically minded. Many years ago I took a lot of logic and philosophy courses and even had a paper published. But I also know that there is a part of my decsion making that is based just on faith and opinion. I have a certain basic view of the universe that is based on some unprovable assumptions that to me seem to be absolute truths. Some of them are as simple as it is better to be kind than too be cruel. I am not trying to convince you that you should believe in God. What I am trying to get you to do is to respect people of faith. Maybe to get you over you fantasy that your lack of faith makes you superior to people that are religious. I wouldn't try to teach you to become spiritual. I don't know if that can be taught and even if it could be I am not sure I have the skill to teach it. I am trying to teach you respect for others and tolerance.
So why should you look down on people of faith? You made the statement as to why shouldn't you look down on people of faith. The answer is that you shouldn't look down on them because they may have a lot to teach you?. Knuth the only great figure? How about Alan Ashton and Ray Noorda? BTW Knuth is is a great figure in Computer Science. You have made one step forward. You shouldn't look down on people that don't share you beliefs because they may other things to teach you.
"And why shouldn't I look down on someone who holds beliefs that are no more real to me than a child's game of make believe?"
Why should you look down on anyone? Especially when there is proof that there are people of faith that are in every measurable way your intellectual equal or superior. Would you look down on J.R. Tolken, C.S. Lewis, Donald Knuth, Oskar Schindler , Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Bono, Orson Scott Card, and Martin Luther King? Exactly how many Nobel prizes do you have, how lives have you saved, how many prizes for literature, now many peoples hearts have you touched that you feel comfortable to hold yourself above these people?
Two comments come to mind.
on
Blue Blu-ray
·
· Score: 1
PS3 the console for the lonely man. and Do we really want high def porn?
You see one a human is so sure that that one bases their belief system entirely on scientific empiricism are most almost always just fooling themselves. What is worse they then elevate their option to that of scientific fact even if there is no basis.
A great example is when it comes to abortion rights. I happen to be technically pro choice in that I don't think that it should be illegal. My choice in the matter is based on some beliefs that I know not everyone shares and I must accept that as a fact. Would I be happy if no one ever choose to get an abortion again? Yes I would. But when you convince yourself that your opinions/beliefs are totally based on scientific facts you remove that doubt. It doesn't matter if you are sure that you have scientific proof of God or if you are completely sure that your entire belief system is based on scientific empiricism. The real truth is that you and I and everyone have deep beliefs that are not biased on any scientific empiricism. Some of those beliefs seem to border on the universal. The concept that one should be free to make their own choices or that you should care for you offspring do seem almost hardwired. When you take away from yourself the doubt of I believe then you become less tolerant not more tolerant. Your very statement that you look down on people of faith pretty much proves it. You think that you are intellectually superior to people like Donald Knuth and myself. And not I am not in the same league as Donald Knuth. I just know that he is a person of deep faith. So yes you are acting like a "faithful athiest" you are sure that you are making judgments based only on facts. Yet the facts don't back you up.
"Sorry, that's not going to change. People who think evidence is the foundation of knowledge will always look down on the faithful, who take pride in believing something despite a complete lack of (empirical) evidence. The faithful can, of course, look down on the scientifically-minded as being "the devil" or whatever."
Except those very people are deluding themselves that they are rational in all things when some of their beliefs are nothing but a faith that they have some greater knowledge of right and wrong then the next person.
I will match my knowledge of science with any of the faithful atheists out there.
Nethack is good enough for me! I don't think you will ever see a lot of high end FOSS games. How would the developers get paid. Yes I said it get paid. A good commercial quality game is a lot of work. Unless Novell or Redhat decide that they need some games to push Linux where will the funding come from? What we need are... Closed source games that run on Linux. There are a few already but there needs to be more and people need to be willing to pay for them. So if you want FOSS games prove me wrong and write one that rivals the commercial products out there. If not be happy with Nethack and BZFlag... Which are both really fun games.
"We could take a bell housing off a 66 Pontiac whatever and fit it perfectly to a 68 Chevrolet whatever." Not always. Pontiac motors used the BPO pattern for the bell housing. Chevy used the Chevy pattern. BPO stood for Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile. Things in the 60s where actually a lot different than today. Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Chevy, and Cadillac all used very different engines. A Buick 455, Pontiac 455, and Oldsmobile 455 where not the same motor! "You could fit a Nova front-end to a Ventura and all the bolts matched. " Well yes you could since the Nova and Ventura where the same car with slightly different body panels. Just like the Camaro and Firebird where and many cars today really the same car. Lots of Mercury and Ford cars are the same car with minor difference. As are Toyota and Lexus cars and VW and Audi cars. It is called badge engineering. You make single platform and modify it a little for different market segments.
Take a look at the list of "intellectual requirements". College level physics? Like I said I disagree with that one since I remember the uncertainty principle being taught in my high school physics and honors chemistry class. An understanding of American Political History? An understanding of digital technology?
You don't think that those requirements smack of intellectual elitism? I will skip over the Star Trek requirement since I think everybody on the planet has seen all the original Star Treks.
They don't want to have every PS3 impounded and destroyed. They want MONEY. By pushing for nuclear option they hope Sony will pay them off. They probably know that they don't have a chance to win in court but by making the stakes so high they are hoping that Sony will just give them a few million to go away. If they where just asking for damages then Sony would without a doubt go to court and beat this case. So they want to push the risk level to a point that Sony will just offer them a wad of cash to get them out of their hair. If they did recall all the PS3 Son would instantly loose not just the console race but it would also kill Blue Ray since the PS3 is the most popular Blue Ray player on the planet. My guess is that Sony will smack them down anyway but it is a good gamble.
I don't agree. My wife loves the show. "You need to have read Asimov and Heinlein" Okay I have read a lot of Asimov and a little of Heinlein. My wife has read none. "You must have seen pretty much all of ST:TOS" I think that is very very common. " You must have a college-level understanding of physics ("no fair! you changed the outcome by measuring it")" I would say that is high school physics but again my wife was a Poly sci major and took no physics. "You must have some understanding of American political history (President Nixon, etc.)" Okay knowing who Nixon was isn't exactly a deep understanding of political history. "You must know a bit about digital technology ("Don't worry, Bender. There's no such thing as 2.")" Maybe. "You must not take religion too seriously ("sweet zombie Jesus!")" This is a big one. I do go to church every Sunday and teach Sunday school as does my wife. We are both VERY religious and take it very seriously. Things like that just don't offend me. Why should would it offend someone that is secure in their faith. I get far more offended by the "free thinkers" on Slashdot that think that their lack of faith is proof of their intellectual superiority over anyone that does follow a religion. I don't think that Futurama failed because it was too "smart" for the masses. What a great way to stroke your own ego to think that a show you really liked required you to be smarter than everyone else. Futurama failed because of it's time slot and bad marketing. If they had put it on after the Simpsons and before King of the Hill and didn't bump it off the air for Football I think it would have been a hit.
Sorry that you where forced to go to church on Sunday night. I missed a lot of Futurama because I chose to go to church on Sunday night. I do agree that the time slot sucked. Same thing for King of the Hill which I also like a lot more than the Simpsons. I would miss it because of church activities or because of some stupid football game. Thank goodness for adult swim.
Not really a fair comparison. For a solder with roommates it is right up there with claiming if you found pot in a dorm that everybody in the dorm was in possession. Many people have NO idea what is on their computer. A modern PC with a large HD is a very big place in which you can loose data. I would think that the huge number of systems running zombies and open mail relays is proof enough of reasonable doubt in this case. The fact that the RIAA published images that they had no rights to seems to me to make them just as guilty as the anybody using a P2P program. They took copyrighted material that they had no rights to and published it for their own proposes. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for P2P users then the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on..
Slashdot Mirror
"Blah blah, poor developers.
Every new platform is difficult if it's not what you've been doing. I don't feel sorry for these people; "
If a system is hard to develop for then the developers will be spending more time just making the game work instead of making the game great. Systems that are hard to develop for tend to fail. the Intel i860 cpu, the apx432, the Connection Machine...
The Itantium is a classic example of how hard to develop for has in impact on success. It floundered early one because the compilers available at launch couldn't generate good code.
"Exclusives are over-rated; that's why you see a lot less of them these days. " So then buy the cheapest system that will play them. That isn't the PS3. To pay a premium for a console there must be software that makes the premium worth while.
While I think the adding of PVR functionality to the PS3 is a good idea it does raise some issues.
1. Can you save the video on other mass storage devices? A home server? an external USB hard drive?
2. Can you use it as a DVR while your playing games? If not then you will miss a show or not get to play a game when you want to.
3. How much DRM will you have put up with? Can I take the show and put it on my PSP? Will I have the option of watching TV with my PSP? Could I forward a port on my fire wall and stream my shows to my PSP anywhere I have wifi? Can I put my shows on my video iPod without a bunch of hacks I get off the internet? Sony's track record makes me think that I will have to give my credit card number each time I watch any show or fast forward a commercial.
4. Will it be a good DVR?
Yes it is nice that a game console can do something besides play games but it needs to play games first. It has to have good games. It has to be fun. It is nice if your car has a good stereo but if it doesn't drive well it is a bad car.
Gee I have been predicting this from the start.
What I wonder in addition to all of your questions is.
1. Will it let you save the shows to a memory stick to watch on your PSP?
2 Will it let you use your PSP to watch shows over wifi served from your PS3?
Was that gross or net?
I think people value Google in the market for it's name. It has also really attracted a lot of extremely talented people. I get the feeling that Google is planing on expanding into other areas and doing a lot of research. It may be over valued but I hop not. I am hoping that Google will be the next Bell labs.
MySpace and all the social networking sites I feel are the biggest losers we are likely to see.
Google is making good money. The question is when people get tired of MySpace will the ad bubble burst?
I don't really think so. Using the Internet is now totally ingrained in to our way of working.
Need to find out where something is? Go to Google maps.
What to find out about something Google it or use the Wikipedia.
Weather?
Sales?
Internet.
Now some of the "social" sites like MySpace, Facebook "they should have taken the billion", Flick'r, and maybe YouTube will go the way of the sock puppet but the Internet is going to be around forever.
Thank you that is exactly what I was saying.
Now replace the deminging and nasty word "silly" with "different" and you will be on your way to being a tolerant person.
"To think someone has some silly beliefs does NOT mean you can't respect that person for other attributes or accomplishments."
Well the optimistic view point is that smart people can think ahead and see the consequences of their actions. Having sex at a young age does have consequences so for the benefit to out way the risks smart people tend to be more selective. My being more selective they increase their odds of being happy in the long run and having a successful life long relationship and pass those predispositions on to their children.
They will not just have sex with anyone that will put out.
The pessimistic view.
Intelligence is now an evolutionary negative selector for reproduction.
I hope that the first is true but I really fear that both are true.
Never used it but how much worse could it be than exchange?
Funny but I was thinking exactly the same thing.
For 20 servers? Actually that would be almost as simple.
Get a bunch of network serial servers. Modify each one so that RX conductor is snipped.
Attach the servers to a private network to your logging machine.
"I wonder if IBM factored in the number oddball projects that require Windows systems in their server count? Windows won't run in a zSeries VM, and there is plenty of software out there that is still Windows only."
Not on servers. IBM uses Lotus Notes so no need for Exchange Servers. They probably us DB2 for any SQL systems so no MSSQL servers.
Frankly I can't think of many reasons that IBM would have to keep many Windows servers around except for testing IBM software running on a Windows server.
"And of course you shouldn't forget that there have been terrible things done by people of faith, as well as great things."
And equally terrible things have been by people lacking faith or at the least professed atheists.
Mao Zedong , Kim Il-sung, and Pol Pot come to mind.
Why do you think that I feel the need for you too take me seriously? I really don't care except that I am trying to teach tolerance and respect. I don't feel the need to convince you too share my faith. You must find your own answers. I am trying to teach you to respect others.
But you make a point. Part of my faith is a belief that I must share it with others. In this case I am trying to share the teaching that one should respect others.
I must apologize with getting you two confused but the statements from you two are so close in tone and content that it is like getting caught between two Jesuits.
Actually the gentleman was speaking British not English. I doubt that anybody from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the US would have caught all the cultural references in the original post. That twelve quid for all the movies you can watch would have a great deal when I was a teen. I knew what was meant buy a tweleve quid movie pass but the Orange phones where a complete mystery to me.
"Wrong premise again. You just claimed that empirically minded people have no doubts about anything. That's a straw-man, and it's the opposite of reality."
No you are making a wrong premise.
My claim is those that claim that they are entirely empirically minded are deluding themselves. I know many people that are empirically minded. I am actually very empirically minded. Many years ago I took a lot of logic and philosophy courses and even had a paper published. But I also know that there is a part of my decsion making that is based just on faith and opinion. I have a certain basic view of the universe that is based on some unprovable assumptions that to me seem to be absolute truths.
Some of them are as simple as it is better to be kind than too be cruel.
I am not trying to convince you that you should believe in God. What I am trying to get you to do is to respect people of faith. Maybe to get you over you fantasy that your lack of faith makes you superior to people that are religious. I wouldn't try to teach you to become spiritual. I don't know if that can be taught and even if it could be I am not sure I have the skill to teach it. I am trying to teach you respect for others and tolerance.
So why should you look down on people of faith? You made the statement as to why shouldn't you look down on people of faith. The answer is that you shouldn't look down on them because they may have a lot to teach you?.
Knuth the only great figure? How about Alan Ashton and Ray Noorda? BTW Knuth is is a great figure in Computer Science.
You have made one step forward. You shouldn't look down on people that don't share you beliefs because they may other things to teach you.
"And why shouldn't I look down on someone who holds beliefs that are no more real to me than a child's game of make believe?"
Why should you look down on anyone? Especially when there is proof that there are people of faith that are in every measurable way your intellectual equal or superior. Would you look down on J.R. Tolken, C.S. Lewis, Donald Knuth, Oskar Schindler , Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Bono, Orson Scott Card, and Martin Luther King?
Exactly how many Nobel prizes do you have, how lives have you saved, how many prizes for literature, now many peoples hearts have you touched that you feel comfortable to hold yourself above these people?
PS3 the console for the lonely man.
and
Do we really want high def porn?
You see one a human is so sure that that one bases their belief system entirely on scientific empiricism are most almost always just fooling themselves. What is worse they then elevate their option to that of scientific fact even if there is no basis.
A great example is when it comes to abortion rights. I happen to be technically pro choice in that I don't think that it should be illegal. My choice in the matter is based on some beliefs that I know not everyone shares and I must accept that as a fact. Would I be happy if no one ever choose to get an abortion again? Yes I would.
But when you convince yourself that your opinions/beliefs are totally based on scientific facts you remove that doubt. It doesn't matter if you are sure that you have scientific proof of God or if you are completely sure that your entire belief system is based on scientific empiricism. The real truth is that you and I and everyone have deep beliefs that are not biased on any scientific empiricism. Some of those beliefs seem to border on the universal. The concept that one should be free to make their own choices or that you should care for you offspring do seem almost hardwired. When you take away from yourself the doubt of I believe then you become less tolerant not more tolerant.
Your very statement that you look down on people of faith pretty much proves it. You think that you are intellectually superior to people like Donald Knuth and myself. And not I am not in the same league as Donald Knuth. I just know that he is a person of deep faith.
So yes you are acting like a "faithful athiest" you are sure that you are making judgments based only on facts. Yet the facts don't back you up.
"Sorry, that's not going to change. People who think evidence is the foundation of knowledge will always look down on the faithful, who take pride in believing something despite a complete lack of (empirical) evidence. The faithful can, of course, look down on the scientifically-minded as being "the devil" or whatever."
Except those very people are deluding themselves that they are rational in all things when some of their beliefs are nothing but a faith that they have some greater knowledge of right and wrong then the next person.
I will match my knowledge of science with any of the faithful atheists out there.
Nethack is good enough for me!
I don't think you will ever see a lot of high end FOSS games. How would the developers get paid. Yes I said it get paid. A good commercial quality game is a lot of work. Unless Novell or Redhat decide that they need some games to push Linux where will the funding come from?
What we need are... Closed source games that run on Linux.
There are a few already but there needs to be more and people need to be willing to pay for them.
So if you want FOSS games prove me wrong and write one that rivals the commercial products out there.
If not be happy with Nethack and BZFlag... Which are both really fun games.
"We could take a bell housing off a 66 Pontiac whatever and fit it perfectly to a 68 Chevrolet whatever."
Not always. Pontiac motors used the BPO pattern for the bell housing. Chevy used the Chevy pattern.
BPO stood for Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile.
Things in the 60s where actually a lot different than today.
Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Chevy, and Cadillac all used very different engines. A Buick 455, Pontiac 455, and Oldsmobile 455 where not the same motor!
"You could fit a Nova front-end to a Ventura and all the bolts matched. "
Well yes you could since the Nova and Ventura where the same car with slightly different body panels.
Just like the Camaro and Firebird where and many cars today really the same car. Lots of Mercury and Ford cars are the same car with minor difference. As are Toyota and Lexus cars and VW and Audi cars. It is called badge engineering. You make single platform and modify it a little for different market segments.
Take a look at the list of "intellectual requirements".
College level physics? Like I said I disagree with that one since I remember the uncertainty principle being taught in my high school physics and honors chemistry class.
An understanding of American Political History?
An understanding of digital technology?
You don't think that those requirements smack of intellectual elitism?
I will skip over the Star Trek requirement since I think everybody on the planet has seen all the original Star Treks.
They don't want to have every PS3 impounded and destroyed. They want MONEY. By pushing for nuclear option they hope Sony will pay them off. They probably know that they don't have a chance to win in court but by making the stakes so high they are hoping that Sony will just give them a few million to go away.
If they where just asking for damages then Sony would without a doubt go to court and beat this case. So they want to push the risk level to a point that Sony will just offer them a wad of cash to get them out of their hair.
If they did recall all the PS3 Son would instantly loose not just the console race but it would also kill Blue Ray since the PS3 is the most popular Blue Ray player on the planet.
My guess is that Sony will smack them down anyway but it is a good gamble.
I don't agree. My wife loves the show.
"You need to have read Asimov and Heinlein"
Okay I have read a lot of Asimov and a little of Heinlein. My wife has read none.
"You must have seen pretty much all of ST:TOS"
I think that is very very common.
" You must have a college-level understanding of physics ("no fair! you changed the outcome by measuring it")"
I would say that is high school physics but again my wife was a Poly sci major and took no physics.
"You must have some understanding of American political history (President Nixon, etc.)"
Okay knowing who Nixon was isn't exactly a deep understanding of political history.
"You must know a bit about digital technology ("Don't worry, Bender. There's no such thing as 2.")"
Maybe.
"You must not take religion too seriously ("sweet zombie Jesus!")"
This is a big one. I do go to church every Sunday and teach Sunday school as does my wife. We are both VERY religious and take it very seriously. Things like that just don't offend me. Why should would it offend someone that is secure in their faith. I get far more offended by the "free thinkers" on Slashdot that think that their lack of faith is proof of their intellectual superiority over anyone that does follow a religion.
I don't think that Futurama failed because it was too "smart" for the masses. What a great way to stroke your own ego to think that a show you really liked required you to be smarter than everyone else.
Futurama failed because of it's time slot and bad marketing. If they had put it on after the Simpsons and before King of the Hill and didn't bump it off the air for Football I think it would have been a hit.
Sorry that you where forced to go to church on Sunday night. I missed a lot of Futurama because I chose to go to church on Sunday night.
I do agree that the time slot sucked. Same thing for King of the Hill which I also like a lot more than the Simpsons. I would miss it because of church activities or because of some stupid football game.
Thank goodness for adult swim.
A weakness can be overcome. I don't think Schizophrenia fits that definition. I hope that this will lead to a good treatment or even a cure.
Not really a fair comparison. For a solder with roommates it is right up there with claiming if you found pot in a dorm that everybody in the dorm was in possession.
Many people have NO idea what is on their computer. A modern PC with a large HD is a very big place in which you can loose data. I would think that the huge number of systems running zombies and open mail relays is proof enough of reasonable doubt in this case.
The fact that the RIAA published images that they had no rights to seems to me to make them just as guilty as the anybody using a P2P program. They took copyrighted material that they had no rights to and published it for their own proposes. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for P2P users then the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on..