You didn't read his post. He said "unless you want a haphazard and incomplete list of features without proper examples". In other words, not good for learning or as a reference.
You're comparing the highest sentence ever handed down for this type of crime with an average. Hardly a fair comparison. Especially since the average federal sentence is not as meaningful as the average state one, due to the comparitvely low number of incidences measured. Come back when you can compare apples with apples. Oh, and it wasn't 9 years for *hacking*. It was nine years for *attempted theft* on a massive scale.
What if they broke in and stole a hard drive full of credit card numbers? Massive enough for you?
Sure. And someone who does that should presumably get a comparable sentence.
Frankly, I get a little irked when a bunch of people read a few paragraphs summarising (probably not terribly accurately) a legal decision and decide that they know better than the judge(s) who were actually in the court, heard all the details and made an informed decision.
I don't think your speeding analogy is very good. There's a big difference between speeding (which might cause someone to be run over) and actually driving with the intent to run someone over. In the latter case, which is a slightly better analogy, yes someone would have to "estimate" that n people would have died had the attempt been successful.
"I think the massive amount of potential loss that these defendants could have imposed was astounding, so that's what caused us to seek a substantial sentence against Mr. Salcedo," federal prosecutor Matthew Martens said.
If you trespassed into an office and tried to steal a book of credit card information, then it would have to be a pretty huge book to compare in scale to this case. The amount of damage really could have been massive. Hence the tougher sentence.
I don't think the sentence was given for 'hacking' per se.
Also, the fact that they didn't succeed is not at all relevant.
Yeah, I think maybe you are just a naysayer...
DSL and cable work great... if you can get them. I'm not just talking about 'less metropolitan' areas, as you call them. There are plenty of places where you can't get DSL (e.g. pair-gain) or cable (houses just aren't wired). In Sydney, for example - just read one of the many despairing articles on www.whirlpool.net.au forums. Even wifi (for example www.unwired.com.au) leaves lots of black spots. This is a way of giving an entire city access in one shot.
Let me also add that this kind of addition to the broadband arsenal gives more choice - and more choice is good, right?:)
As for satellite, if you had RTFA then you would have seen that this idea is much less expensive and more reusable than satellites.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't read his post. He said "unless you want a haphazard and incomplete list of features without proper examples". In other words, not good for learning or as a reference.
So... when you say 'literally', you mean 'metaphorically' right? As in not literally under a radar... *sigh*
You're calling someone who is going to earn a minimum of $31 million dollars a "sucker"? Man. Wish I was a sucker.
You're comparing the highest sentence ever handed down for this type of crime with an average. Hardly a fair comparison. Especially since the average federal sentence is not as meaningful as the average state one, due to the comparitvely low number of incidences measured. Come back when you can compare apples with apples. Oh, and it wasn't 9 years for *hacking*. It was nine years for *attempted theft* on a massive scale.
Sure. And someone who does that should presumably get a comparable sentence.
Frankly, I get a little irked when a bunch of people read a few paragraphs summarising (probably not terribly accurately) a legal decision and decide that they know better than the judge(s) who were actually in the court, heard all the details and made an informed decision.
I don't think your speeding analogy is very good. There's a big difference between speeding (which might cause someone to be run over) and actually driving with the intent to run someone over. In the latter case, which is a slightly better analogy, yes someone would have to "estimate" that n people would have died had the attempt been successful.
From the article:
If you trespassed into an office and tried to steal a book of credit card information, then it would have to be a pretty huge book to compare in scale to this case. The amount of damage really could have been massive. Hence the tougher sentence.
I don't think the sentence was given for 'hacking' per se.
Also, the fact that they didn't succeed is not at all relevant.
Yeah, I think maybe you are just a naysayer... DSL and cable work great... if you can get them. I'm not just talking about 'less metropolitan' areas, as you call them. There are plenty of places where you can't get DSL (e.g. pair-gain) or cable (houses just aren't wired). In Sydney, for example - just read one of the many despairing articles on www.whirlpool.net.au forums. Even wifi (for example www.unwired.com.au) leaves lots of black spots. This is a way of giving an entire city access in one shot. Let me also add that this kind of addition to the broadband arsenal gives more choice - and more choice is good, right? :)
As for satellite, if you had RTFA then you would have seen that this idea is much less expensive and more reusable than satellites.
No, I wouldn't agree, actually.
No need for an explanation, but feel free to provide even the smallest amount of justification for your melodrama.
If a warrant wasn't required, then maybe you'd have a case.
Wait... first tell us; why do you think it's shortsighted and unworkable?