This obviously puts the company in a sticky situation since they're most likely NOT in the business of being a match-making service, and this kind of behavior is almost certainly NOT allowed on "company time."
So is it wrong for a waitress to spend a little time flirting with a customer? Or agreeing to go out on a date with him?
Except it was a whole news story, even posted here, because "Shark Tale" had the word "Fuck" in its intro text, turns out because it was the text inserted by the pirates. Everyone blamed Disney for it...
I said I don't keep up with console news. So when I see PSP or GBA in the headline, I skip the blurb. Or do you assume that everyone hear reads every story?
There were several quite well known games that were over $50. Chronotrigger, if I recall, was one, which ran $70-100. The Mario RPG ran something ilke $65 at first, I think. There were others as well.
Never heard of those (and yes, I did own the SNES). I also haven't seen any games going for more than $50.
Granted, before this, a decade earlier, games were only $15-30. However, they could be made by 3 people in 4 months
I'm pretty sure it took more then 3 people in four months to make a SNES game.
You're twisting what I'm saying. I said a video game is still OFTEN a money losing or barely profitable proposition. Yes, the popular ones make lots of money. The popular ones aren't a majority proportion of all the games published.
I'm not sure how I twisted what you said; if the game is losing money or barely profitable, its tha way b/c it sucks or no one knows about it. Either way I don't see how someone playing the game that would NOT buy it if that's the only way he could play it would affect that (and make the game slightly more profitable).
As far as I'm concerned this "it doesn't count as theft if it's not physical property" argument doesn't fly
As far as Im concerned it does.
What makes products distributed as digital data (as software or music files) different from any other?
1. They aren't 'products.' They are information. 2. They can be infinitly reproduced with no cost. Our entire system of economics revolves around scarcity. Something that can be made an infinite number of times isn't scarce, is it? Something not scarce has no monetary value.
At least someone who wants to sell rip-offs of a physical good has to invest (however minimally) in some engineering and manufacturing capital.
So that's more acceptable in your mind, b/c they have to pay too?
Further, the example given is not what is done with GPLed software. Anyone who releases software under the GPL has given up some of the rights afforded by copyright law. If I have reserved all rights to my software, you cannot treat it as you would had I released it under the GPL.
The GP didn't say what license I had chosen for my software. I can write something, GPL it and try to sell it. Someone could buy it and then sell it for less.
Actually they ARE still selling those games, in classic collections or those little cards for the GBA game reader.
This was just a common example of commercialized piracy occuring in plain view. What about the piracy of commercial games? Consider the recent story of that new GBA game that the British man had bought his daughter, that turned out to be a pirated version.
Well, that'd be news to me. (Playing classic nes games on GBA). I have to admit i don't follow console games much anymore. So what was the problem with the british man buying a pirated game? She still could enjoy it right?
You ignored my later argument where REAL financial loss occurs, where the ignorant business owners have their stock taken and can face legal battles for selling it, depite ignorance that it was pirated.
Its the business' responsibilty to make sure they are complying with the law. I don't feel bad if they were ignorant they were selling something pirated...its THIER responsibilty to check that before they start selling. Are you going to cry for someone that starts selling crack and then claim he didn't know it was illegal?
And we're talking about profiteering. If you write a program to sell, and I make a copy and start selling it, taking all the profit for none of the work and not sharing a cent with you, do you consider legal?
Isn't that what people can do with GPLed software already?
I'm not talking about the teenage pirates who do it for fun and games. I'm talking about the people who make a business out of it.
So what?
The pirated price would ALWAYS be less than the retail price, because the pirates expense is strictly in cost of manufacturing. They don't have to recover the development costs.
True, its probably time for a different economic model then. If I built a machine a la a Star Trek replicator, should it be a crime to clone someone else's BMW (provided i give it the raw material to build the clone with)? Why should it be? At the point we do have that technology, I'd say its time to rethink our economics, I don't think that outlawing such a machine or only letting the rich use it to lower production costs is a good idea. Humanity would be better off if everyone could benefit from it. We just have to find something other then greed to motivate people.
In the context of video games, the current $50 price point IS a negotiated price.
No, its not. Its the price the manufacture set, which may or may not be the price people are willing to pay.
There were plenty of SNES games at the $70-100.
Are you smoking crack or something? All SNSE games were about $50. And indicently stayed there until the gov't said that Nitendo couldn't set prices like that. But i've NEVER seen a SNES game going for anything more then $50.
However, cost of development has gone way up while price per unit has come down. While volume has gone up, a video game is still often enough a money losing, break even, or, barely profitable, proposition. Without profit, there can't be growth.
You're just making things up. Popular games make TONS of money, unpopular ones don't. Piracy doesn't matter here; people that will only take the game for free wouldn't buy it anyway, if pirating was not an option. So where is the money lost?
I went to a mall a couple weeks before Christmas, and there was a kiosk selling those video-game-controller-game-pack things (has an N64-like controller, a light gun, and another controller, with 50 to 100 games). All those games are pirated - it had Mario Brothers, Contra, and other NES games, yet not a SINGLE Nintendo logo on the box... those are pirated games, sold at a profit. It's not much different than if I duplicated someone's software, and sold it on a website with a pre-installed crack or serial number, claiming it as my own.
The sell those in the mall here too...no Nintendo logo or anything. I doubt its a pirated product at all..and if it is, how much is Nintendo charging? Oh wait, they aren't even making those games anymore. So where's the loss?
Making duplicates of something is not the same as removing an object from someone's possesion. This 'I could have made X money if it wasn't pirated' doesn't fly. Are you certain that everyone that pirated the game would have purchased it if they couldn't pirate it? If they bought a pirated version for less then the normal retail, that should tell the company that its price is too high. But no, they want to ignore the part of economics that says buyer AND seller together determine price.
They fobid women from having more than one child and force millions of Chineese women to have abortions.
So what do you suggest? They do nothing, and let their country become overrun with people, much like Ethopia? They are trying to solve a ligitimate problem...whats your solution?
The company IS losing money as they are not getting full value for the extra shares issued.
Bull. If I want to sell my car for $5000, a buyer comes along and we negotiate the prices to $4000, have I eaten a $1000 loss? No. The item was only worth $4000, because thats the lowest price i would sell at and the highest the buyer would purchase at. It takes a buyer AND seller to determine the value of something.
Since this is stock (and not something of real value anyway), what has the company lost? The employee paid to the company $50 it didn't have before. The fact that others are paying 100 is moot. Besides, the employee could then sell the stock for $100, making 50 in profit, and now the share is worth $100 again.
Next time there's a small hole in Apache that for instance allows execution as the apache or nobody users, that local kernel security hole will come back to bite you in the ass and lead to your box being rooted.
What I meant by console login was that you had to be physically at the keyboard of the computer you're trying to compromise. There are a few of these holes out there.
I do agree that if there are design defects in the module security they should be fixed, but there are times you don't want to patch either.
Take for example, the patch that opens another security hole, which is even worse then the one that got fixed.
Bad parenting you say? A part of good parenting is to give your child freedoms to make them learn about independance and responsibility. Of course, you could teach your child these games are bad but seriously, who's the child going to listen to, his dad or his peers who al claim he must have that new, cool, ultra-mature game?
Yes, bad parenting. Good parenting would being raising a child that isn't so easily swayed by what you believe is harmful (even that point is highly suspect i believe). If you didn't raise your kid to make good decisions when you're not around, regardless of what they are exposed to, you didn't raise your kid properly.
But as for the specific law, that says that stores need to verify the age for M and AO titles, I feel that it's a good thing. The fact that some stores won't stock it doesn't bother me at all. The fact that it affects their profit is irrelevant.
The fact that your kid plays an M or AO game is irrelevant. First, prove that it causes some harm. That will be difficult, b/c it doesn't.
There will still be a market for games like Vice City, Singles, and BMX-XXX, just as there is still a market for porn and ultra-violent movies.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe some of the reason that most movies suck lately is b/c they are trying to avoid the R rating? They stick to things that will be safe that they can get the most numbers in.
Because you DO end up from keeping the content from being created.
How many R rated movies are made? The movie industry has repeated it cuts films to get them down to PG-13. Its a different way to censor, but its still censorship.
I think your arguement is wrong not for any reason that you describe, but that there is simplely no proof that playing violent games leads to violent kids. You point to one or two examples (which in the end, I think the juries will reject 'the game made me do it' arguement) while failing to see the MILLIONS of kids that DON'T start behaving badly from playing video games.
My generation grew up with violent video games (I'm 26)..Mortal Kombat, Doom, etc. Are there lots of 26 year old killers out there now? If there's not, then perhaps you should rethink your arguement that M rated games (or R rated movies for that matter) should be restricted.
Why? If the kernel you're running has a root exploit that can only be carried out if logged in at the console, why bring down a webserver for that? If apache (or whatever) had a hole then fine, but if the conditions for the exploit cannot be met then why bother patching?
Hmm...please, try following the link I referenced, which is here.
Notice the sentence "And unlike a red laser, the green beam itself can be seen in mid-air in dark conditions, not just the laser beam dot. This allows the green laser pointer to be used for pointing to star constellations (skypointing) and also just generally look cool as hell," near the end of the second paragraph.
Stop talking out your ass and actually try to read peoples' posts.
Did you see the green laser pointer on ThinkGeek someone else linked to? Please, check it out, it does list 'sky pointing' as one of the uses. Google some, and you'll see that yes, green lasers are used for such a purpose...and specifically green ones.
The fact that you don't know whats on the other end of the beam is irrelevent. As somone else pointed out, if i dress in all black with a leather coat and chains, should i be arrested b/c my dress scares you?
Also as others have pointed out, guided missles wouldn't use the visible spectrum, and any kind of gun wouldn't really matter i'd think. You'd have to be a hell of a shot to overcome wind, gravity, the movement of the plane (they go pretty fast you know). Even if it was a gun, what does it matter, the pilot couldn't do anything about it anyway.
The fact that it happened to two aircraft tells me that he likely lives near an airport (and maybe not even that, since the police were purposefully looking in the same area as the first incident). If this is something he does alot, then yes, its possible it was an accident.
The only gov't action I'd recommend here is a stern "don't do that anymore, you live under a flight corridor." (FWIW, it doesn't really matter to me that this happened before or after 9/11..the world was always dangerous, and always will be..nothings changed.)
Or do you think we shouldn't be able to build a new highway that would significantly help a majority of people, because one guy doesn't want to move? Or fuck the people in a town that needs higher capacity power lines, so some family can stay put?
I agree the power should be used sparringly, but in this case (and in the case of building interstates) I believe it is necessary.
I posted a reply higher up pointing to the defintion of condemn. Guess what, they ALREADY can just take my property from me. Its already built in and legal, I'm not advocating anything that they can't already do.
The local telcoms are failing to provide the service themselves. They don't want to do what we want them to do, they just want to dig and and rake in the money.
Someone else spent millions on this and you're just going to take it?
No, not someone, a corporation. Big difference there.
If the service is really that bad, get a huge petition together and lobby a different telecommunications company to lay their own lines and render SBC inefective.
Why? And we would be petitioning, petitioning to just take the lines from them. Why should we have to pay AGAIN for lines, when we've already been paying all this time?
THAT is your option.
The telcos have made sure that is actually NOT an option. Just look at the new law in PA. Think other telco's aren't chomping at the bit to get a law like that passed?
Not to just take it because they manage it improperly.
It is (or should be, at least) public infastructure, so yes, just taking it from them because they manage it poorly I think is perfectly acceptable.
Note that my plan doesn't even require putting them out of business...they still get to offer serivce over the lines too, they just don't own them anymore (and actually don't have to worry about maintence either). They'll still have a head start, b/c they already have CS in place, and everthing else they'd need.
The idiot that illuminated the aircraft in NJ with a laser could have blinded the pilot and caused the plane to crash. The Patriot Act is an ideal tool for use in such cases.
I'd say you were an idiot for thinking that. Was he purposefully trying to take down the plane, or was he doing something else? (Hint: Something else, like pointing out constilations to his daughter. RTFA).
Yet in your mind motive makes no difference? You might want to read the definition of terrorism. This isn't anymore terroristic then those kids that poisoned the punch at a school dance. They even did it purposefully, but it wasn't terrorism. Note the part about 'for political or social reasons.'
Slashdot Mirror
This obviously puts the company in a sticky situation since they're most likely NOT in the business of being a match-making service, and this kind of behavior is almost certainly NOT allowed on "company time."
So is it wrong for a waitress to spend a little time flirting with a customer? Or agreeing to go out on a date with him?
Except it was a whole news story, even posted here, because "Shark Tale" had the word "Fuck" in its intro text, turns out because it was the text inserted by the pirates. Everyone blamed Disney for it...
I said I don't keep up with console news. So when I see PSP or GBA in the headline, I skip the blurb. Or do you assume that everyone hear reads every story?
There were several quite well known games that were over $50. Chronotrigger, if I recall, was one, which ran $70-100. The Mario RPG ran something ilke $65 at first, I think. There were others as well.
Never heard of those (and yes, I did own the SNES). I also haven't seen any games going for more than $50.
Granted, before this, a decade earlier, games were only $15-30. However, they could be made by 3 people in 4 months
I'm pretty sure it took more then 3 people in four months to make a SNES game.
You're twisting what I'm saying. I said a video game is still OFTEN a money losing or barely profitable proposition. Yes, the popular ones make lots of money. The popular ones aren't a majority proportion of all the games published.
I'm not sure how I twisted what you said; if the game is losing money or barely profitable, its tha way b/c it sucks or no one knows about it. Either way I don't see how someone playing the game that would NOT buy it if that's the only way he could play it would affect that (and make the game slightly more profitable).
As far as I'm concerned this "it doesn't count as theft if it's not physical property" argument doesn't fly
As far as Im concerned it does.
What makes products distributed as digital data (as software or music files) different from any other?
1. They aren't 'products.' They are information.
2. They can be infinitly reproduced with no cost. Our entire system of economics revolves around scarcity. Something that can be made an infinite number of times isn't scarce, is it? Something not scarce has no monetary value.
At least someone who wants to sell rip-offs of a physical good has to invest (however minimally) in some engineering and manufacturing capital.
So that's more acceptable in your mind, b/c they have to pay too?
Further, the example given is not what is done with GPLed software. Anyone who releases software under the GPL has given up some of the rights afforded by copyright law. If I have reserved all rights to my software, you cannot treat it as you would had I released it under the GPL.
The GP didn't say what license I had chosen for my software. I can write something, GPL it and try to sell it. Someone could buy it and then sell it for less.
Look up the laws. Simply purchasing the software does NOT grant you free reign. It does *nothing* other than giving you a license to use.
I can use it however I see fit. The ONLY law resticting me is copyright. Reverse engineering != copying. (BTW, copying for personal use IS allowalble)
Read your agreement.
The agreement thats invalid b/c it was not presented at time of sale? That agreement?
When I pay for software, I've never been given any 'agreement' to sign or otherwise consent to.
Actually they ARE still selling those games, in classic collections or those little cards for the GBA game reader.
This was just a common example of commercialized piracy occuring in plain view. What about the piracy of commercial games? Consider the recent story of that new GBA game that the British man had bought his daughter, that turned out to be a pirated version.
Well, that'd be news to me. (Playing classic nes games on GBA). I have to admit i don't follow console games much anymore. So what was the problem with the british man buying a pirated game? She still could enjoy it right?
You ignored my later argument where REAL financial loss occurs, where the ignorant business owners have their stock taken and can face legal battles for selling it, depite ignorance that it was pirated.
Its the business' responsibilty to make sure they are complying with the law. I don't feel bad if they were ignorant they were selling something pirated...its THIER responsibilty to check that before they start selling. Are you going to cry for someone that starts selling crack and then claim he didn't know it was illegal?
And we're talking about profiteering. If you write a program to sell, and I make a copy and start selling it, taking all the profit for none of the work and not sharing a cent with you, do you consider legal?
Isn't that what people can do with GPLed software already?
I'm not talking about the teenage pirates who do it for fun and games. I'm talking about the people who make a business out of it.
So what?
The pirated price would ALWAYS be less than the retail price, because the pirates expense is strictly in cost of manufacturing. They don't have to recover the development costs.
True, its probably time for a different economic model then. If I built a machine a la a Star Trek replicator, should it be a crime to clone someone else's BMW (provided i give it the raw material to build the clone with)? Why should it be? At the point we do have that technology, I'd say its time to rethink our economics, I don't think that outlawing such a machine or only letting the rich use it to lower production costs is a good idea. Humanity would be better off if everyone could benefit from it. We just have to find something other then greed to motivate people.
In the context of video games, the current $50 price point IS a negotiated price.
No, its not. Its the price the manufacture set, which may or may not be the price people are willing to pay.
There were plenty of SNES games at the $70-100.
Are you smoking crack or something? All SNSE games were about $50. And indicently stayed there until the gov't said that Nitendo couldn't set prices like that. But i've NEVER seen a SNES game going for anything more then $50.
However, cost of development has gone way up while price per unit has come down. While volume has gone up, a video game is still often enough a money losing, break even, or, barely profitable, proposition. Without profit, there can't be growth.
You're just making things up. Popular games make TONS of money, unpopular ones don't. Piracy doesn't matter here; people that will only take the game for free wouldn't buy it anyway, if pirating was not an option. So where is the money lost?
Either way, prison seems a bit much.
I went to a mall a couple weeks before Christmas, and there was a kiosk selling those video-game-controller-game-pack things (has an N64-like controller, a light gun, and another controller, with 50 to 100 games). All those games are pirated - it had Mario Brothers, Contra, and other NES games, yet not a SINGLE Nintendo logo on the box... those are pirated games, sold at a profit. It's not much different than if I duplicated someone's software, and sold it on a website with a pre-installed crack or serial number, claiming it as my own.
The sell those in the mall here too...no Nintendo logo or anything. I doubt its a pirated product at all..and if it is, how much is Nintendo charging? Oh wait, they aren't even making those games anymore. So where's the loss?
Making duplicates of something is not the same as removing an object from someone's possesion. This 'I could have made X money if it wasn't pirated' doesn't fly. Are you certain that everyone that pirated the game would have purchased it if they couldn't pirate it? If they bought a pirated version for less then the normal retail, that should tell the company that its price is too high. But no, they want to ignore the part of economics that says buyer AND seller together determine price.
They fobid women from having more than one child and force millions of Chineese women to have abortions.
So what do you suggest? They do nothing, and let their country become overrun with people, much like Ethopia? They are trying to solve a ligitimate problem...whats your solution?
Does it matter which country we're talking about when its suggested that we put people in jail for copyright infringement?
Ya, i'm going to lose $20 so that i can write off $10 of that loss. Good idea.
The company IS losing money as they are not getting full value for the extra shares issued.
Bull. If I want to sell my car for $5000, a buyer comes along and we negotiate the prices to $4000, have I eaten a $1000 loss? No. The item was only worth $4000, because thats the lowest price i would sell at and the highest the buyer would purchase at. It takes a buyer AND seller to determine the value of something.
Since this is stock (and not something of real value anyway), what has the company lost? The employee paid to the company $50 it didn't have before. The fact that others are paying 100 is moot. Besides, the employee could then sell the stock for $100, making 50 in profit, and now the share is worth $100 again.
Exactly.
I'd much rather pay $30 for the superbit edition of a dvd then the one with all that extra crap i never watch anyway.
Next time there's a small hole in Apache that for instance allows execution as the apache or nobody users, that local kernel security hole will come back to bite you in the ass and lead to your box being rooted.
What I meant by console login was that you had to be physically at the keyboard of the computer you're trying to compromise. There are a few of these holes out there.
I do agree that if there are design defects in the module security they should be fixed, but there are times you don't want to patch either.
Take for example, the patch that opens another security hole, which is even worse then the one that got fixed.
Bad parenting you say? A part of good parenting is to give your child freedoms to make them learn about independance and responsibility. Of course, you could teach your child these games are bad but seriously, who's the child going to listen to, his dad or his peers who al claim he must have that new, cool, ultra-mature game?
Yes, bad parenting. Good parenting would being raising a child that isn't so easily swayed by what you believe is harmful (even that point is highly suspect i believe). If you didn't raise your kid to make good decisions when you're not around, regardless of what they are exposed to, you didn't raise your kid properly.
But as for the specific law, that says that stores need to verify the age for M and AO titles, I feel that it's a good thing. The fact that some stores won't stock it doesn't bother me at all. The fact that it affects their profit is irrelevant.
The fact that your kid plays an M or AO game is irrelevant. First, prove that it causes some harm. That will be difficult, b/c it doesn't.
There will still be a market for games like Vice City, Singles, and BMX-XXX, just as there is still a market for porn and ultra-violent movies.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe some of the reason that most movies suck lately is b/c they are trying to avoid the R rating? They stick to things that will be safe that they can get the most numbers in.
Because you DO end up from keeping the content from being created.
How many R rated movies are made? The movie industry has repeated it cuts films to get them down to PG-13. Its a different way to censor, but its still censorship.
I think your arguement is wrong not for any reason that you describe, but that there is simplely no proof that playing violent games leads to violent kids. You point to one or two examples (which in the end, I think the juries will reject 'the game made me do it' arguement) while failing to see the MILLIONS of kids that DON'T start behaving badly from playing video games.
My generation grew up with violent video games (I'm 26)..Mortal Kombat, Doom, etc. Are there lots of 26 year old killers out there now? If there's not, then perhaps you should rethink your arguement that M rated games (or R rated movies for that matter) should be restricted.
Why? If the kernel you're running has a root exploit that can only be carried out if logged in at the console, why bring down a webserver for that? If apache (or whatever) had a hole then fine, but if the conditions for the exploit cannot be met then why bother patching?
Hmm...please, try following the link I referenced, which is here.
Notice the sentence "And unlike a red laser, the green beam itself can be seen in mid-air in dark conditions, not just the laser beam dot. This allows the green laser pointer to be used for pointing to star constellations (skypointing) and also just generally look cool as hell," near the end of the second paragraph.
Stop talking out your ass and actually try to read peoples' posts.
Did you see the green laser pointer on ThinkGeek someone else linked to? Please, check it out, it does list 'sky pointing' as one of the uses. Google some, and you'll see that yes, green lasers are used for such a purpose...and specifically green ones.
The fact that you don't know whats on the other end of the beam is irrelevent. As somone else pointed out, if i dress in all black with a leather coat and chains, should i be arrested b/c my dress scares you?
Also as others have pointed out, guided missles wouldn't use the visible spectrum, and any kind of gun wouldn't really matter i'd think. You'd have to be a hell of a shot to overcome wind, gravity, the movement of the plane (they go pretty fast you know). Even if it was a gun, what does it matter, the pilot couldn't do anything about it anyway.
The fact that it happened to two aircraft tells me that he likely lives near an airport (and maybe not even that, since the police were purposefully looking in the same area as the first incident). If this is something he does alot, then yes, its possible it was an accident.
The only gov't action I'd recommend here is a stern "don't do that anymore, you live under a flight corridor." (FWIW, it doesn't really matter to me that this happened before or after 9/11..the world was always dangerous, and always will be..nothings changed.)
Maybe in LA they can, but do you really think such a system is installed everywhere?
Well, why?
Or do you think we shouldn't be able to build a new highway that would significantly help a majority of people, because one guy doesn't want to move? Or fuck the people in a town that needs higher capacity power lines, so some family can stay put?
I agree the power should be used sparringly, but in this case (and in the case of building interstates) I believe it is necessary.
I posted a reply higher up pointing to the defintion of condemn. Guess what, they ALREADY can just take my property from me. Its already built in and legal, I'm not advocating anything that they can't already do.
Are you now more afraid then you were before?
Why should the government be doing this?
The local telcoms are failing to provide the service themselves. They don't want to do what we want them to do, they just want to dig and and rake in the money.
Someone else spent millions on this and you're just going to take it?
No, not someone, a corporation. Big difference there.
That isn't, nor should it be, legal.
Yes,
it is legal. Specifically, see #5.
If the service is really that bad, get a huge petition together and lobby a different telecommunications company to lay their own lines and render SBC inefective.
Why? And we would be petitioning, petitioning to just take the lines from them. Why should we have to pay AGAIN for lines, when we've already been paying all this time?
THAT is your option.
The telcos have made sure that is actually NOT an option. Just look at the new law in PA. Think other telco's aren't chomping at the bit to get a law like that passed?
Not to just take it because they manage it improperly.
It is (or should be, at least) public infastructure, so yes, just taking it from them because they manage it poorly I think is perfectly acceptable.
Note that my plan doesn't even require putting them out of business...they still get to offer serivce over the lines too, they just don't own them anymore (and actually don't have to worry about maintence either). They'll still have a head start, b/c they already have CS in place, and everthing else they'd need.
The idiot that illuminated the aircraft in NJ
with a laser could have blinded the pilot and
caused the plane to crash. The Patriot Act is
an ideal tool for use in such cases.
I'd say you were an idiot for thinking that. Was he purposefully trying to take down the plane, or was he doing something else? (Hint: Something else, like pointing out constilations to his daughter. RTFA).
Yet in your mind motive makes no difference? You might want to read the definition of terrorism. This isn't anymore terroristic then those kids that poisoned the punch at a school dance. They even did it purposefully, but it wasn't terrorism. Note the part about 'for political or social reasons.'