Depends on what you mean by gambling. If to you gambling is earning compensation based on risk, then all professional sports are gambling, at least for the people making the real money, such as the owners. So are all businesses for that matter. But if you leave gambling to not include events where correct actions can create a statistical advantage over your opponent, then not only are sports not gambling, but then neither is playing pinball for a wager, or games like poker.
Note that all I want is a smaller and less powerful government that doesn't try to protect me from every perceived threat, doesn't try to manage my life for me, doesn't try to separate me from the consequences of my decision-making.
I have an idea. Since people want very different things, we could break up the country into smaller autonomous regions that could regulate themselves. This way if a group of people want to allow gay marriage for example, they could move to a region that supports gay marriage, but it wouldn't mean that all the other regions had to.
And since each of these regions would be to small to be able to defend themselves from larger more powerful governments, and so the people of these regions could interact and move between them freely we could create a union between all the regions
We could call the regions "states" and we could call the over all union, "United States". We could even write a new constitution over this union and include some wording that would protect the states ability to have their own regulations. I would probably word this clause something like "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
No that would never work. Someone would add in some clause to regulate trade between the states, so that the states didn't rip each other off, or so people didn't have to go through foreign currency exchange when they travelled between the states. And then some politicians would figure out how to us this clause as a loop hole to force regulation on the states.
Your argument is dead in the water based on existing court cases.
Just because it has been done does not make it right. Again the US would not exist and neither would any free or semi free country if it were not for people disagreeing with prior precedent. Yes past legal precedent has caused acceptance of violations of state's rights, constitutionally protected rights, and unenumerated rights. Some times this has been for good reason, like banning personal ownership of nuclear weapons, since such weaponry was not considered part of the definition of "arms" when the second amendment was ratified (but then neither were semi automatic firearms, but I digress). Usually it's not with good reason, but the people accept it none the less. And then sometimes, rare but it happens, the court realizes that a prior precedent is indeed wrong and a later sitting court creates an overriding precedent. I for one hope, though I will admit I have very little faith, that this is one of those cases. But then again I'm not sure that prior court precedent really matters since we've already stomped all over "New York Times Co. v. United States", and we do live in a country that allowed the "smith act", a statue designed to protect the government from being held accountable for corruption.
Oh and feel free to to put any signs you want on your property, or even to carry on your person out side of my property. Just also be prepared to be taken to court for libel if that sign contains damaging and false statements. Notice that I'm not in anyway infringing your right to speech. You can say what ever you want, you just don't have the right to put it on my property (my medium as I mentioned before) and you can still be held responsible for libelous and slanderous statements. But that's pretty far off from the kind of speech we are talking about regarding the alleged actions of Manning, who so far has never been show to have made any false statements in revealing information (that's not to say that the original authors of the documents are not making libelous statements, but that would be their cross to bare not Manning's).
It's perfectly valid for a citizen to take someone's free speech rights away.
This is completely wrong. Other people would have the right to take away you specific medium for speech if they own that medium, such as a news paper not printing an article, or a TV station censoring a video. They do not have the right to stop you from finding another medium for your expression. Not that it even applies here since we are talking about federal government agencies attempting to infringe upon Manning's right to free speech (again, if Manning was even the one that revealed the information which has yet to be proven).
Has you ever heard of a concept called the right of sovereignty? Or even sovereign immunity?
Are you speaking of the constitutionally protected right of state sovereignty so long as it does not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights, that has been trampled upon for the last 50 or more years? Or are you talking about the US federal government's protection from law suits? Or do you think we live in a monarchy and that the president rules over the US as if he were a god? Not sure what any of that has to do with the right of the US government to maintain secrets from the citizens of the United States, but I'm sure you must have had a point there somewhere.
Starting with the civil war, and moving leaps forward with FDR as president up to and including the current president, the US government has picked and chose which parts of the constitution apply at any given time depending on their agenda at the time.
And those that support this type of violation of the Constitution should be held accountable for their crimes. I wouldn't say that has to go as far as to punish people that spout off about it on the internet, so you're probably safe, but the congressmen, presidents and other elected and appointed officials should be held accountable for their violations. And no the right of sovereignty does not protect those individuals from such legal recourse.
I hope Manning gets what he deserves.
And so do I. I hope that he gets a fair trial in which it is show that if he did reveal this information, that it is the right of the US citizenry to know the actions of their elected and appointed officials. Of course we would have to stop violating Manning's constitutionally protected rights long enough to actually have the trial. I doubt he actually does get a fair trial or what he deserves, but I also think that what ever happens to him, it was worth the price.
Who ever revealed this information is extremely loyal to the citizens of the United States, the ultimate rulers of this country. Welcome to the concept of a representative democracy.
I'm not going to argue semantics. You can say rebel instead of traitor, but that does change the actions taken.
The more important part is that if it turns out it was Manning that revealed this information, he was acting in accordance with the US Constitution. All persons in the United States have a protected right to the freedom of speech and of the press. All persons, not just citizens, and not just civilians. The only place it calls out a difference between civilians and military personnel is during times of war or public danger. We are not currently at war, and it has not been show that the revelation of this information has caused any public danger. Those that wish to deny Manning's, or who ever's, right to freedom of speech and the press are not traitors but are violating the the protected rights of persons of the United States. These are the true criminals who need to brought to trial.
On the other hand, the right of elected and appointed government personal to operate in secret without the consent of the citizens of the United States is not protected by the US Constitution. And those that attempt to protect the governments ability to operate in secret are the real betrayers of the citizens of the United States. Luckily for you and others betraying the Citizens, or even being a traitor, is not illegal.
Just wanted to clarify what you are calling natural rights. Of the four that you mentioned the only one you got right was the "right to defend yourself to the best of your ability" while the rest need to be prefix with "right to attempt to..." or postfixed as you did in the first with "to the best of your ability". Therefore the only true natural right is "The right to attempt to do anything you want to the best of your ability." For example, you don't have a right to breath, but you do have the right to attempt to breath, not mater how hard you are being choked.
To Summarize. Natural Rights are useless in the context of real world conversations.
But yes, a traitor is simply bad all the way around.
If you are a US citizen then you would not have a country to call home if it where not for these "bad" people in history. The founding fathers of this country were traitors. Traitors are now and have always been necessary for countering governmental corruption. We would be a much better country, and world for that matter, if more people had the courage to be traitors.
Most people who have been labeled hero's in history were also traitors. So your statement that "a traitor is simply bad all the way around" does not seem to hold true over the course of time. If Manning is the person that revealed this information, then he has already be responsible for more democratic change than any US official in history (with the possible exception of the founding fathers).
Manning is not a civilian. He is a soldier. So no, he doesn't have that right.
Civilian or not, he is still a citizen and he still has a duty to his country, not the government, but his fellow citizens. The fact that he is paid by the citizens is even more reason for him to operate on behalf of the citizens and expose the actions of the civil servants that act on behalf of the country.
I also believe his punishment is fully justified. What if he had released something that really should be classified?
Again, these documents are created on behalf of the citizens of the United States. Not a single document created by a US government official or employee, when conducting official Duties should be unavailable to the Citizens of the United States.
The line needs to be drawn somewhere, but a single soldier doesn't have that duty or that right.
Every citizen of the United States has a Duty to expose the any activity that the government is conducting on behalf of the citizens. Every citizen should have that right, but sadly in a corrupt country that just won't happen.
Could have been worse, you could have dropped out to work when they were all calling, only to get laid off and find yourself without a degree a year or two later.
Yes, that would have sucked, being laid off after gaining two years of real work experience in an environment where getting a senior title, and the knowledge to BS your way through an interview, was being given away like candy. And to think with that two years experience and a senior title, he'd have to be competing against fresh college graduates. Wait, that doesn't sound so bad after all.
I don't know what people expect the military to do if someone just goes off and decides to release material, slap them on the wrist?
When they are releasing material that should have been a matter disclosed to the public and not needing to be covertly release, they should be praised. This is public officials making public decisions on behalf of the citizens of the United States. This is not now and should never have been private material.
If the US was a corporation and the people where shareholders then we wouldn't be hearing about Manning being locked up, we would be hearing about military and political officials being tried. In the US, on paper at least, the government works for the people, not the other way around.
except if the people who didn't take the "free upgrade" kept the OtherOS but lost their ability to use the PSN there would be enormous uproar and this entire problem would have happened anyways.
You mean kind of like when MS discontinued supplying xbox live servers for all original xbox games. Sometimes online support is discontinued for old devices and old software. In this case Sony could have easily said that PSN was being discontinued for the old console, but you could upgrade to the newer firmware to gain access to the new PSN. Oh wait that's what they did, they just didn't rename the PS3 Slim to PS4. Just interesting that when MS takes away a feature, with no option what so ever, no one is up in arms. But when Sony does so, with the option of keeping either this or that feature, people cry like babies.
I think your fooling yourself if you think people would really make an uproar over the cancellation of support for an old console, especially when they are offered a free upgrade to a newer console.
Likewise, if you do not update, another advertised function (the ability to play on PSN) no longer works.
Are you implying that by UK law, if a game is labelled as having online capability the producer of the game has to keep online capability for eternity or else they are in violation of the law. If that's the case there are many game producers and console makers that should be receiving some hefty fines, and many consumers that should be receiving a refund.
I gather many products and services are available in the UK that contain the licensing clause that "features may change without notice." So this one particular claim is certainly not cut and dry. Again, if they had just named the PS3 Slim to be the PS4 there would probably be little claim here at all, and most people would agree that the laws are not about nomenclature.
I was never actually disagreeing with your original statement, only the follow up comments. I think Sony is wrong for going after people who want to hack their own hardware or even software (and I make a living writing software), unless there is proof of overt violation of copyright (unlicensed distribution of copyrighted material), but so far that does not seem to be an issue. What I do take issue with is people whining about the loss of functionality after explicitly installing the firmware that removed the functionality, and not realizing that the solution to the cracking/cheating problem could have been a heck of a lot worse.
Never been paid by Sony, and I'm not even a big fan of their products (Sony optical drives have to be the worst in the industry). I do own a PS3, and beyond the piss poor build quality of the first generation of PS3s and Sony's horrible repair policy, I've been pretty darn happy with my purchase (actually my slim seems a little buggy).
That being said, I still think both sides of this argument are full of a bunch of whiners. You have the pro cracking side that want's to claim fraud and abuse and all kinds mean nasty things. Then you have the pro walled garden side that bitches and moans when the go to an online community and find out it's full of cheating douche bags (a problem we didn't have the days when network games where played with people we actually knew in real life or ran entirely on a secure server). Both sides have a valid argument (and don't try and give me the whole BS that the PS3 would not have been hacked if they had left in Other OS, because that's complete crap) but whining about it is just freaking annoying.
And also notice, I'm not at all supporting Sony's case against George or any other crackers (Sorry I was in the scene back when hacker and cracker had different meanings). I also wish that my PS3 still had an Other OS option, or better yet, low level access to the cell processor (not worth playing with if you don't have machine code access).
All I am saying is that Sony gave people an option to either continue operating their Linux installs and playing their current games, or losing their Linux installs and being able to run the latest games and what they hoped would be cheating free online games. But rather than be happy with the options, we would rather bitch and moan because we didn't get the option we wanted.
Capitalist - a person who has capital especially invested in business
At least that is according to Meriam Webster, but they also think nuclear can be pronounced Nuculer so I'm not sure we should accept their definition.
Your lack of understanding the meaning of Capitalist doesn't make your entire argument invalid. But your lack of understand or recognition of history on the other hand does.
At least you are able to admit that Sony didn't make you do anything or force you to update your PS3. They offered you an update to continue using their latest services.
And you are right about MS, they would never do something like what Sony did. When MS want's to remove a feature they just discontinue the old model and create a new one, with no, or limited compatibility between. And they certainly wouldn't offer a free upgrade path, no matter how unpalatable the option is.
Then Sony pushed an update to the machine that prevented it from doing Y
Sony pushed an update to your system? I don't recall any update being pushed to my PS3, I have had to download and install each an every one. I remember the one that removed Other OS, and how it was clearly noted and how I explicitly clicked "I agree" and "Install now" (Or something along those lines). If I'm wrong on this and someones machine was updated without authorization (which I had never heard of before today) then I'd be happy to change my mind on the issue, but so far that has yet to be shown.
Did Sony claim that the original PS3 could run Linux?
Yes, and unless you explicitly installed a firmware that removed that feature then the original PS3s still have that feature.
Did Sony make it clear that they might disable this feature?
Yes, in all their end user license agreements it states very clearly that features may change without notice.
Did Sony push automatic updates to PS3s?
Maybe, but as of yet they have not automatically pushed any updates that removed any features (unless there is some flag in the OS that the user can select to allow automatic updates but I have not seen one).
Did Sony tell its users that upgrading the firmware past a certain point would disable the OtherOS functionality?
Yes, the firmware update that removed Other OS said explicitly that it was going to do so, and you have to explicitly agree to the install.
Did Sony provide a mechanism for owners who were using the OtherOS feature to update their firmware to resolve "security updates"/critical bugfixes?
Yes. If your Other OS was already installed then you would have been able to update your OS with what ever latest patches you wanted. And if you chose to keep the Other OS option you lost connectivity to PSN so there was little reason if any to go online outside of your Other OS so security of the Game OS was a non-issue.
If Sony transformed a legitimately-purchased working device into a non-working device without properly informing the user, I believe that the user might have several remedies available under our current (US) legal system.
When and if Sony does that, then I'm sure people will have a legal means for a remedy, but until that day comes, it's really a moot point.
All I'm saying is that this is no different than discontinuing the current console and releasing a new one. When Microsoft had done that with the XBox, new releases for the XBox all but dried up (a couple games trickled in after but not many). Sony effectively did the same thing with the removal of Other OS, but they also offered a free upgrade to the latest version of the Playstation. They were just foolish and called it a PS3 slim rather than a PS4 as they, hide sight being 20/20 and all, should have.
Had the slim been released as the PS4 with full backward compatibility, and all the newer PS3 games relabeled as PS4 games, then people would have been happy that the latest PS was fully backward compatible, but upset over the short lifespan of the PS3. But when Sony sent out the free upgrade to convert peoples PS3s to PS4s people would have been ecstatic. None of this issue would have even existed. People with PS3s that wanted to keep Other OS would have kept it. People who wanted to forgo the Other OS option in exchange for a free upgrade to a PS4 would have done so. And the whole world would have been buzzing about Sony being the first and only game console with a free upgrade.
You can be pessimistic all you want and consider it something that Sony took away. But trust me, had it been an MS console and they somehow let you install windows on it but had to take that feature away for security, then you wouldn't even have the option to keep Other OS or play latest games, you would be out buying a new console if you wanted to play the latest games.
It does not matter who came first. If holders of wealth did not reinvest, then everyone would be starving to death as food supplies dwindle from lack of increases in production capacity.
Yes because everyone was starving to death before the accumulation of wealth and reinvestment.(please note the sarcasm)
Again, the world will not end if we stop investing capital as there remains land and resources to be had and used. It would end if we stopped having children.
Try and remember that the people actually producing food an other necessities are not those with accumulated capital, and if those with capital stopped investing, their capital would become worthless. Lets just hope that some of the people having children remember to teach them basic survival skills so when the capital dries up, or the capitalists attempt to hold society hostage, we will have some people who can teach those who can't fend for themselves how to do so. And just so you know, when that time comes, I'll be happy to teach you how to fend for yourself.
Or you can just keep paying your taxes, and keep on bitching about it, what ever makes you feel better.
I don't give a damn what their reasons were, that's fraudulent.
Where is the fraud. Sony advertised a machine that could play some video games (not all video games, just the ones that where up until that point labeled as PS3 games) and would also run other compatible OSes. If you lost the first feature then your machine is broken and you should get it repaired. If you lost the second one it was your own choice and you probably did it in exchange for being able to access an even larger library of games (games labeled PS3 compatible that required a firmware release after the removal of Other OS)
I intentionally bought a system that was advertised as being a cheap supercomputer which ran Linux and played games!
And you still have that system unless you voluntarily upgraded the firmware. You were never promised compatibility with Game release for any specific period of time, and specifically warned that Online Servers will not be maintained indefinitely. So you lost nothing that was advertised. In actually you gained the option to play newer games in exchange for the lose of Other OS. A choice that you would have to make on your own.
Anyone who purchased it for the OtherOS functionality (to have that AND be able to play games) was then legitimately wronged by Sony.
This is not at all true. People who bought a PS3 labeled with OtherOS compatibility were able to use that feature and every game manufactured up until Sony released an updated version without Other OS, and even up until Sony offered the ability to play newer games in exchange for the lose of Other OS. These people you speak of lost nothing at all, they actually gained an option they would not have gotten from other console producers. Had this been an MS problem for instance then we would be seeing an XBox 720 being released with no new game releases for the 360 and the 720 would have limited backward compatibility with the 360.
Sony did screw up. They should have release a new console called the PS4 that was 100% backward compatible with the PS3 (it would have the same hardware after all). And then the could have offered a free upgrade from a PS3 to a PS4, with the understanding that the PS4 does not support the Other OS feature. This way, instead of people being upset about the removal of a feature, Sony would have been praised as the first console manufacturer to implement forward compatibility. Sure there would be no improvement over the PS3, except the ability to play the latest games, but since it would cost the same as the PS3, most consumers wouldn't even notice.
Sony missed the possibility for a great PR win in this case. And now they have to deal with uninformed users like those in this thread, complaining because Sony gave them a chose to keep what they have, or lose one old feature (Other OS) in exchange for a new one (Latest Games and Latest Game Servers).
The same logic says those who invest money and own companies are actually subsidizing this country.
Society existed before the accumulation of wealth, it will not exist after the discontinuation of breeding (at least with current technological know how). Get rid of wealth accumulation, and the ability to invest, and society would continue. Get rid of children and society is doomed to extinction. Lucky for all of us nature already figured that out and made the drive to reproduce considerably higher than the drive to accumulate wealth.
Your logic is that people would stop having kids without tax breaks
My logic, as you put it, is those that are having children are subsidizing the entire country and so it seems only reasonable that they receive some compensation for their subsidization. Trust me, even with the tax breaks provided, the economics of raising children is not a net positive. Parents are not getting rich off of your taxes, but you are getting rich off of them and their children.
Slashdot Mirror
wouldn't that be more towards gambling?
Depends on what you mean by gambling. If to you gambling is earning compensation based on risk, then all professional sports are gambling, at least for the people making the real money, such as the owners. So are all businesses for that matter. But if you leave gambling to not include events where correct actions can create a statistical advantage over your opponent, then not only are sports not gambling, but then neither is playing pinball for a wager, or games like poker.
Note that all I want is a smaller and less powerful government that doesn't try to protect me from every perceived threat, doesn't try to manage my life for me, doesn't try to separate me from the consequences of my decision-making.
I have an idea. Since people want very different things, we could break up the country into smaller autonomous regions that could regulate themselves. This way if a group of people want to allow gay marriage for example, they could move to a region that supports gay marriage, but it wouldn't mean that all the other regions had to.
And since each of these regions would be to small to be able to defend themselves from larger more powerful governments, and so the people of these regions could interact and move between them freely we could create a union between all the regions
We could call the regions "states" and we could call the over all union, "United States". We could even write a new constitution over this union and include some wording that would protect the states ability to have their own regulations. I would probably word this clause something like "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
No that would never work. Someone would add in some clause to regulate trade between the states, so that the states didn't rip each other off, or so people didn't have to go through foreign currency exchange when they travelled between the states. And then some politicians would figure out how to us this clause as a loop hole to force regulation on the states.
Your argument is dead in the water based on existing court cases.
Just because it has been done does not make it right. Again the US would not exist and neither would any free or semi free country if it were not for people disagreeing with prior precedent. Yes past legal precedent has caused acceptance of violations of state's rights, constitutionally protected rights, and unenumerated rights. Some times this has been for good reason, like banning personal ownership of nuclear weapons, since such weaponry was not considered part of the definition of "arms" when the second amendment was ratified (but then neither were semi automatic firearms, but I digress). Usually it's not with good reason, but the people accept it none the less. And then sometimes, rare but it happens, the court realizes that a prior precedent is indeed wrong and a later sitting court creates an overriding precedent. I for one hope, though I will admit I have very little faith, that this is one of those cases. But then again I'm not sure that prior court precedent really matters since we've already stomped all over "New York Times Co. v. United States", and we do live in a country that allowed the "smith act", a statue designed to protect the government from being held accountable for corruption.
Oh and feel free to to put any signs you want on your property, or even to carry on your person out side of my property. Just also be prepared to be taken to court for libel if that sign contains damaging and false statements. Notice that I'm not in anyway infringing your right to speech. You can say what ever you want, you just don't have the right to put it on my property (my medium as I mentioned before) and you can still be held responsible for libelous and slanderous statements. But that's pretty far off from the kind of speech we are talking about regarding the alleged actions of Manning, who so far has never been show to have made any false statements in revealing information (that's not to say that the original authors of the documents are not making libelous statements, but that would be their cross to bare not Manning's).
It's perfectly valid for a citizen to take someone's free speech rights away.
This is completely wrong. Other people would have the right to take away you specific medium for speech if they own that medium, such as a news paper not printing an article, or a TV station censoring a video. They do not have the right to stop you from finding another medium for your expression. Not that it even applies here since we are talking about federal government agencies attempting to infringe upon Manning's right to free speech (again, if Manning was even the one that revealed the information which has yet to be proven).
Has you ever heard of a concept called the right of sovereignty? Or even sovereign immunity?
Are you speaking of the constitutionally protected right of state sovereignty so long as it does not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights, that has been trampled upon for the last 50 or more years? Or are you talking about the US federal government's protection from law suits? Or do you think we live in a monarchy and that the president rules over the US as if he were a god? Not sure what any of that has to do with the right of the US government to maintain secrets from the citizens of the United States, but I'm sure you must have had a point there somewhere.
Starting with the civil war, and moving leaps forward with FDR as president up to and including the current president, the US government has picked and chose which parts of the constitution apply at any given time depending on their agenda at the time.
And those that support this type of violation of the Constitution should be held accountable for their crimes. I wouldn't say that has to go as far as to punish people that spout off about it on the internet, so you're probably safe, but the congressmen, presidents and other elected and appointed officials should be held accountable for their violations. And no the right of sovereignty does not protect those individuals from such legal recourse.
I hope Manning gets what he deserves.
And so do I. I hope that he gets a fair trial in which it is show that if he did reveal this information, that it is the right of the US citizenry to know the actions of their elected and appointed officials. Of course we would have to stop violating Manning's constitutionally protected rights long enough to actually have the trial. I doubt he actually does get a fair trial or what he deserves, but I also think that what ever happens to him, it was worth the price.
Who ever revealed this information is extremely loyal to the citizens of the United States, the ultimate rulers of this country. Welcome to the concept of a representative democracy.
I'm not going to argue semantics. You can say rebel instead of traitor, but that does change the actions taken.
The more important part is that if it turns out it was Manning that revealed this information, he was acting in accordance with the US Constitution. All persons in the United States have a protected right to the freedom of speech and of the press. All persons, not just citizens, and not just civilians. The only place it calls out a difference between civilians and military personnel is during times of war or public danger. We are not currently at war, and it has not been show that the revelation of this information has caused any public danger. Those that wish to deny Manning's, or who ever's, right to freedom of speech and the press are not traitors but are violating the the protected rights of persons of the United States. These are the true criminals who need to brought to trial.
On the other hand, the right of elected and appointed government personal to operate in secret without the consent of the citizens of the United States is not protected by the US Constitution. And those that attempt to protect the governments ability to operate in secret are the real betrayers of the citizens of the United States. Luckily for you and others betraying the Citizens, or even being a traitor, is not illegal.
Just wanted to clarify what you are calling natural rights. Of the four that you mentioned the only one you got right was the "right to defend yourself to the best of your ability" while the rest need to be prefix with "right to attempt to..." or postfixed as you did in the first with "to the best of your ability". Therefore the only true natural right is "The right to attempt to do anything you want to the best of your ability." For example, you don't have a right to breath, but you do have the right to attempt to breath, not mater how hard you are being choked.
To Summarize. Natural Rights are useless in the context of real world conversations.
But yes, a traitor is simply bad all the way around.
If you are a US citizen then you would not have a country to call home if it where not for these "bad" people in history. The founding fathers of this country were traitors. Traitors are now and have always been necessary for countering governmental corruption. We would be a much better country, and world for that matter, if more people had the courage to be traitors.
Most people who have been labeled hero's in history were also traitors. So your statement that "a traitor is simply bad all the way around" does not seem to hold true over the course of time. If Manning is the person that revealed this information, then he has already be responsible for more democratic change than any US official in history (with the possible exception of the founding fathers).
Manning is not a civilian. He is a soldier. So no, he doesn't have that right.
Civilian or not, he is still a citizen and he still has a duty to his country, not the government, but his fellow citizens. The fact that he is paid by the citizens is even more reason for him to operate on behalf of the citizens and expose the actions of the civil servants that act on behalf of the country.
I also believe his punishment is fully justified. What if he had released something that really should be classified?
Again, these documents are created on behalf of the citizens of the United States. Not a single document created by a US government official or employee, when conducting official Duties should be unavailable to the Citizens of the United States.
The line needs to be drawn somewhere, but a single soldier doesn't have that duty or that right.
Every citizen of the United States has a Duty to expose the any activity that the government is conducting on behalf of the citizens. Every citizen should have that right, but sadly in a corrupt country that just won't happen.
Could have been worse, you could have dropped out to work when they were all calling, only to get laid off and find yourself without a degree a year or two later.
Yes, that would have sucked, being laid off after gaining two years of real work experience in an environment where getting a senior title, and the knowledge to BS your way through an interview, was being given away like candy. And to think with that two years experience and a senior title, he'd have to be competing against fresh college graduates. Wait, that doesn't sound so bad after all.
I don't know what people expect the military to do if someone just goes off and decides to release material, slap them on the wrist?
When they are releasing material that should have been a matter disclosed to the public and not needing to be covertly release, they should be praised. This is public officials making public decisions on behalf of the citizens of the United States. This is not now and should never have been private material.
If the US was a corporation and the people where shareholders then we wouldn't be hearing about Manning being locked up, we would be hearing about military and political officials being tried. In the US, on paper at least, the government works for the people, not the other way around.
except if the people who didn't take the "free upgrade" kept the OtherOS but lost their ability to use the PSN there would be enormous uproar and this entire problem would have happened anyways.
You mean kind of like when MS discontinued supplying xbox live servers for all original xbox games. Sometimes online support is discontinued for old devices and old software. In this case Sony could have easily said that PSN was being discontinued for the old console, but you could upgrade to the newer firmware to gain access to the new PSN. Oh wait that's what they did, they just didn't rename the PS3 Slim to PS4. Just interesting that when MS takes away a feature, with no option what so ever, no one is up in arms. But when Sony does so, with the option of keeping either this or that feature, people cry like babies.
I think your fooling yourself if you think people would really make an uproar over the cancellation of support for an old console, especially when they are offered a free upgrade to a newer console.
Likewise, if you do not update, another advertised function (the ability to play on PSN) no longer works.
Are you implying that by UK law, if a game is labelled as having online capability the producer of the game has to keep online capability for eternity or else they are in violation of the law. If that's the case there are many game producers and console makers that should be receiving some hefty fines, and many consumers that should be receiving a refund.
I gather many products and services are available in the UK that contain the licensing clause that "features may change without notice." So this one particular claim is certainly not cut and dry. Again, if they had just named the PS3 Slim to be the PS4 there would probably be little claim here at all, and most people would agree that the laws are not about nomenclature.
I was never actually disagreeing with your original statement, only the follow up comments. I think Sony is wrong for going after people who want to hack their own hardware or even software (and I make a living writing software), unless there is proof of overt violation of copyright (unlicensed distribution of copyrighted material), but so far that does not seem to be an issue. What I do take issue with is people whining about the loss of functionality after explicitly installing the firmware that removed the functionality, and not realizing that the solution to the cracking/cheating problem could have been a heck of a lot worse.
Never been paid by Sony, and I'm not even a big fan of their products (Sony optical drives have to be the worst in the industry). I do own a PS3, and beyond the piss poor build quality of the first generation of PS3s and Sony's horrible repair policy, I've been pretty darn happy with my purchase (actually my slim seems a little buggy).
That being said, I still think both sides of this argument are full of a bunch of whiners. You have the pro cracking side that want's to claim fraud and abuse and all kinds mean nasty things. Then you have the pro walled garden side that bitches and moans when the go to an online community and find out it's full of cheating douche bags (a problem we didn't have the days when network games where played with people we actually knew in real life or ran entirely on a secure server). Both sides have a valid argument (and don't try and give me the whole BS that the PS3 would not have been hacked if they had left in Other OS, because that's complete crap) but whining about it is just freaking annoying.
And also notice, I'm not at all supporting Sony's case against George or any other crackers (Sorry I was in the scene back when hacker and cracker had different meanings). I also wish that my PS3 still had an Other OS option, or better yet, low level access to the cell processor (not worth playing with if you don't have machine code access).
All I am saying is that Sony gave people an option to either continue operating their Linux installs and playing their current games, or losing their Linux installs and being able to run the latest games and what they hoped would be cheating free online games. But rather than be happy with the options, we would rather bitch and moan because we didn't get the option we wanted.
Capitalist - a person who has capital especially invested in business
At least that is according to Meriam Webster, but they also think nuclear can be pronounced Nuculer so I'm not sure we should accept their definition.
Your lack of understanding the meaning of Capitalist doesn't make your entire argument invalid. But your lack of understand or recognition of history on the other hand does.
At least you are able to admit that Sony didn't make you do anything or force you to update your PS3. They offered you an update to continue using their latest services.
And you are right about MS, they would never do something like what Sony did. When MS want's to remove a feature they just discontinue the old model and create a new one, with no, or limited compatibility between. And they certainly wouldn't offer a free upgrade path, no matter how unpalatable the option is.
Then Sony pushed an update to the machine that prevented it from doing Y
Sony pushed an update to your system? I don't recall any update being pushed to my PS3, I have had to download and install each an every one. I remember the one that removed Other OS, and how it was clearly noted and how I explicitly clicked "I agree" and "Install now" (Or something along those lines). If I'm wrong on this and someones machine was updated without authorization (which I had never heard of before today) then I'd be happy to change my mind on the issue, but so far that has yet to be shown.
Did Sony claim that the original PS3 could run Linux?
Yes, and unless you explicitly installed a firmware that removed that feature then the original PS3s still have that feature.
Did Sony make it clear that they might disable this feature?
Yes, in all their end user license agreements it states very clearly that features may change without notice.
Did Sony push automatic updates to PS3s?
Maybe, but as of yet they have not automatically pushed any updates that removed any features (unless there is some flag in the OS that the user can select to allow automatic updates but I have not seen one).
Did Sony tell its users that upgrading the firmware past a certain point would disable the OtherOS functionality?
Yes, the firmware update that removed Other OS said explicitly that it was going to do so, and you have to explicitly agree to the install.
Did Sony provide a mechanism for owners who were using the OtherOS feature to update their firmware to resolve "security updates"/critical bugfixes?
Yes. If your Other OS was already installed then you would have been able to update your OS with what ever latest patches you wanted. And if you chose to keep the Other OS option you lost connectivity to PSN so there was little reason if any to go online outside of your Other OS so security of the Game OS was a non-issue.
If Sony transformed a legitimately-purchased working device into a non-working device without properly informing the user, I believe that the user might have several remedies available under our current (US) legal system.
When and if Sony does that, then I'm sure people will have a legal means for a remedy, but until that day comes, it's really a moot point.
All I'm saying is that this is no different than discontinuing the current console and releasing a new one. When Microsoft had done that with the XBox, new releases for the XBox all but dried up (a couple games trickled in after but not many). Sony effectively did the same thing with the removal of Other OS, but they also offered a free upgrade to the latest version of the Playstation. They were just foolish and called it a PS3 slim rather than a PS4 as they, hide sight being 20/20 and all, should have.
Had the slim been released as the PS4 with full backward compatibility, and all the newer PS3 games relabeled as PS4 games, then people would have been happy that the latest PS was fully backward compatible, but upset over the short lifespan of the PS3. But when Sony sent out the free upgrade to convert peoples PS3s to PS4s people would have been ecstatic. None of this issue would have even existed. People with PS3s that wanted to keep Other OS would have kept it. People who wanted to forgo the Other OS option in exchange for a free upgrade to a PS4 would have done so. And the whole world would have been buzzing about Sony being the first and only game console with a free upgrade.
You can be pessimistic all you want and consider it something that Sony took away. But trust me, had it been an MS console and they somehow let you install windows on it but had to take that feature away for security, then you wouldn't even have the option to keep Other OS or play latest games, you would be out buying a new console if you wanted to play the latest games.
It does not matter who came first. If holders of wealth did not reinvest, then everyone would be starving to death as food supplies dwindle from lack of increases in production capacity.
Yes because everyone was starving to death before the accumulation of wealth and reinvestment.(please note the sarcasm)
Again, the world will not end if we stop investing capital as there remains land and resources to be had and used. It would end if we stopped having children.
Try and remember that the people actually producing food an other necessities are not those with accumulated capital, and if those with capital stopped investing, their capital would become worthless. Lets just hope that some of the people having children remember to teach them basic survival skills so when the capital dries up, or the capitalists attempt to hold society hostage, we will have some people who can teach those who can't fend for themselves how to do so. And just so you know, when that time comes, I'll be happy to teach you how to fend for yourself.
Or you can just keep paying your taxes, and keep on bitching about it, what ever makes you feel better.
I don't give a damn what their reasons were, that's fraudulent.
Where is the fraud. Sony advertised a machine that could play some video games (not all video games, just the ones that where up until that point labeled as PS3 games) and would also run other compatible OSes. If you lost the first feature then your machine is broken and you should get it repaired. If you lost the second one it was your own choice and you probably did it in exchange for being able to access an even larger library of games (games labeled PS3 compatible that required a firmware release after the removal of Other OS)
I intentionally bought a system that was advertised as being a cheap supercomputer which ran Linux and played games!
And you still have that system unless you voluntarily upgraded the firmware. You were never promised compatibility with Game release for any specific period of time, and specifically warned that Online Servers will not be maintained indefinitely. So you lost nothing that was advertised. In actually you gained the option to play newer games in exchange for the lose of Other OS. A choice that you would have to make on your own.
Anyone who purchased it for the OtherOS functionality (to have that AND be able to play games) was then legitimately wronged by Sony.
This is not at all true. People who bought a PS3 labeled with OtherOS compatibility were able to use that feature and every game manufactured up until Sony released an updated version without Other OS, and even up until Sony offered the ability to play newer games in exchange for the lose of Other OS. These people you speak of lost nothing at all, they actually gained an option they would not have gotten from other console producers. Had this been an MS problem for instance then we would be seeing an XBox 720 being released with no new game releases for the 360 and the 720 would have limited backward compatibility with the 360.
Sony did screw up. They should have release a new console called the PS4 that was 100% backward compatible with the PS3 (it would have the same hardware after all). And then the could have offered a free upgrade from a PS3 to a PS4, with the understanding that the PS4 does not support the Other OS feature. This way, instead of people being upset about the removal of a feature, Sony would have been praised as the first console manufacturer to implement forward compatibility. Sure there would be no improvement over the PS3, except the ability to play the latest games, but since it would cost the same as the PS3, most consumers wouldn't even notice.
Sony missed the possibility for a great PR win in this case. And now they have to deal with uninformed users like those in this thread, complaining because Sony gave them a chose to keep what they have, or lose one old feature (Other OS) in exchange for a new one (Latest Games and Latest Game Servers).
The same logic says those who invest money and own companies are actually subsidizing this country.
Society existed before the accumulation of wealth, it will not exist after the discontinuation of breeding (at least with current technological know how). Get rid of wealth accumulation, and the ability to invest, and society would continue. Get rid of children and society is doomed to extinction. Lucky for all of us nature already figured that out and made the drive to reproduce considerably higher than the drive to accumulate wealth.
Your logic is that people would stop having kids without tax breaks
My logic, as you put it, is those that are having children are subsidizing the entire country and so it seems only reasonable that they receive some compensation for their subsidization. Trust me, even with the tax breaks provided, the economics of raising children is not a net positive. Parents are not getting rich off of your taxes, but you are getting rich off of them and their children.