Banning firearms will not finish the problem, but will very likely decrease it.
It's a start, but I think an unncessary over-reaction... the US simply needs better gun-control laws, like other 1st world nations with better gun-control laws. Also, the NRA needs to be held accoutable for the unfortunate things their members sometimes do... that will shut them up with a quickness.
Who commits 90% of the gun crime in the U.S.? Certainly not law abiding citizens.
Actually, gun owners commit 100% of the gun crime everywhere.
MILLIONS of crimes are prevented every year by law abiding citizens either brandishing (99% of the time) or using (1% of the time) their legally held guns.
Millions? Ok, cite 50 from 2014. You can't? Stop making shit up. That is total bullshit. Regular gun owners almost NEVER stop crime. They are mostly afraid to, which is why they feel more secure with a gun. They do often make boo boos with their weapons. And you know what? Unarmed people stop crime all the time, far far more often than gun owners. Crime fighting gun owners, take a break! We (the unarmed) got this.
The reason Japan has low to no gun crime isn't the law, it's the values instilled in all there....
I would not disagree that Japanese values are admirable. Bbbut.... so its their values??!!!... and not the fact that there's hardly any guns there? Oh, so that explains that there's hardly any gun crime there? Ok. Well, what about Great Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia? Is their low-gun crime, to make an understatement, due to their values? Are Americans just gun-homicidal assholes?
I think you're probably someone like likes guns so much (and it is your right, and guns are neato!!) that you are pretty much willing to believe and preach anything as long as no one says "guns are bad."
Guns are bad. They're not necessary. (Hunting is unncessary, too! But it is fun to kill things.) If you own a gun for protection, the fact IS that it is far more likely that you will injure, maim or kill yourself or someone you love than you will ever get a chance to defend yourself from crime... let alone successfully. Even Secret Service agents, who know their weapon far better than any "Regular," or 2nd Amendment citizen, accidentally shoot each other.
But they're so neat... guns... that rational men are willing to believe anything in order to justify having one. Well... please be careful. I know they're neat as Hell, but they are not toys.
Ives is probably the worlds foremost product designer
Ah. Ah ha. Ha. Ha Ha Ha. Oh, that is priceless. Just priceless. Ive's work is at best, a mixed bag, and he surely isn't the world's foremost designer. I can think of any number of designers that make him look like the pretentious hack he is. Starting with any number of supercar designers, wandering off into audio equipment and musical instrument design, heck, there are even refrigerators that are designed better than Ive's work product. Also, Scott Forstall's ideas were far better in terms of design than Ives. He just wasn't minimalist -- but minimalist is not a synonym for "good", and in fact, very seldom is that the case.
Applelapse Now!
Well, Ive was one of the most outstanding executive officers this company's ever produced. He was brave, outstanding in every way. And he was a good man, too, humanitarian man, a man of wit and humor. He joined the Software Engineering Group. After that, his... uh... ideas... methods... became... unsound... unsound.
Now he's crossed into California with this mountaineered army of his that... worship... the man... like a god, and follow every order, however ridiculous...
Your mission is to proceed down the San Francisco Bay in a Blue Navy petrol boat, pick up Sir Ive's path at Cupertino, follow it, learn what you can along the way. When you find the officer, infiltrate his team by (ahem-hem) whatever means available, and terminate the executive's position.
If nothing else, at least it's out in the open where they have to defend it.
Right. And I am certain at every court challenge to this notion, that "the Bill of Rights is only for US citizens on US soil," their idiotic interpretation will fail miserably and immediately. No where in the Constitution does it limit its powers and the extension of the enumerated rights to only US citizens only on US soil. This limitation was never intended by the Founders, thus it is not there, but a thin pathetic fantasy of whomever thought up this canine feces of a legal strategy. The Bill of Rights extends to protect every person, US citizen or not, anywhere and everywhere in the Universe from tyrannical government, according to the letter of the text. It is simply not possible to reasonably and legitimately prove otherwise.
You have a hint of the truth there. Once again, as I have said in previous comments on earlier stories about HMD and virtual reality, this body illusion has absolutely nothing to do with the "power" of virtual reality, and still, so far, no tech company has any idea what they have (and I still hope to scoop them all with my subsequent patents, invalidating theirs, and make a fortune suing them... because their patents incorrectly describe the invention, or how it works). Don't bother replying, I'm not going to give it away.
I'm pretty sure swapping the space as a time-share with a new and adventurous Japanese family of 3 from Tokyo would be more financially secure and lucrative.
No. It isn't. Its always been there, always been there in every workplace and every industry, and always will be... it may fluxuate in popularity within certain parameters, but it is nothing new and it is not "growing." Never heard of it? Clue: illicit and illegal drugs are hush hush; loose lips sink ships. "Do not share with Brad... that guy will not shut up. Who is that guy he's talking to... is that a damn reporter?!"
I find the idea that Sherpas have a gene that helps them breathe at high altitude a little hard to accept. How long have the sherpas been up there carrying shit for rich European thrill seekers? Sure, they adapted to their environment... but couldn't this be a non-genetic adaptation? Have you seen how fast high-school and college swimmers can swim? Where does their fast swimming gene come from? Fish? Did high school and college students interbreed with fish a whole bunch of semesters ago?
You think bandwidth just grows on trees? Quite obviously, there is a bandwidth crisis. Bandwidth manufacturers are desperately trying to meet the demand with current processses, but they're falling short, which is why we so often have bandwidth outages. This high-profile push button topic inversely correlates to another well known problem no one can figure out how to even begin to solve, the data glut we've been in since our sensory organs evolved.
I have downloaded before a full version, non-evaluation, fully working copy of RHEL before.... I believe this option still exists for those seeking it, but it is one of those well kept secrets and the link is burried deep somewhere at Red Hat's site. i.e. RHEL can be used for free, without support. It is possible Red Hat may have discontinued this for the "30 day evaluation" variety of free download, and that download link is gone forever, but regardless, Red Hat does not sell operating systems, they sell support, and that is what you pay for that costs. However, CentOS is identical to RHEL and is free to download and use, i.e. costs nothing. Oracle Linux is also RHEL, and also free to download and use, I believe. So no, if you don't pay for the support, using RHEL will cost you nothing.
But if you ask the typical user of OS X that never questions anything and always insists on new shiney, any OS older than 2 years old is "obsolete." So this OS is obsolete 10x over!!
disclaimer: I am a UNIX/Linux Windows & OS X systems admin, and prefer OS X for desktop, and even I can't stand the moronic whiney bullshit that the self-proclaimed "expert" mac users puke out... please see comments here to see what I mean, as if you didn't know already.
I see. So if I sell you my Mac and all the software therein, that contains an Aperture install, you could never use it. And being as you post on Slashdot, you are very respectful of software licensing, and you've never heard of The Pirate Bay.
Ok, its another terrible idea from Apple made with absolutely no regard to their very supportive and loyal user base, but you're exaggerating tremendously.
Let me remind you that, although most users seem to be compulsive in how they click "update" whenever there is one available, its is a really dumb thing to do blindly and unnecessary except for three reasons and only three reasons: 1) you have security concerns and the update patches security holes; 2) the update has bug fixes of bugs you keep bumping into 3) the update has new features that you want. If you update for any other reason, or for no reason, you should have your head examined.
Abandoning development on Aperture does not mean that you can't continue to use it until the end of time. If you're happy with how it works now, rest assured, it will continue to work that way forever.
So bash Apple when you get a chance, but ffs relax. Apple is not going to come into your computer and disable Aperture! Its going to keep working for you if its working for you now. And if you were hoping to use it, and are afraid it will disappear forever, well, again, relax, that is impossible. But if you'd like an alternative that has just as much functionality as Lightroom or Aperture, take a look at Darktable, which is Open Source and is not going anywhere.
Well, Ive was one of the most outstanding executive officers this company's ever produced. He was brave, outstanding in every way. And he was a good man, too, humanitarian man, a man of wit and humor. He joined the Software Engineering Group. After that, his... uh... ideas... methods... became... unsound... unsound.
Now he's crossed into California with this mountaineered army of his that... worship... the man... like a god, and follow every order, however ridiculous...
Your mission is to proceed down the San Francisco Bay in a Blue Navy petrol boat, pick up Sir Ive's path at Cupertino, follow it, learn what you can along the way. When you find the officer, infiltrate his team by (ahem-hem) whatever means available, and terminate the executive's position.
It has been this way since 1979: there is no legitimate expectation of privacy regarding specific information when you knowingly give the information to a third party.
Its not a crock and I didn't make it up, as my references bear out. And again I stand by assessment that Slashdot has gone to the dogs and the idiots posting these days don't know much of anything.
In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the Supreme Court held individuals have no "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the telephone numbers they dial because they knowingly give that information to telephone companies when they dial a number.[16] Therefore there is no search where officers monitor what phone numbers an individual dials,[17] although the Congress has enacted laws that restrict such monitoring.
This case makes it clear that reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location is invalidated by carrying a cell phone because location information is given to a third party, the phone company. Thus there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location.
A strong case is already made in case law (more or less) that if an individual carries a cell phone they have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their location because they give their location information to a third party, the phone company. So the feds and the cops are foolish because they had no reason to lie and would have obtained their search warrants legally by telling the whole truth about their use of Stingrays.
But I don't think so, (and I don't want it to be so) because it fails the second part of Justice Harlan's test in Katz v US 389 U.S. 347 (1967).... because society at large would likely deem a persons expectation of privacy to be reasonable regarding their location (especially if out of sight, inside a private home) regardless of carrying a cell phone... because cell phones are ubiquitous, and the existence of cell phones should not invalidate the entire concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. But that's just my opinion, and, again, a strong dissenting case already exists in case law, and is the law of the land.
HOWEVER
the issue here is cops are lying to judges under the direction of federal agents in order to obtain search warrants
That's bad, and judges should rightly be pissed off about it. But no citizens' rights were violated. The police already had the evidence that the individuals they were seeking already committed a crime... the arrest warrant was already obtained, and they're just searching for the suspects, not using this technology to oppress innocent civilians.
The real problem is not that the government is out of control. The government does not move with a single mind... it is aggregate and it is not after anyone but criminals. The real problem is that citizens, including everyone posting here, are uneducated blathering idiots, and do not understand their rights, and do not even realize that they have already forfeited their rights by previous actions, such as owning and carrying a cell phone. We fucked up. We let the steady advancement of technology eat our rights because we were not engaged and did not notice, and now its a bit late to start blaming anyone but ourselves.
The idea that it might not be possible at any point to produce something we *know* to be produceable (a human brain) seems rediculious.
The idea, having accepted that we produce a human brain, that we cannot produce even a slight improvement seems equally silly....
No. We don't know *how*, but we know it can be done and is done every minute of every day by biological processes.
The fallacy that you are promoting as evidence that AI is possible or inevitable is known as argumentum ex silentio. And contrary to your unsupported beliefs, and much to the disappointment of sci fi writers and nerds everywhere, what we actually know is that it is not possible.
There is exactly one kind of people who have that kind of skill. Or, as a friend put it, there's two kind of people that apply here. The ones with a police record, and the good ones.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. Very few black hats have chops. What white hats have is restraint. By and large, they're script kitties... as in utilizing a script kit, and it takes no skill to run a script. (yeah, I know everyone else says "script kiddies" because they think they're young... NOPE... script kitties are OLD and LAZY. The actual kids have WAY more skills than script kitties,... its ridiculous!).
I need people with good assembler skills. REALLY good assembler skills. The kind of people who can look at some asm code and spot the "odd bits" that don't "belong", so they know where to put the crowbar.
Then what you want is an early 80's cracker (or programmer). DId everything in assembly. And none got in trouble, because copyright infringement is a victimless civil offence, not a criminal one. Also, either no one cared or no one understood, because there was no money involved, like the overseas DVD pirates today; so ignored except when you fired up your game and looked at the title splash where it was preferred to take credit for whatever, transferring from cartridge to disk, or removing copy protection, and were at times a low kb demo was inserted.
And as everything is back compiled into assembly today, the code at that level is now a complete mess... utterly inscrutable. Back then, the great programmers were "real" men... and authored their wares originally in assembly. That's why it was possible to crack it, because it made sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Banning firearms will not finish the problem, but will very likely decrease it.
It's a start, but I think an unncessary over-reaction... the US simply needs better gun-control laws, like other 1st world nations with better gun-control laws. Also, the NRA needs to be held accoutable for the unfortunate things their members sometimes do... that will shut them up with a quickness.
Who commits 90% of the gun crime in the U.S.? Certainly not law abiding citizens.
Actually, gun owners commit 100% of the gun crime everywhere.
MILLIONS of crimes are prevented every year by law abiding citizens either brandishing (99% of the time) or using (1% of the time) their legally held guns.
Millions? Ok, cite 50 from 2014. You can't? Stop making shit up. That is total bullshit. Regular gun owners almost NEVER stop crime. They are mostly afraid to, which is why they feel more secure with a gun. They do often make boo boos with their weapons. And you know what? Unarmed people stop crime all the time, far far more often than gun owners. Crime fighting gun owners, take a break! We (the unarmed) got this.
Japan never had a gun problem in the first place.
That's a great point. Here's another one: list all the countries, besides the US, with a gun problem.
The reason Japan has low to no gun crime isn't the law, it's the values instilled in all there. ...
I would not disagree that Japanese values are admirable. Bbbut.... so its their values??!!!... and not the fact that there's hardly any guns there? Oh, so that explains that there's hardly any gun crime there? Ok. Well, what about Great Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia? Is their low-gun crime, to make an understatement, due to their values? Are Americans just gun-homicidal assholes?
I think you're probably someone like likes guns so much (and it is your right, and guns are neato!!) that you are pretty much willing to believe and preach anything as long as no one says "guns are bad."
Guns are bad. They're not necessary. (Hunting is unncessary, too! But it is fun to kill things.) If you own a gun for protection, the fact IS that it is far more likely that you will injure, maim or kill yourself or someone you love than you will ever get a chance to defend yourself from crime... let alone successfully. Even Secret Service agents, who know their weapon far better than any "Regular," or 2nd Amendment citizen, accidentally shoot each other.
But they're so neat... guns... that rational men are willing to believe anything in order to justify having one. Well... please be careful. I know they're neat as Hell, but they are not toys.
Ah. Ah ha. Ha. Ha Ha Ha. Oh, that is priceless. Just priceless. Ive's work is at best, a mixed bag, and he surely isn't the world's foremost designer. I can think of any number of designers that make him look like the pretentious hack he is. Starting with any number of supercar designers, wandering off into audio equipment and musical instrument design, heck, there are even refrigerators that are designed better than Ive's work product. Also, Scott Forstall's ideas were far better in terms of design than Ives. He just wasn't minimalist -- but minimalist is not a synonym for "good", and in fact, very seldom is that the case.
Applelapse Now!
Well, Ive was one of the most outstanding executive officers this company's ever produced. He was brave, outstanding in every way. And he was a good man, too, humanitarian man, a man of wit and humor. He joined the Software Engineering Group. After that, his... uh... ideas... methods... became... unsound... unsound.
Now he's crossed into California with this mountaineered army of his that... worship... the man... like a god, and follow every order, however ridiculous...
...very obviously, he has gone insane.
interactive multimedia
Your mission is to proceed down the San Francisco Bay in a Blue Navy petrol boat, pick up Sir Ive's path at Cupertino, follow it, learn what you can along the way. When you find the officer, infiltrate his team by (ahem-hem) whatever means available, and terminate the executive's position.
...
Sigh.
If nothing else, at least it's out in the open where they have to defend it.
Right. And I am certain at every court challenge to this notion, that "the Bill of Rights is only for US citizens on US soil," their idiotic interpretation will fail miserably and immediately. No where in the Constitution does it limit its powers and the extension of the enumerated rights to only US citizens only on US soil. This limitation was never intended by the Founders, thus it is not there, but a thin pathetic fantasy of whomever thought up this canine feces of a legal strategy. The Bill of Rights extends to protect every person, US citizen or not, anywhere and everywhere in the Universe from tyrannical government, according to the letter of the text. It is simply not possible to reasonably and legitimately prove otherwise.
You have a hint of the truth there. Once again, as I have said in previous comments on earlier stories about HMD and virtual reality, this body illusion has absolutely nothing to do with the "power" of virtual reality, and still, so far, no tech company has any idea what they have (and I still hope to scoop them all with my subsequent patents, invalidating theirs, and make a fortune suing them... because their patents incorrectly describe the invention, or how it works). Don't bother replying, I'm not going to give it away.
I'm pretty sure swapping the space as a time-share with a new and adventurous Japanese family of 3 from Tokyo would be more financially secure and lucrative.
Drug abuse in the tech industry is growing
No. It isn't. Its always been there, always been there in every workplace and every industry, and always will be... it may fluxuate in popularity within certain parameters, but it is nothing new and it is not "growing." Never heard of it? Clue: illicit and illegal drugs are hush hush; loose lips sink ships. "Do not share with Brad... that guy will not shut up. Who is that guy he's talking to... is that a damn reporter?!"
I find the idea that Sherpas have a gene that helps them breathe at high altitude a little hard to accept. How long have the sherpas been up there carrying shit for rich European thrill seekers? Sure, they adapted to their environment... but couldn't this be a non-genetic adaptation? Have you seen how fast high-school and college swimmers can swim? Where does their fast swimming gene come from? Fish? Did high school and college students interbreed with fish a whole bunch of semesters ago?
Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?
You think bandwidth just grows on trees? Quite obviously, there is a bandwidth crisis. Bandwidth manufacturers are desperately trying to meet the demand with current processses, but they're falling short, which is why we so often have bandwidth outages. This high-profile push button topic inversely correlates to another well known problem no one can figure out how to even begin to solve, the data glut we've been in since our sensory organs evolved.
There is one. Bookmark this in Chrome, same thing.
Now i feel old. I was there in the beginning.
Some how I doubt that.
RHEL too, but that will cost you
I have downloaded before a full version, non-evaluation, fully working copy of RHEL before.... I believe this option still exists for those seeking it, but it is one of those well kept secrets and the link is burried deep somewhere at Red Hat's site. i.e. RHEL can be used for free, without support. It is possible Red Hat may have discontinued this for the "30 day evaluation" variety of free download, and that download link is gone forever, but regardless, Red Hat does not sell operating systems, they sell support, and that is what you pay for that costs. However, CentOS is identical to RHEL and is free to download and use, i.e. costs nothing. Oracle Linux is also RHEL, and also free to download and use, I believe. So no, if you don't pay for the support, using RHEL will cost you nothing.
so they could use FreeDOS to play old DOS games
That's not dumb or anything, but superfluous, considering this exists.
But if you ask the typical user of OS X that never questions anything and always insists on new shiney, any OS older than 2 years old is "obsolete." So this OS is obsolete 10x over!!
disclaimer: I am a UNIX/Linux Windows & OS X systems admin, and prefer OS X for desktop, and even I can't stand the moronic whiney bullshit that the self-proclaimed "expert" mac users puke out... please see comments here to see what I mean, as if you didn't know already.
I see. So if I sell you my Mac and all the software therein, that contains an Aperture install, you could never use it. And being as you post on Slashdot, you are very respectful of software licensing, and you've never heard of The Pirate Bay.
You see you cant buy a disc with aperture on it,
Oh? then wtf is this?
And, with Aperture gone
Ok, its another terrible idea from Apple made with absolutely no regard to their very supportive and loyal user base, but you're exaggerating tremendously.
Let me remind you that, although most users seem to be compulsive in how they click "update" whenever there is one available, its is a really dumb thing to do blindly and unnecessary except for three reasons and only three reasons: 1) you have security concerns and the update patches security holes; 2) the update has bug fixes of bugs you keep bumping into 3) the update has new features that you want. If you update for any other reason, or for no reason, you should have your head examined.
Abandoning development on Aperture does not mean that you can't continue to use it until the end of time. If you're happy with how it works now, rest assured, it will continue to work that way forever.
So bash Apple when you get a chance, but ffs relax. Apple is not going to come into your computer and disable Aperture! Its going to keep working for you if its working for you now. And if you were hoping to use it, and are afraid it will disappear forever, well, again, relax, that is impossible. But if you'd like an alternative that has just as much functionality as Lightroom or Aperture, take a look at Darktable, which is Open Source and is not going anywhere.
Well, Ive was one of the most outstanding executive officers this company's ever produced. He was brave, outstanding in every way. And he was a good man, too, humanitarian man, a man of wit and humor. He joined the Software Engineering Group. After that, his... uh... ideas... methods... became... unsound... unsound.
Now he's crossed into California with this mountaineered army of his that... worship... the man... like a god, and follow every order, however ridiculous...
...very obviously, he has gone insane.
click for multimedia
Your mission is to proceed down the San Francisco Bay in a Blue Navy petrol boat, pick up Sir Ive's path at Cupertino, follow it, learn what you can along the way. When you find the officer, infiltrate his team by (ahem-hem) whatever means available, and terminate the executive's position.
...terminate the executive...
...terminate with extreme prejudice.
On the other hand, I suspect that some version of SpaceX's Dragon will carry men into space long before Orion.
Perhaps. But I suspect Orion will carry men back from space long before anyone ever figures out what happened to Dragon and its crew.
I'm not saying I like it, and in fact I said I don't like it... but the case law is pretty clear and you're welcome to see for yourself:
Smith v. Maryland - 442 U.S. 735 (1979) AND here's the wiki
It has been this way since 1979: there is no legitimate expectation of privacy regarding specific information when you knowingly give the information to a third party.
Its not a crock and I didn't make it up, as my references bear out. And again I stand by assessment that Slashdot has gone to the dogs and the idiots posting these days don't know much of anything.
In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the Supreme Court held individuals have no "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the telephone numbers they dial because they knowingly give that information to telephone companies when they dial a number.[16] Therefore there is no search where officers monitor what phone numbers an individual dials,[17] although the Congress has enacted laws that restrict such monitoring.
wiki
This case makes it clear that reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location is invalidated by carrying a cell phone because location information is given to a third party, the phone company. Thus there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location.
A strong case is already made in case law (more or less) that if an individual carries a cell phone they have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their location because they give their location information to a third party, the phone company. So the feds and the cops are foolish because they had no reason to lie and would have obtained their search warrants legally by telling the whole truth about their use of Stingrays.
But I don't think so, (and I don't want it to be so) because it fails the second part of Justice Harlan's test in Katz v US 389 U.S. 347 (1967).... because society at large would likely deem a persons expectation of privacy to be reasonable regarding their location (especially if out of sight, inside a private home) regardless of carrying a cell phone... because cell phones are ubiquitous, and the existence of cell phones should not invalidate the entire concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. But that's just my opinion, and, again, a strong dissenting case already exists in case law, and is the law of the land.
HOWEVER
the issue here is cops are lying to judges under the direction of federal agents in order to obtain search warrants
That's bad, and judges should rightly be pissed off about it. But no citizens' rights were violated. The police already had the evidence that the individuals they were seeking already committed a crime... the arrest warrant was already obtained, and they're just searching for the suspects, not using this technology to oppress innocent civilians.
The real problem is not that the government is out of control. The government does not move with a single mind... it is aggregate and it is not after anyone but criminals. The real problem is that citizens, including everyone posting here, are uneducated blathering idiots, and do not understand their rights, and do not even realize that they have already forfeited their rights by previous actions, such as owning and carrying a cell phone. We fucked up. We let the steady advancement of technology eat our rights because we were not engaged and did not notice, and now its a bit late to start blaming anyone but ourselves.
We call them people.
The idea that it might not be possible at any point to produce something we *know* to be produceable (a human brain) seems rediculious. The idea, having accepted that we produce a human brain, that we cannot produce even a slight improvement seems equally silly....
No. We don't know *how*, but we know it can be done and is done every minute of every day by biological processes.
The fallacy that you are promoting as evidence that AI is possible or inevitable is known as argumentum ex silentio. And contrary to your unsupported beliefs, and much to the disappointment of sci fi writers and nerds everywhere, what we actually know is that it is not possible.
GIMPshop is BACK!!!
There is exactly one kind of people who have that kind of skill. Or, as a friend put it, there's two kind of people that apply here. The ones with a police record, and the good ones.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. Very few black hats have chops. What white hats have is restraint. By and large, they're script kitties... as in utilizing a script kit, and it takes no skill to run a script. (yeah, I know everyone else says "script kiddies" because they think they're young... NOPE... script kitties are OLD and LAZY. The actual kids have WAY more skills than script kitties,... its ridiculous!).
I need people with good assembler skills. REALLY good assembler skills. The kind of people who can look at some asm code and spot the "odd bits" that don't "belong", so they know where to put the crowbar.
Then what you want is an early 80's cracker (or programmer). DId everything in assembly. And none got in trouble, because copyright infringement is a victimless civil offence, not a criminal one. Also, either no one cared or no one understood, because there was no money involved, like the overseas DVD pirates today; so ignored except when you fired up your game and looked at the title splash where it was preferred to take credit for whatever, transferring from cartridge to disk, or removing copy protection, and were at times a low kb demo was inserted.
And as everything is back compiled into assembly today, the code at that level is now a complete mess... utterly inscrutable. Back then, the great programmers were "real" men... and authored their wares originally in assembly. That's why it was possible to crack it, because it made sense.