obsoleted by a competitor's script that cost $100,000 to produce
That's quite a script!:-)
Your argument was that it's easy to twist the value of the script into a much higher figure. But I say it's not really possible, because all you have to do is look at financial statements for the company and you have rock-solid proof of the ACTUAL value of the servers and scripts in question. And if you don't have that information, anything stated will be proven as pure conjecture by the defense and won't count towards the sentencing.
Comparing the value of the script to a competitor's product may work, but they'd have to have the SAME script in question and be in the SAME business and use it for the SAME purpose, which is highly unlikely. Therefore, your theory that the prosecutor could twist figures to his liking to get a higher sentence is unfounded. Lawyers live in the world of facts (just like us nerds) and don't live by the rules of Public Relations of Marketing.
Uh, wrong. The incriminating evidence was what the FBI found on the defendent's computer. That, my friend, definitely IS a bloody glove. Plus, you've got a confession of guilt. Justice was done.
What's the value of a PERL script? What's the value of a closed security hole? Dunno...but I can see how easy it would be to twist a small breakin into looking like a large one.
Uh, not really. It's really easy to determine the value. What did the server and the scripts do for the company's business? You can put a price tag on that very easily. Hard to twist that around.
Do you live in New York? Did you used to walk through the Trade Center every day? Or see it from your office window? Or work on one of it's floors? Do you have any connection to it at all? If you did, you might understand that even "shitty" videography and "sappy" music can really have an impact, especially on those of us who had a close connection with a place that is now totally gone.
For all those that still want to defend this guy, let me ask you this: "Why did he plead GUILTY?"
If you know you didn't do anything wrong. If you know you are on the right side of the law or are trying to prove that a law is unfounded, you DO NOT plead guilty. You plead innocent until the cows come home.
He knew he was wrong and he knew he wouldn't be able to prove he was just a good samaritan.
And don't tell me he was pleading guilty for a lighter sentence. If you plead guilty at all, then you know you did something wrong. Innocent people do not plead guilty at any time.
There's another article in the NYT about the encryption restrictions being brought up for debate and it includes a nice jab at the Washington Post for misquoting Zimmermann on his PGP interview. Check it out here:
but most of the researchers dealing with these issues have already answered the questions for themselves
I'm not sure about you, but the last time I checked, ONE researcher does not equal MOST...
I understand the sentiment you are trying to relate, but please keep the facts straight, or at least word your OPINIONS as such and not as FACTS, unless you can back up the statement.
As we continue these debates on civil liberties, the worst thing we can do is make false or unsubstantiated claims...
Not sure about you, but Slashdot doesn't quite make up a majority of the electorate. The majority of our country wouldn't care less. In fact, they'd probably trust the corporations, ESPECIALLY Disney, over some "hackers on the EVIL Internet."
Let us not forget, something like this would be reported until you got sick of hearing about it in the mainstream media the minute any word it broke
Uh huh, just like the DMCA was, right? You seen anything on the 6 o'clock news lately about the DMCA or the recent arrest?
It is much, MUCH better to be proactive than reactive...
You will notice I said "like" in my example. As you've pointed out SADO doesn't end up working well if someone turns it against you, so you'd probably want to find a less "bully-able" acronym, but I wasn't thinking about that when I wrote the post.
Of course, if the issue is shown in the right light by the SADOs, any one trying to go against them will be called out for their obvious ploys against the people, and the SADOs would win anyway. Humour has a place in denouncing groups, but the truth hurts even more...
Yes, they will listen to kids, but you have to do it in a way that makes them perk up...
Get together with a bunch of your friends and form a group (with a name like "Students against Digital Oppression") and write a joint letter with many signatures. Make sure there are people on the list from many, many districts and send the letter in a big envelope to all the congressmen in each of those districts.
You could also talk with your parents about this legislation and show them all the pitfalls of it. Get them to help you write the letter and make it a "family" thing.
The key here is getting buy-in from other people so you're not going alone. Politicians don't care what an individual thinks. But they DO care about what groups think, especially groups that show they have a strong voice that could raise a ruckus in the media.
Making it a family issue also gets them, so get your friends to talk with their parents too so that you can get lots of "concerned families" in the congressemen's faces.
The next step is to take the issue to the schools, to the libraries, to any place of public record and show them the horrible things this law will do to them.
Then take it to your local newspaper. Take it to the local media. Public Awareness is the only thing that can stop this stupid lawmaking by our elected officials.
Why even write the bastards? They've already shot themselves in the head. If they don't die off from lack of sales, they'll figure it out eventually and come crawling back.
I don't know what everyone here is getting all worked up over. Anyone (just about anyone) who reads/. knows which processors to buy, and we don't just pick our processors based on a marketing name. We all look at benchmarks etc and do our comparisons there. The average joe doesn't get it anyway, no mater what the hell the write on the box.
Well, maybe we have some concern for the average consumer not getting screwed over by the corporations. Yeah, *we* know what to buy, but we should also want to help other people buy the right thing as well. I'm concerned that the corporations are going to try and screw people over by overcharging them for something because it has a BIG number that has no meaning at all to the actual capabilities of the computer. You may say "Caveat Emptor" but I'd rather we not have to say it at all.
If you're a game developer and you're trying to make money, the only platform you're going to write games for is Windows (or a gaming device, like the Playstation, et al.), because that's where the masses are (Food on the table is a very good thing). And if you want to use the most features of the graphics cards on Windows in order to beat your competition, you're going to use DirectX, because OpenGL just doesn't cut it for the latest hardware acceleration features.
The question should not be "why aren't game developers using it?" but "why aren't the video card makers supporting it?"
And that, dear friends, is where market power comes into play, and the one with the power in this market is Microsoft.
1) I think it's hypocritical to complain about giving someone your "private" information that you've already given out to someone else.
2) You don't have to lie. Just get an anonymous email address, which you probably already have if you really care about your privacy that much, so no time lost there.
3) Like I already stated, NYT is obviously using that information for general statistics so that they can get advertisers to use their site. I would gladly give that to them in order to continue to have access to their content for free, rather than subscribing to the print edition.
4) There are ways (which have been pointed out before on this site) to get around their registration if it REALLY bothers you, so why the hell do we have to keep reading the fucking whining on this god damn site about the free fucking registration? Just get over it, please. It's really not that big a deal as to require complaining about it on every fucking link to the NYT. We KNOW already!
Slashdot Mirror
obsoleted by a competitor's script that cost $100,000 to produce
:-)
That's quite a script!
Your argument was that it's easy to twist the value of the script into a much higher figure. But I say it's not really possible, because all you have to do is look at financial statements for the company and you have rock-solid proof of the ACTUAL value of the servers and scripts in question. And if you don't have that information, anything stated will be proven as pure conjecture by the defense and won't count towards the sentencing.
Comparing the value of the script to a competitor's product may work, but they'd have to have the SAME script in question and be in the SAME business and use it for the SAME purpose, which is highly unlikely. Therefore, your theory that the prosecutor could twist figures to his liking to get a higher sentence is unfounded. Lawyers live in the world of facts (just like us nerds) and don't live by the rules of Public Relations of Marketing.
Uh, wrong. The incriminating evidence was what the FBI found on the defendent's computer. That, my friend, definitely IS a bloody glove. Plus, you've got a confession of guilt. Justice was done.
What's the value of a PERL script? What's the value of a closed security hole? Dunno...but I can see how easy it would be to twist a small breakin into looking like a large one.
Uh, not really. It's really easy to determine the value. What did the server and the scripts do for the company's business? You can put a price tag on that very easily. Hard to twist that around.
Do you live in New York? Did you used to walk through the Trade Center every day? Or see it from your office window? Or work on one of it's floors? Do you have any connection to it at all? If you did, you might understand that even "shitty" videography and "sappy" music can really have an impact, especially on those of us who had a close connection with a place that is now totally gone.
Have some respect.
Of course people do this. But they're stupid to do this if they know they were in the right and will win their case.
This guy knew he wasn't in the right and he pleaded guilty. period.
For all those that still want to defend this guy, let me ask you this: "Why did he plead GUILTY?"
If you know you didn't do anything wrong. If you know you are on the right side of the law or are trying to prove that a law is unfounded, you DO NOT plead guilty. You plead innocent until the cows come home.
He knew he was wrong and he knew he wouldn't be able to prove he was just a good samaritan.
And don't tell me he was pleading guilty for a lighter sentence. If you plead guilty at all, then you know you did something wrong. Innocent people do not plead guilty at any time.
There's another article in the NYT about the encryption restrictions being brought up for debate and it includes a nice jab at the Washington Post for misquoting Zimmermann on his PGP interview. Check it out here:
D E.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/technology/25CO
but most of the researchers dealing with these issues have already answered the questions for themselves
I'm not sure about you, but the last time I checked, ONE researcher does not equal MOST...
I understand the sentiment you are trying to relate, but please keep the facts straight, or at least word your OPINIONS as such and not as FACTS, unless you can back up the statement.
As we continue these debates on civil liberties, the worst thing we can do is make false or unsubstantiated claims...
majority of his electorate
Not sure about you, but Slashdot doesn't quite make up a majority of the electorate. The majority of our country wouldn't care less. In fact, they'd probably trust the corporations, ESPECIALLY Disney, over some "hackers on the EVIL Internet."
Let us not forget, something like this would be reported until you got sick of hearing about it in the mainstream media the minute any word it broke
Uh huh, just like the DMCA was, right? You seen anything on the 6 o'clock news lately about the DMCA or the recent arrest?
It is much, MUCH better to be proactive than reactive...
You will notice I said "like" in my example. As you've pointed out SADO doesn't end up working well if someone turns it against you, so you'd probably want to find a less "bully-able" acronym, but I wasn't thinking about that when I wrote the post.
Of course, if the issue is shown in the right light by the SADOs, any one trying to go against them will be called out for their obvious ploys against the people, and the SADOs would win anyway. Humour has a place in denouncing groups, but the truth hurts even more...
You must be part of the 98% then. Don't blame me for being right. Or Left, I mean...
... notice the uncanny resemblance to this article and the previous one on environmental friendly corporations?
I think both these problems take the same argument... What do you think?
Yes, they will listen to kids, but you have to do it in a way that makes them perk up...
Get together with a bunch of your friends and form a group (with a name like "Students against Digital Oppression") and write a joint letter with many signatures. Make sure there are people on the list from many, many districts and send the letter in a big envelope to all the congressmen in each of those districts.
You could also talk with your parents about this legislation and show them all the pitfalls of it. Get them to help you write the letter and make it a "family" thing.
The key here is getting buy-in from other people so you're not going alone. Politicians don't care what an individual thinks. But they DO care about what groups think, especially groups that show they have a strong voice that could raise a ruckus in the media.
Making it a family issue also gets them, so get your friends to talk with their parents too so that you can get lots of "concerned families" in the congressemen's faces.
The next step is to take the issue to the schools, to the libraries, to any place of public record and show them the horrible things this law will do to them.
Then take it to your local newspaper. Take it to the local media. Public Awareness is the only thing that can stop this stupid lawmaking by our elected officials.
It's a lot of work, but it has to be done...
Go to Staples. Go to Ikea. Buy modular. Perfect.
I'm not quite sure what you are implying. Please clarify.
and it takes out more dumb ones than smart ones.
You have any facts to back that statement up? Death statistics cross-referenced with high school grades/college grades/IQ test scores?
deliterious = deleterious
Either way you spell it, it'll just confuse their public relations interns anyway, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
On a second note, the word "irregardless" should be replaced with "regardless" as the "ir" part is redundant and not accepted in formal writing.
Just doing my good deed for the day before everyone copies and pastes this letter a hundred times.
Like I stated before, they'll eventually figure it out and come crawling back in the end... ;-)
So, I guess this will probably turn out to be a GOOD thing for open source developers. hehe.
Why even write the bastards? They've already shot themselves in the head. If they don't die off from lack of sales, they'll figure it out eventually and come crawling back.
I don't know what everyone here is getting all worked up over. Anyone (just about anyone) who reads /. knows which processors to buy, and we don't just pick our processors based on a marketing name. We all look at benchmarks etc and do our comparisons there. The average joe doesn't get it anyway, no mater what the hell the write on the box.
Well, maybe we have some concern for the average consumer not getting screwed over by the corporations. Yeah, *we* know what to buy, but we should also want to help other people buy the right thing as well. I'm concerned that the corporations are going to try and screw people over by overcharging them for something because it has a BIG number that has no meaning at all to the actual capabilities of the computer. You may say "Caveat Emptor" but I'd rather we not have to say it at all.
East Coast cost of living on a West Coast salary.
You must not live in NYC, then...
Was the Web ever "supposed to be" anything, much less a subversion of "corporate domination of culture?"
According to Jon Katz, it was...
You forgot to reply to number 3.
The question should not be "why aren't game developers using it?" but "why aren't the video card makers supporting it?"
And that, dear friends, is where market power comes into play, and the one with the power in this market is Microsoft.
2) You don't have to lie. Just get an anonymous email address, which you probably already have if you really care about your privacy that much, so no time lost there.
3) Like I already stated, NYT is obviously using that information for general statistics so that they can get advertisers to use their site. I would gladly give that to them in order to continue to have access to their content for free, rather than subscribing to the print edition.
4) There are ways (which have been pointed out before on this site) to get around their registration if it REALLY bothers you, so why the hell do we have to keep reading the fucking whining on this god damn site about the free fucking registration? Just get over it, please. It's really not that big a deal as to require complaining about it on every fucking link to the NYT. We KNOW already!