...is not Causation. Although I have no doubts, particularly when it comes to anime, that piracy may well be positive rather than negative at times, it is a VERY difficult thing to actually prove (or disprove).
They don't even content that he was claiming to be an engineer, just that the complaint was 'engineer like'. Gimme a bloody break! What they going to do next, sue the local drafting school students for doing their home work too well?!
I got to agree. The least they could do is tell the guy what rule he supposedly violated. He is very likely to ultimately lose, but a little consideration from Facebook to actually say precisely what the issue was would be nice.
All that kind of radical reaction will do is put Sony in a better light. One hacker apparently already tried a blatant 'stop or else' blackmail threat. All that does it give Sony ammo saying 'hey this lot is a bunch of anarchists and criminals'.
Yes, because the nature of LotR story allowed that. HP's story does not since each story is a year apart I believe, not far enough apart to use a new actor, and not really close enough to get away with just make up given the characters start as kids.
Makes me think the next contest should put a cap on AI command input speed, particularly if it is property that could be easily altered. It would make it a lot more like a chess AI problem, then just a raw speed problem.
Can I have your time machine so I can confirm this judgment you are apparently preview to?
BTW, I didn't miss the point, apparently you did. This thread isn't about the legality of the thing. It is about whether a jury should be using jury nullification (which, you know, inherently implies the judge believes the case is legally sound) to let him off. I said no, based on the amount of damage this will cause.
I don't consider either of those significant. Judge might, but again, this is not about the Judge, or the law, it is about the Jury, and I far from feel that another port of Linux is worth the millions of dollars in piracy that will result and that he knew would result.
I don't know how many times I have to restate, but I'll retry again: This isn't about whether there is a legitimate use. Heck, it isn't even about whether it is legal, as we're talking about Jury Nullification in which case it is all about the Jury's feelings on the matter, not the law. No, this is about the proportion of bad vs good. As I said in my first post here, I disagree that he should be let off. A tiny little bit of totally replaceable good in a sea of bad is certainly not going to make me let him off (in fact, he's lucky I'm not an eligible juror).
Only said stealing because he used a physical analogy instead of an IP one, my apologies. General point still stands though, his analogy failed to be an modification act with grossly favors illegal activity.
However, where is your proof that not one single pirate, not a single stinkng one, would not buy a program they would normally have to buy? I grant you it certainly isn't a 100% conversion, but I find it equally absurd to claim it is a 0% conversion.
And where exactly does this enable a huge number of people running around stealing millions of dollars of IP? I don't see it. That's the difference here. It is not that legal uses exist, it is that legal uses a insignificant next the huge number of illegal uses that said person fully knows will occur.
I suppose, but still seems darn weak. It's kinda like Youtube arguing it should be able to keep up a video because facebook has the same video up, regardless of the legality of the video.
I would disagree. It is one thing to tinker with your own stuff. It's another to tell everyone else how to do the same with the full knowledge that most of those who listen will misuse it to commit illegal acts, and even those using it legally would be just as well served doing said legal activity on any number of other platforms.
They very well may have good reasons to go with MS and not Google, but they have to actually do the paperwork on said reasons. They are a government agency and have to show not only that they considered alternatives, but why they rejected them. In this case they did neither.
Yeah, and in this case they didn't cover it at all well. Usually, you just add a bunch of useless hyper specific conditions that essentially forces X company. Here they bluntly said it had to be a MS solution to even apply.
Only if they completely ignored all knowledge of the PS3 discovered before 9 months ago, which I highly doubt. Granted, it probably wouldn't have taken them the 4 years to crack it if they had interest from the start, but to complete ignore the 3 intervening years, you have to assume they gained nothing from those 3 years at all on any front. It is a disingenuous claim.
Sadly, it probably isn't, but it certainly should be. The least they could have done is specify require tailored to a known MS product, but no, they couldn't even be bothered to do that and skipped right to the 'only company X need apply'.
Seriously. Don't ever share, use unique passwords every time, don't write it down, and always make them strong, and thus unmemorable... All rather useless in the end. My 60-sem-odd accounts on line with weak as hell practices have yet to be hacked (not that I'd care all that much in most cases). The one account I cared about and put heavy protections on got keylogged rendering all that wonderful protection worthless. These security experts really need to clue in and realize that this system of password management for security is impractical, ineffective, and unrealistic.
Nope, and even in the US this has been contentious in the courts (not sure on the current status). Basically, the logic goes that the encryption is like a lock when a search warrant is issued. If a search warrant is issued, you have to provide access, and you can potentially get in legal hot water if you don't cooperate with the warrant. It isn't considered self incrimination.
And it is disingenuous itself to not point out that those same hackers jailbreaking the other OS is why it got removed. Make no mistake, this is a war, and legitimate users are the collateral damage. Neither side is blameless, Sony nor the hackers.
Well, most planetary bodies should be naturally more ellipsoid due to axis of spin, so you could use that as an argument for why it would produce a circular explosion. However we got a diagram of praxis post explosion, and it didn't jive well with a circular explosion at all.
Slashdot Mirror
...is not Causation. Although I have no doubts, particularly when it comes to anime, that piracy may well be positive rather than negative at times, it is a VERY difficult thing to actually prove (or disprove).
They don't even content that he was claiming to be an engineer, just that the complaint was 'engineer like'. Gimme a bloody break! What they going to do next, sue the local drafting school students for doing their home work too well?!
I got to agree. The least they could do is tell the guy what rule he supposedly violated. He is very likely to ultimately lose, but a little consideration from Facebook to actually say precisely what the issue was would be nice.
All that kind of radical reaction will do is put Sony in a better light. One hacker apparently already tried a blatant 'stop or else' blackmail threat. All that does it give Sony ammo saying 'hey this lot is a bunch of anarchists and criminals'.
Yes, because the nature of LotR story allowed that. HP's story does not since each story is a year apart I believe, not far enough apart to use a new actor, and not really close enough to get away with just make up given the characters start as kids.
Makes me think the next contest should put a cap on AI command input speed, particularly if it is property that could be easily altered. It would make it a lot more like a chess AI problem, then just a raw speed problem.
Can I have your time machine so I can confirm this judgment you are apparently preview to? BTW, I didn't miss the point, apparently you did. This thread isn't about the legality of the thing. It is about whether a jury should be using jury nullification (which, you know, inherently implies the judge believes the case is legally sound) to let him off. I said no, based on the amount of damage this will cause.
I don't consider either of those significant. Judge might, but again, this is not about the Judge, or the law, it is about the Jury, and I far from feel that another port of Linux is worth the millions of dollars in piracy that will result and that he knew would result.
I don't know how many times I have to restate, but I'll retry again: This isn't about whether there is a legitimate use. Heck, it isn't even about whether it is legal, as we're talking about Jury Nullification in which case it is all about the Jury's feelings on the matter, not the law. No, this is about the proportion of bad vs good. As I said in my first post here, I disagree that he should be let off. A tiny little bit of totally replaceable good in a sea of bad is certainly not going to make me let him off (in fact, he's lucky I'm not an eligible juror).
Bah, damn my inability to proofread. Make that stand Corrected.
Then I shall stand correct. I still think it is kinda silly, but I didn't make the laws, and I'm sure in other cases it makes more clear sense.
Only said stealing because he used a physical analogy instead of an IP one, my apologies. General point still stands though, his analogy failed to be an modification act with grossly favors illegal activity. However, where is your proof that not one single pirate, not a single stinkng one, would not buy a program they would normally have to buy? I grant you it certainly isn't a 100% conversion, but I find it equally absurd to claim it is a 0% conversion.
And where exactly does this enable a huge number of people running around stealing millions of dollars of IP? I don't see it. That's the difference here. It is not that legal uses exist, it is that legal uses a insignificant next the huge number of illegal uses that said person fully knows will occur.
I suppose, but still seems darn weak. It's kinda like Youtube arguing it should be able to keep up a video because facebook has the same video up, regardless of the legality of the video.
I would disagree. It is one thing to tinker with your own stuff. It's another to tell everyone else how to do the same with the full knowledge that most of those who listen will misuse it to commit illegal acts, and even those using it legally would be just as well served doing said legal activity on any number of other platforms.
Because others guys are doing it, it's okay for me to do it, or this case continue doing it? I don't see that as a particularly good defense.
I mean, he replaces them often more than once a year.
They very well may have good reasons to go with MS and not Google, but they have to actually do the paperwork on said reasons. They are a government agency and have to show not only that they considered alternatives, but why they rejected them. In this case they did neither.
Yeah, and in this case they didn't cover it at all well. Usually, you just add a bunch of useless hyper specific conditions that essentially forces X company. Here they bluntly said it had to be a MS solution to even apply.
Only if they completely ignored all knowledge of the PS3 discovered before 9 months ago, which I highly doubt. Granted, it probably wouldn't have taken them the 4 years to crack it if they had interest from the start, but to complete ignore the 3 intervening years, you have to assume they gained nothing from those 3 years at all on any front. It is a disingenuous claim.
Sadly, it probably isn't, but it certainly should be. The least they could have done is specify require tailored to a known MS product, but no, they couldn't even be bothered to do that and skipped right to the 'only company X need apply'.
Seriously. Don't ever share, use unique passwords every time, don't write it down, and always make them strong, and thus unmemorable... All rather useless in the end. My 60-sem-odd accounts on line with weak as hell practices have yet to be hacked (not that I'd care all that much in most cases). The one account I cared about and put heavy protections on got keylogged rendering all that wonderful protection worthless. These security experts really need to clue in and realize that this system of password management for security is impractical, ineffective, and unrealistic.
Nope, and even in the US this has been contentious in the courts (not sure on the current status). Basically, the logic goes that the encryption is like a lock when a search warrant is issued. If a search warrant is issued, you have to provide access, and you can potentially get in legal hot water if you don't cooperate with the warrant. It isn't considered self incrimination.
And it is disingenuous itself to not point out that those same hackers jailbreaking the other OS is why it got removed. Make no mistake, this is a war, and legitimate users are the collateral damage. Neither side is blameless, Sony nor the hackers.
Well, most planetary bodies should be naturally more ellipsoid due to axis of spin, so you could use that as an argument for why it would produce a circular explosion. However we got a diagram of praxis post explosion, and it didn't jive well with a circular explosion at all.