"That's not the issue here. The issue is whether I modify hardware and then sell it to you. I can't buy a ham radio (legal), modify it for out of band (legal), and then sell it as a land mobile radio (illegal). And I can't commercially sell them as modified out of band, since they no longer meet their certification, which is required for commercial sales."
Irrelevant. He is not making an illegal modification to a product or selling a product that is illegal after modification. Your example depends on specific laws that apply to a specific example and have no relevance to the example at hand.
If his modification broke fcc compliance in some fashion maybe you would be onto something but the resulting modem is a perfectly functional and legal to sell and use modem.
This case rests on intent. If he intended the purchaser to use the product to break the law he is guilty. If he just didn't care he is not guilty. If he intended legal use then he is innocent.
Convincing a jury he didn't intend them to be used illegally after writing a book on making said modems and using them illegally is a tough sell though.
I really fail to see why there is a need to define a 'spectrum' of openness in the first place. Either something is completely open and documented and is innately and de facto unencumbered for any use by any person unconditionally or it is not.
"It's not like the 'general public' can' t form political parties. So the 'general public' get the government they deserve..."
Of course they can. Of course the general public has no money so forget buying attention. And obviously no news outlet will cover their candidates. Even if they did somehow get heard of by anyone who could vote for them the rigged electronic voting machine elections could solve that problem easily enough.
Even if one or two of them slipped through the cracks of the system things are well enough set up in the law making branches of government to assure they couldn't effect any sort of change that runs contrary to the interests of the wealthy.
I don't know about where you are. But here we have two houses in our congress. Anyone who slipped through the cracks I refer to would be the house of representatives. For that very reason the wealthy elite aristocracy who founded our nation established the Senate which is entirely populated by the wealthy and acts as a safeguard against the silly acts of the "unwashed masses".
They have a format for that, it's called HTML. PDF is essentially postscript and the purpose is encode visual information in such a way that it displays correctly independent of viewing device. In other words its supposed to show you the same picture whether you print it or view it on your screen. Links don't even belong.
"So you say, but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents, drive or ability."
Giving everyone an equal chance does not require they all have equal talents, drive, or ability. It requires eliminating the advantages and disadvantages that have nothing to do with those things. Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof. For instance providing harvard level funding to public schools and eliminating private ones. Making admission and advancement in education be based on aptitude.
There you have leveled the playing field by making education the best that we can provide. Everyone now has access to the same education, the same names on their resume, and their only limitations as far as education are concerned are their talent, drive, and ability. If they lack talent/ability they won't have the aptitude to advance or utilize their education. If they lack drive they won't continue it or have the drive to use it to succeed.
Nobody can complain about paying for said system with taxes (at least not after a couple generations) because they will all owe the fact that they have wealth to tax on the fact they had an equal opportunity to receive education.
Oh wait, you mean one really doesn't want to see equal opportunity? One really just spouts some crap because one want to maximize ones (and your families) own wealth and use it to provide advantage to ones children?
Another big step of course is to eliminate the passing of wealth from parent to child. As long as we allow that then you can in a roundabout way take it with you. That is the secret to breaking up most of the entrenched power. By separating the success of the parent from the opportunity and success of the child you break up most of the entrenched power in short order.
Indeed punishing the wealthy is not a strawman. It is a red herring. The wealthy make and control the laws and the aren't afraid of "punishing the wealthy". The last thing the wealthy want is the elimination of regulation. Regulation raises the barrier to market entry and makes life harder for the small fish.
"By equalizing outcomes at the point of the sword? That is the problem with "the government has to step in" argument because it necessarily advocates the use of violence to redistribute wealth. The government controls the army, the police, and the means of extreme violence; that is the ultimate source of government power. This is what we Libertarians object to, the use of violence to alter the outcome in an otherwise voluntary system."
Of course at the point of a sword. Everything is at the point of a weapon. If you eliminate government interference then the result is that financial power becomes the weapon that replaces it and the powerful abuse the weak and utilize their power to perpetuate itself. The flaw is that the wealthy already control the government as well.
This can be seen clearly. For instance, notice that you will often hear about reducing government by eliminating capital gains tax. But never eliminating income tax and increasing capital gains tax thus eliminating punishment for production and shifting the tax burdern entirely to those with disposable income and in proportion to that disposable income. Or eliminating all fees for government services and instead funding them entirely through the tax system that is supposed to pay for government services.
No instead you hear about things like 'the fair tax' a blanket income tax. This would probably catch on more quickly among the wealthy if they were sure the benefits outweighed the current racket. Of course the wealthy utilize their financial power to pay lower prices for goods and services than the rest of us so they will pay lower taxes than us in fixed tax system. The idea of rebates at the end of the year to patch this up is something only someone who has never lived paycheck to paycheck could come up with.
I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed that the wealthy are selective about which interference they want to eliminate as well. I don't hear many gun shop owners opposed to the need for an expensive commercial license to run a gun shop for instance. These licenses are always priced just right to assure someone living paycheck to paycheck can't worm his way up the ladder easily but low enough not to be a problem for already established business or those with investment level means.
Just once I would like to see someone be given a voice who advocates limiting government authority by empowering the individual and I don't mean in the marketplace. The elimination of gun control and reduction of the commerce clause power to actual interstate commerce would be a start. Provisions for petitioned constitutional amendment and lawmaking (and eliminating) would be another step in the right direction.
I am opposed to forcing change at the point of the sword as a general principal. But there does come a time when the change is needed and that is the only way that remains to impose the change.
"The constituition should only be changeable with two votes with absolute majority, with a general election in between."
That is interesting. I find the problem here in the US is how difficult it is to change the constitution. The big problem being that in only the elected officials can do it. There needs to be a way for the people to directly make and throw down laws like many of the U.S. states have. Elected officials have vested interests (generally serving the interests of the wealthy) and there are some things that will never happen with them at the helm.
Depends on whether you ask the Europeans or someone else.
To those of us over here in the US your countries appear to have financial power, land area, population, and military power comparable to individual US state. The states are (supposed to be) independent here as well with an agreement that the combined federal government negotiates with other nations on their behalf and controls the navy and the army that is formed by assembling together all the militias in time of war. Up to the civil war there were no U.S. citizens either, everyone was a citizen of their state.
The EU is on the same path, it just isn't as far along it yet.
Anything is possible and it has been my experience that intel usually goes through the process to the have their drivers included with windows.
But I'm pretty sure we both know that is definitely the exception rather than the rule with windows. With Ubuntu the hardware generally either all works out of the box with no additional configuration or it doesn't work at all (not that some people don't spend hours trying using old information online).
With windows you generally need to download and install the chipset (for full performance and avoidance IRQ routing issues), nic, sound, and video at least.
For that matter, even if the box did pick up on the intel stuff I'd recommend downloading and installing the chipset drivers.
P.S. I have used this form of protest with some success. In grade school I refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Each day I would be sent to the office where I would "talked to" about this by the vice principal. Afterward I would get swats (which was legal then).
This went on for about two months before I was no longer required to say the pledge of allegiance.
What you propose is known as civil disobedience. Its what Rosa Parks did when she sat on the front of the bus in defiance of an unjust law. Its what Gandhi did to bring liberation as well.
If you use this form of protest you must accept that there are consequences.
"No, because electricity isn't covered by the same fuel tax laws, so it isn't taxed as vehicle fuel anyway - you don't pay vehicle fuel taxes on electricity, no matter whether you draw it from the grid or your own windmill. Electricity purchased from the grid is covered by the usual VAT rules (although VAT is charged at a reduced rate)."
His comparison is fair for the US version. In both cases the taxes are on sales of the product. If you produce the product for your own use then you are not selling it therefore no tax should be due.
The point you want to dismiss is exactly what opponents of this philosophy would bring up. The tax is to repair the roads and he is using the roads and therefore should have to pay his share of the cost of the upkeep.
My counter to that argument would be that the argument is a good reason why a fuel sales tax is a poor way to make everyone pay their share of roadway upkeep costs. Not a reason to punish someone who didn't pay a sales tax because he didn't sell anything.
He is mistaken about one thing though. It is illegal to share his homebrew beer with others even on his property.
You are required to register with the feds and get a license to make biodiesel for personal use. Costs a couple hundred if I remember correctly. I do know that much.
It is actually the angle of the camera that is supposed to make the difference with the stuff that actually works.
For instance, the first I heard of plates like this were copycat plates the in the UK. The paint on the plate works like the color changing ink on a dollar bill it is visible head on but at an angle it fades and at some angles is not visible at all.
"For a more accurate analogy however, if your alterations somehow caused you to stop paying taxes for the roads, then yes, that would too be illegal."
In other words no. Making modifications after purchase is NOT illegal. Doing something illegal with your modified widget is illegal. In your analogy dodging taxes and not modifying the car is what is and should be illegal.
"Simply put, he sold something that sole purpose was to break the law, then yes, that (should) be illegal."
But if he sold something that could be used to break the law but has other functions as well then no that is not and should not be illegal.
I think what will hang him having previously written and published a book on how to modify modems just like his and then use them for the illegal activity.
It is much more difficult to believe he wasn't selling them for the purpose of performing the illegal activity.
"That argument will fail, too. People have legit reason for having a truckload of ammonium nitrate, and people have legit reasons for having a barrel of diesel fuel. If you are caught busy mixing the two in the back of a U-Haul, don't hold your breath waiting for the "legit reasons exist" defense to get you out of prison. It's what YOU are doing with them that counts, not what other people might use the two for."
In your analogy he is selling truckloads of ammonium nitrate not mixing them in the back of a uhaul. His customers allegedly may have mixed up his ammonium nitrate in the back of a uhaul.
The modems themselves are perfectly legal. His customers allegedly have been using these modems in a manner which is illegal. The feds are claiming he was selling the modems to facilitate those illegal activities and that claim goes out the window if the modems have legitimate uses (such as network diagnostics).
"It's what YOU are doing with them that counts, not what other people might use the two for."
And that would be the crux of his defense. He isn't doing anything illegal, some people who bought his products may or may not have but he didn't sell them with the express purpose that people use them to do something illegal.
On the other side of the debate, he has published a book "For Educational Purposes Only" explaining how to modify the modems (which is legal) and use them do things which are not legal.
It isn't illegal to modify hardware I bought from you whether you want me to modify it or not.
In this case the prosecutor has the burden to prove that the defendant was selling a product with no purpose but to facilitate illegal activity. That isn't easy to due when the supposed victims of the crime purchased the equipment in question for legitimate activities.
It only works when you are the big company with relatively infinite resources and the other guy is a defenseless individual with no resources at this disposal.
It doesn't work very well when you say it to the big evil corporation. Though it works somewhat better if its on your attorney's letterhead.
I worked tech support for awhile before they shipped it all off to India and at one point an attorney customer actually said, "That's against the law you know, I could sue you." I responded with, "I'm not permitted to discuss legal concerns Mr. X. If you would like to continue that line of discussion I would be happy to transfer you right over to Sony's multi-million dollar legal department." Oddly, he never said another word about lawsuits.
"Just because you can show that it is theoretically possible that you're not breaking the law, doesn't mean you won't (or even shouldn't) get convicted."
Actually it does mean you shouldn't be (if not won't be) convicted. The feds have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he commited a crime and this crime specifically. If there is a feasible scenerio, which the evidence does not eliminate, under which the defendant would not have been breaking the law then he is not guilty. Even if the defendant in reality did whatever it is. There is no greater crime than locking up the innocent therefore the possibility of the guilty committing further crime never justifies locking people up simply because they probably did it.
In this case, if establishing that there are legitimate uses for the product and even further that the supposed victims actually bought the products for these very purposes raises reasonable doubt.
"That question is not relevant to the idictment against Ryan. You wouldn't be able to ask it."
Producing something that can be used to hack say a cable company network is not the same thing as hacking said companies network. There are legitimate uses for these modems and in this case the supposed victims themselves are using these very modems for those legitimate purposes.
I'd say that depends on the minimum requirements but that is neither here nor there. Even if you meet the minimum requirements you will find that the manufacturer won't have bothered to make your old hardware compatible with vista aka win7.
The reason is simple, windows has horrible hardware support. Instead windows relies on third parties to patch this hole.
Microsoft includes usable support for little to no hardware but then wants to blame its system instability on third party drivers. Saying windows has superior hardware support because of third party provided software is akin to saying a game is hassle free because third parties have made cracks to bypass the DRM.
"'out of the box' support in Windows"
I'm not sure I've ever seen a PC that didn't have windows preloaded have 'out of the box' support. Third party driver downloads have always been required. In most cases a disc (or downloaded with another machine and put on disc) is even required to get on the internet to download the other drivers.
Out of box is where you install, boot up and the hardware is functional. I let Ubuntu slide on Nvidia graphics and some wireless stuff because it detects the need and downloads it and installs for you. With that slight exception (you could call that part of the automated install process) your Ubuntu linux system is probably either going to be fully functional and supported out of the box or not at all.
Several year old is a bit of a red herring as well. The vast majority of one year old and nearly all three year old hardware works with linux out of the box.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's not the issue here. The issue is whether I modify hardware and then sell it to you. I can't buy a ham radio (legal), modify it for out of band (legal), and then sell it as a land mobile radio (illegal). And I can't commercially sell them as modified out of band, since they no longer meet their certification, which is required for commercial sales."
Irrelevant. He is not making an illegal modification to a product or selling a product that is illegal after modification. Your example depends on specific laws that apply to a specific example and have no relevance to the example at hand.
If his modification broke fcc compliance in some fashion maybe you would be onto something but the resulting modem is a perfectly functional and legal to sell and use modem.
This case rests on intent. If he intended the purchaser to use the product to break the law he is guilty. If he just didn't care he is not guilty. If he intended legal use then he is innocent.
Convincing a jury he didn't intend them to be used illegally after writing a book on making said modems and using them illegally is a tough sell though.
Yup
I really fail to see why there is a need to define a 'spectrum' of openness in the first place. Either something is completely open and documented and is innately and de facto unencumbered for any use by any person unconditionally or it is not.
"It's not like the 'general public' can' t form political parties. So the 'general public' get the government they deserve..."
Of course they can. Of course the general public has no money so forget buying attention. And obviously no news outlet will cover their candidates. Even if they did somehow get heard of by anyone who could vote for them the rigged electronic voting machine elections could solve that problem easily enough.
Even if one or two of them slipped through the cracks of the system things are well enough set up in the law making branches of government to assure they couldn't effect any sort of change that runs contrary to the interests of the wealthy.
I don't know about where you are. But here we have two houses in our congress. Anyone who slipped through the cracks I refer to would be the house of representatives. For that very reason the wealthy elite aristocracy who founded our nation established the Senate which is entirely populated by the wealthy and acts as a safeguard against the silly acts of the "unwashed masses".
They have a format for that, it's called HTML. PDF is essentially postscript and the purpose is encode visual information in such a way that it displays correctly independent of viewing device. In other words its supposed to show you the same picture whether you print it or view it on your screen. Links don't even belong.
"So you say, but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents, drive or ability."
Giving everyone an equal chance does not require they all have equal talents, drive, or ability. It requires eliminating the advantages and disadvantages that have nothing to do with those things. Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof. For instance providing harvard level funding to public schools and eliminating private ones. Making admission and advancement in education be based on aptitude.
There you have leveled the playing field by making education the best that we can provide. Everyone now has access to the same education, the same names on their resume, and their only limitations as far as education are concerned are their talent, drive, and ability. If they lack talent/ability they won't have the aptitude to advance or utilize their education. If they lack drive they won't continue it or have the drive to use it to succeed.
Nobody can complain about paying for said system with taxes (at least not after a couple generations) because they will all owe the fact that they have wealth to tax on the fact they had an equal opportunity to receive education.
Oh wait, you mean one really doesn't want to see equal opportunity? One really just spouts some crap because one want to maximize ones (and your families) own wealth and use it to provide advantage to ones children?
Another big step of course is to eliminate the passing of wealth from parent to child. As long as we allow that then you can in a roundabout way take it with you. That is the secret to breaking up most of the entrenched power. By separating the success of the parent from the opportunity and success of the child you break up most of the entrenched power in short order.
Indeed punishing the wealthy is not a strawman. It is a red herring. The wealthy make and control the laws and the aren't afraid of "punishing the wealthy". The last thing the wealthy want is the elimination of regulation. Regulation raises the barrier to market entry and makes life harder for the small fish.
"By equalizing outcomes at the point of the sword? That is the problem with "the government has to step in" argument because it necessarily advocates the use of violence to redistribute wealth. The government controls the army, the police, and the means of extreme violence; that is the ultimate source of government power. This is what we Libertarians object to, the use of violence to alter the outcome in an otherwise voluntary system."
Of course at the point of a sword. Everything is at the point of a weapon. If you eliminate government interference then the result is that financial power becomes the weapon that replaces it and the powerful abuse the weak and utilize their power to perpetuate itself. The flaw is that the wealthy already control the government as well.
This can be seen clearly. For instance, notice that you will often hear about reducing government by eliminating capital gains tax. But never eliminating income tax and increasing capital gains tax thus eliminating punishment for production and shifting the tax burdern entirely to those with disposable income and in proportion to that disposable income. Or eliminating all fees for government services and instead funding them entirely through the tax system that is supposed to pay for government services.
No instead you hear about things like 'the fair tax' a blanket income tax. This would probably catch on more quickly among the wealthy if they were sure the benefits outweighed the current racket. Of course the wealthy utilize their financial power to pay lower prices for goods and services than the rest of us so they will pay lower taxes than us in fixed tax system. The idea of rebates at the end of the year to patch this up is something only someone who has never lived paycheck to paycheck could come up with.
I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed that the wealthy are selective about which interference they want to eliminate as well. I don't hear many gun shop owners opposed to the need for an expensive commercial license to run a gun shop for instance. These licenses are always priced just right to assure someone living paycheck to paycheck can't worm his way up the ladder easily but low enough not to be a problem for already established business or those with investment level means.
Just once I would like to see someone be given a voice who advocates limiting government authority by empowering the individual and I don't mean in the marketplace. The elimination of gun control and reduction of the commerce clause power to actual interstate commerce would be a start. Provisions for petitioned constitutional amendment and lawmaking (and eliminating) would be another step in the right direction.
I am opposed to forcing change at the point of the sword as a general principal. But there does come a time when the change is needed and that is the only way that remains to impose the change.
"The constituition should only be changeable with two votes with absolute majority, with a general election in between."
That is interesting. I find the problem here in the US is how difficult it is to change the constitution. The big problem being that in only the elected officials can do it. There needs to be a way for the people to directly make and throw down laws like many of the U.S. states have. Elected officials have vested interests (generally serving the interests of the wealthy) and there are some things that will never happen with them at the helm.
Depends on whether you ask the Europeans or someone else.
To those of us over here in the US your countries appear to have financial power, land area, population, and military power comparable to individual US state. The states are (supposed to be) independent here as well with an agreement that the combined federal government negotiates with other nations on their behalf and controls the navy and the army that is formed by assembling together all the militias in time of war. Up to the civil war there were no U.S. citizens either, everyone was a citizen of their state.
The EU is on the same path, it just isn't as far along it yet.
Anything is possible and it has been my experience that intel usually goes through the process to the have their drivers included with windows.
But I'm pretty sure we both know that is definitely the exception rather than the rule with windows. With Ubuntu the hardware generally either all works out of the box with no additional configuration or it doesn't work at all (not that some people don't spend hours trying using old information online).
With windows you generally need to download and install the chipset (for full performance and avoidance IRQ routing issues), nic, sound, and video at least.
For that matter, even if the box did pick up on the intel stuff I'd recommend downloading and installing the chipset drivers.
No we should be locking the politicians. They are the ones who make criminals.
P.S. I have used this form of protest with some success. In grade school I refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Each day I would be sent to the office where I would "talked to" about this by the vice principal. Afterward I would get swats (which was legal then).
This went on for about two months before I was no longer required to say the pledge of allegiance.
What you propose is known as civil disobedience. Its what Rosa Parks did when she sat on the front of the bus in defiance of an unjust law. Its what Gandhi did to bring liberation as well.
If you use this form of protest you must accept that there are consequences.
"No, because electricity isn't covered by the same fuel tax laws, so it isn't taxed as vehicle fuel anyway - you don't pay vehicle fuel taxes on electricity, no matter whether you draw it from the grid or your own windmill. Electricity purchased from the grid is covered by the usual VAT rules (although VAT is charged at a reduced rate)."
His comparison is fair for the US version. In both cases the taxes are on sales of the product. If you produce the product for your own use then you are not selling it therefore no tax should be due.
The point you want to dismiss is exactly what opponents of this philosophy would bring up. The tax is to repair the roads and he is using the roads and therefore should have to pay his share of the cost of the upkeep.
My counter to that argument would be that the argument is a good reason why a fuel sales tax is a poor way to make everyone pay their share of roadway upkeep costs. Not a reason to punish someone who didn't pay a sales tax because he didn't sell anything.
He is mistaken about one thing though. It is illegal to share his homebrew beer with others even on his property.
You are required to register with the feds and get a license to make biodiesel for personal use. Costs a couple hundred if I remember correctly. I do know that much.
It is actually the angle of the camera that is supposed to make the difference with the stuff that actually works.
For instance, the first I heard of plates like this were copycat plates the in the UK. The paint on the plate works like the color changing ink on a dollar bill it is visible head on but at an angle it fades and at some angles is not visible at all.
"For a more accurate analogy however, if your alterations somehow caused you to stop paying taxes for the roads, then yes, that would too be illegal."
In other words no. Making modifications after purchase is NOT illegal. Doing something illegal with your modified widget is illegal. In your analogy dodging taxes and not modifying the car is what is and should be illegal.
"Simply put, he sold something that sole purpose was to break the law, then yes, that (should) be illegal."
But if he sold something that could be used to break the law but has other functions as well then no that is not and should not be illegal.
I think what will hang him having previously written and published a book on how to modify modems just like his and then use them for the illegal activity.
It is much more difficult to believe he wasn't selling them for the purpose of performing the illegal activity.
"That argument will fail, too. People have legit reason for having a truckload of ammonium nitrate, and people have legit reasons for having a barrel of diesel fuel. If you are caught busy mixing the two in the back of a U-Haul, don't hold your breath waiting for the "legit reasons exist" defense to get you out of prison. It's what YOU are doing with them that counts, not what other people might use the two for."
In your analogy he is selling truckloads of ammonium nitrate not mixing them in the back of a uhaul. His customers allegedly may have mixed up his ammonium nitrate in the back of a uhaul.
The modems themselves are perfectly legal. His customers allegedly have been using these modems in a manner which is illegal. The feds are claiming he was selling the modems to facilitate those illegal activities and that claim goes out the window if the modems have legitimate uses (such as network diagnostics).
"It's what YOU are doing with them that counts, not what other people might use the two for."
And that would be the crux of his defense. He isn't doing anything illegal, some people who bought his products may or may not have but he didn't sell them with the express purpose that people use them to do something illegal.
On the other side of the debate, he has published a book "For Educational Purposes Only" explaining how to modify the modems (which is legal) and use them do things which are not legal.
It isn't illegal to modify hardware I bought from you whether you want me to modify it or not.
In this case the prosecutor has the burden to prove that the defendant was selling a product with no purpose but to facilitate illegal activity. That isn't easy to due when the supposed victims of the crime purchased the equipment in question for legitimate activities.
It only works when you are the big company with relatively infinite resources and the other guy is a defenseless individual with no resources at this disposal.
It doesn't work very well when you say it to the big evil corporation. Though it works somewhat better if its on your attorney's letterhead.
I worked tech support for awhile before they shipped it all off to India and at one point an attorney customer actually said, "That's against the law you know, I could sue you." I responded with, "I'm not permitted to discuss legal concerns Mr. X. If you would like to continue that line of discussion I would be happy to transfer you right over to Sony's multi-million dollar legal department." Oddly, he never said another word about lawsuits.
"Just because you can show that it is theoretically possible that you're not breaking the law, doesn't mean you won't (or even shouldn't) get convicted."
Actually it does mean you shouldn't be (if not won't be) convicted. The feds have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he commited a crime and this crime specifically. If there is a feasible scenerio, which the evidence does not eliminate, under which the defendant would not have been breaking the law then he is not guilty. Even if the defendant in reality did whatever it is. There is no greater crime than locking up the innocent therefore the possibility of the guilty committing further crime never justifies locking people up simply because they probably did it.
In this case, if establishing that there are legitimate uses for the product and even further that the supposed victims actually bought the products for these very purposes raises reasonable doubt.
"That question is not relevant to the idictment against Ryan. You wouldn't be able to ask it."
Producing something that can be used to hack say a cable company network is not the same thing as hacking said companies network. There are legitimate uses for these modems and in this case the supposed victims themselves are using these very modems for those legitimate purposes.
How is that not relevant to the indictment?
I'd say that depends on the minimum requirements but that is neither here nor there. Even if you meet the minimum requirements you will find that the manufacturer won't have bothered to make your old hardware compatible with vista aka win7.
The reason is simple, windows has horrible hardware support. Instead windows relies on third parties to patch this hole.
Microsoft includes usable support for little to no hardware but then wants to blame its system instability on third party drivers. Saying windows has superior hardware support because of third party provided software is akin to saying a game is hassle free because third parties have made cracks to bypass the DRM.
"'out of the box' support in Windows"
I'm not sure I've ever seen a PC that didn't have windows preloaded have 'out of the box' support. Third party driver downloads have always been required. In most cases a disc (or downloaded with another machine and put on disc) is even required to get on the internet to download the other drivers.
Out of box is where you install, boot up and the hardware is functional. I let Ubuntu slide on Nvidia graphics and some wireless stuff because it detects the need and downloads it and installs for you. With that slight exception (you could call that part of the automated install process) your Ubuntu linux system is probably either going to be fully functional and supported out of the box or not at all.
Several year old is a bit of a red herring as well. The vast majority of one year old and nearly all three year old hardware works with linux out of the box.