And why exactly 'should' it? What if Amazon have estimated the average ad revenue per device to be $25, should they drop the price by an additional $114 dollars because they enjoy losing money. Would it be better if they offered a free version that constantly spews audio ads, and shows text ads inserted in books (to earn that $139 discount) instead of this version with 'unobtrusive' ads? Personally, the discount probably isn't enough to make me take it. Perhaps enough people will to make it worth Amazon doing.
Saying Amazon 'should' make it free doesn't mean anything, without some further information. If I thought Google should host all my files securely for free, it doesn't tell you anything unless I explain why it would be of benefit to them to do so, or what I think they could do to make it happen. Anything less is the adult equivalent of a child who wants a pony, and can't appreciate that buying it would mean selling the family house.
Not really, however, people who make ad hominem attacks like you do in fact lose instantly.
I like how you invoked your own law to instantly dismantle your own point.
His point, although not a truth, was a valid observation that referring to other people as sheep or sheeple will cause many people to downgrade their opinion of you, thus diminishing ability to make your case.
One small part of google's portfolio determines 25% of an employees bonus. I know if I was on a team with something successful like gmail or the search engine, or android that I would be pretty pissed that a quarter of my bonus doesn't rely on my personal achievements.
Google search is the mechanism via which +1 works, if you were on the search team and didn't see how you were in a position to assist then you probably won't earn the full bonus. Guess what, android is a platform for google tools (inc search). Making +1 easier to use and more attractive to users on phones could help. Sometimes, especially outside of base-level roles, your achievement can't be measured purely on individually controlled tasks. Assisting others in your team, creating processes that improve future performance, work as part of cross-departmental teams etc are all valueable contributions.
Do I think 25% bonus for +1 is 'fair' for a hardware architect? No. Do I think Google knows that adding social information to their search results will provide a 'stickier' (one people are less likely to give up) and 'better' (one people will rate more highly) search experience? Yes, and I think they know that they need to get good at this fast. Perhaps it's not for everyone, but I think the vast majority of people will find it brilliant if they search for "Indian, Manchester" and two results their contacts rate highly are highlighted in the result etc.
Perhaps part of the concern relates to the fact that we're investing in research and treatments to help people who are overweight, diabetic etc? The government puts effort into keeping people alive, even when their own actions go against this. The argument for this kind of intervention is that many people 'want' to be healthy, live longer etc, but don't have the 'willpower' required. They agree with government intervention to make their own natural behaviour harder.
People who commit suicide cost less in healthcare and pensions. That doesn't (automatically) mean we should leave people to jump off buildings etc.
I think the bottomline argument is reasonably simple. The government is going to tax you. How they take the money off you is flexible. Using taxation to 'guide' decisions is currently in vogue.
I don't want to have to put a game layer on top of my work to feel like I'm doing something important, and for good reasons.
It's no different to games having scores, achievements etc. By your logic, the game should be compelling without any metrics of success or rewards. The reward is actually playing the game to begin with. Clearly people are motivated by competition, and/or bettering themselves. If providing mechanisms like that at work means that people work harder AND get more enjoyment, it's a good idea.
If someone is already doing work they find enjoyable, this kind of mechanism is hardly going to change that.
I've tried to see the point in Twitter, but apart from making it easier to have group conversations by SMS I really can't work out what it is supposed to achieve. Most 'good' sources on Twitter are effectively informative, and could provide the content more effectively using RSS, email etc.
I can understand the reason that games companies want tax breaks in the UK. If other countries are offering those kind of incentives, it makes setting up or remaining profitable in the UK more difficult. If I was a UK developement studio I'd be asking for the same thing.
Even given the above, I doubt this is something the government should do. The UK is planning to decrease its structural deficit over the next few years. If were going to fund tax breaks, why do it for games developement and not pharma, military hardware, automotives, medical equipment etc? People argue for their own interests (news at 11), the point of a democratic republic is that representatives of the people, who have the time and ability, to look at the bigger picture decide what is really important.
In which case your both right, based on your own definitions, which is a pretty nonsensical idea. If you're communicating with other people, then you can only do it effectively by using the widely socially agreed definition. If you want to make up your own meanings, why not make up your own words as well, that way we'll know what your saying doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.
A solution that lasts for 150 years is a brilliant solution. Our ancestors, in 1860, couldn't hope to produce solutions that would actually last until now. They had a global population of 1.25 billion (there are 6 times as many people now). Not only did they not have the internet, they didn't have phones, they didn't have air mail, in fact the pony express was still expanding!
If, in the 1860s they'd worried about solutions lasting until now, we'd have an endless supply of hay to feed our horses and lots of oil for our lamps. Nuclear power didn't exist 70 years ago. It almost certainly won't be what our ancestors will be using in 2160 either.
How is that an ideal world? You didn't even stop to consider the natural implications of this policy if it were put in place.
EA can afford to go for global release on all titles. The cost to them is a small amount of inconvience, perhaps having to delay US release a day or two, or drop some foriegn lang versions (and leave them with English versions only).
Indie developers on the other hand are fucked. They can't support a global release, in fact, they might not be planning on releasing outside of one/two countries unless they can fund expansion through the initial release. Doing this now means they need to:
1/ Release a product globally, epically fail to support it and trash its reputation.
2/ Only release it in the countries they can actually support, and effectively lose the ability to sell anywhere else as everyone got it for free.
3/ Release via Steam or some other market, still not offering proper support for most countries and accepting that you can't publish truely independently anymore.
Of course the most obvious problem with your 'suggestion' is that it would encourage even more people (especially small developers) to make their products reliant on authorised access to a remote server. If your product can't work without someone having a (paid for) account, and active connection to your server (because it performs some essential computation) then you remove the risk of people getting the software for free because you haven't released there yet.
Of course it's because they think it makes them more money, that's so blindly obvious I can't really understand why it's even worth bringing up. What you've let completely fly over your head, is that they think staggering the releases, which has benefits in terms of supply chain, media and advertising support etc is why it will make them more money.
The fact your ignorant of the complexities involved in managing those areas of a business and project effectively does not make them simple. The view your espousing is in no way better than people who are ignorant of science and therefore decide that science is nonsense. Finally, why would they risk cocking it up, very few people gave even the slightest bit of a damn about a week delay, the small fraction that do just try and make up for it in excessive moaning.
The fact that a 40 year old plant, with technology two generations behind new reactors, has been hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake, and a tsunami has not caused a disaster (obviously, yet) is very reassuring.
You talk about someone else being plain ignorant, in a post that is packed to the rafters with hyperbolic attempts to overstate the events so far. No one who knows anything about radiation is worried about radiation levels reaching 10x background. That's 0.05mSv per day, less than what you pick up every fortnight.
I think using an ongoing event like this as a pro- or anti-nuclear is wrong. There will be lessons to learn later, and if it finishes without a disaster, I personally will be more confident in the safety of current and future nuclear plants.
Imagine a developer with legit games too who just posted that infringing game because his mother needs an operation.
Perhaps he could mug someone instead, or rob a bank. He'd get the money faster, and I'm sure we'd all turn a blind eye because of his poor old mother right? No.
It would be trivially easy for Google to structure their store contracts in such a way that account revocation and loss of earnings were explicitly accepted in the case of infringement. You say it won't deter 'pro' criminals, yet if they consistently are denied revenue and forced to create new developer accounts ($15 IIRC), they'll quickly realise it isn't an effective money maker.
Your argument against detering infringers in case they go straight is as illogical as suggesting stores give shop lifters carte blanche in case they choose to start paying one day. Google may be able to get away with ignoring the needs of legit developers, due to the size of the android userbase, but it doesn't mean they should.
I think we should all be massively concerned about the impact that will be had on the rest of the world, not just from what has already occurred with the tsunami, but also if there is a nuclear meltdown and possible explosion at the plant.
Your a fucking idiot. You're not thinking, you're letting your complete ignorance in this field and fear concoct impossible risks, and sharing idiotic solutions to those imaginary issues.
There are more extreme steps Japan could take to have near complete control. Unfortunately all of them include operating near the reactors and exposed fuel rods (the real threat). If they could do this easily (without workers being exposed to higher levels of radiation near these areas) I'm sure they would.
Calling the police was easily the smartest thing she did. 99.9% of Facebook events work perfectly well, it's the rare exceptions that some group of 'tards decide to crash. Given the number of people who said they were coming, even if she 'cancels' the event there's a good chance a lot of univited people are going to turn up at her door. Making the police aware in advance makes it easier for them to respond should anything happen, and ensures she isn't suspected of encouraging it if it does.
When companies are adding caps etc it is because they believe it will decrease costs. If there is competition in the market then that saving will, reasonably, quickly make its way through to lower costs to consumers. If there isn't competition, that saving will be kept as pure profit indefinitely. Charging for use isn't inherently evil, even though internet use has a very low variable cost, sharing the fixed costs of infrastructure etc based on level of use is acceptable.
The thing that I have a massive issue with is when companies start to differentiate based on content provider. I'd like to believe that this could work fine in a free market, sadly I don't think it will. Small businesses have boomed on the internet, and I doubt the likes of Skype, Youtube etc would have come about if the only way to get 'priority' on each ISPs network was to pay up.
Probably not, especially if users are aware of why the ban is in place. Generally military staff have the intelligence to not intentionally disobey instructions/request. The use of these sites could be decreased dramatically, just be telling them not to use them for a while, the block is simply a way of putting a low barrier in place to discourage the final 25% or so of use.
It's like trying to diet. Many people know they should snack less, but struggle to resist temptation. Not having snacks in the house doesn't stop you going out and buying them, however it provides a slight disincentive which helps some people stop snacking.
3K actual compensation for the libel, 50K to the bottom feeding lawyers..
In the UK it is normal to have to pay the fees for the other party, especially in a case like this. This means that it's quite likely that if he had accepted he was guilty, instead of fighting a lengthy legal battle to try and weasel out of it, he would be paying very little in lawyer's fees.
I don't need short sight knee jerk reactionary bozos like you in my life.
Apparently because you've got more than an equal quota all by yourself.
People make assumptions. You can let that negatively affect you, or you can accept it and be more effective. You can pick whichever option you want, I know I will. I made the mistake of including a 'geeky' hobby on a cv, it stayed there until an interviewee was concerned that I might not be able to handle working in a tough enviroment (one that was certainly easier than the one I had been working in before). He made a wrong assumption, based on incorrect world view. That doesn't make him a bad person, it just shows that he, like everyone else isn't perfect.
What's that rumbling sound I hear? Ach mein gott, it's the stampede of anti-apple trolls with their one-dimensional stereotypes, flaming straw men, and tired, old memes!
Wow. Using 'straw men' in your creation of a straw man argument, my hypocrisy detector nearly blew a fuse.
You may have won in a specific case, that doesn't mean it is a winning strategy. Mathematically, a strategy based on pure randomness can't be more or less likely to win on average. Why? Because you can effectively ignore what the non-random player selects. There is a 1/3 chance you will randomly pick the same, 1/3 that you will randomly pick the one that beats them and 1/3 that you will pick the one that loses.
Your theory about patterns is wrong. Even if they are incorrectly detecting a pattern it doesn't change the odds of your random choice winning/losing/drawing.
A good strategy would mix random choices with selectively picked moves. Effectively you would need to double-guess what the computer system thinks your pattern is. Very good systems would then track if they are being tracked etc. Two 'perfect' systems would trade increasingly rare attempts to score, as they realise that the best reliable result they can hope for is a draw. This is because any winnning strategy must be based on predicting your opponents choices, the more you act upon your predictions the more a good opponent can learn about how your algorithm works and how to defeat it.
I can let the fact your naive enough to think humans are good at making genuinely random (or even pseudo-random) decisions go. What I don't understand is why did you bother posting, you're evidently not informed on the subject or experienced in a related field. Your post, at best, wastes other peoples time and, at worst, misleads others.
Maybe I'm just completely out of touch, but I'd much rather have a full-featured tablet than one that is 2mm thinner but doesn't have the features I want.
You are completely out of touch if you think the difference in depth between the iPad and IPad 2 is as inconsequential as a 2mm change would be. Setting up a strawman (a fictional 2mm change) and attacking that, rather than 4.6mm (35% thinner) and also 127g lighter (16%).
Obviously the size of the device is important, otherwise we'd all be happy walking around with devices the thickness of a novel. You might be both informed and think that the difference in this specific incidence is not important. Frankly I doubt it. I can say that having played with both devices the size and weight difference is noticable, and beneficial.
I won't be buying an iPad because I have numerous issues with Apple's business practice. I do however greatly admire their current hardware. Hopefully other manufacturers won't ignore this in the next batch of android tablets because, frankly, I'm getting tired of waiting.
But would it? The same argument is proposed here time and time again. The law makes it illegal to refuse to hand over a password. The prosecutions case would go like this: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The defendant has a hard drive with enough space to store 300 CDs worth of information. He has encrypted it to hide his illegal activities, and has only given us a password for 30 CDs worth (your dummy volume). He continues to refuse to give us access to the other 270 CDs worth, where we believe he keeps records of his illicit activities".
Defence then bores and confuses the jury for hours about encryption, dummy volumes, garbage files etc. Jury isn't interested, but does think anyone going through all that trouble and using such 'advanced' security must have something to hide.... Guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
And why exactly 'should' it? What if Amazon have estimated the average ad revenue per device to be $25, should they drop the price by an additional $114 dollars because they enjoy losing money. Would it be better if they offered a free version that constantly spews audio ads, and shows text ads inserted in books (to earn that $139 discount) instead of this version with 'unobtrusive' ads? Personally, the discount probably isn't enough to make me take it. Perhaps enough people will to make it worth Amazon doing.
Saying Amazon 'should' make it free doesn't mean anything, without some further information. If I thought Google should host all my files securely for free, it doesn't tell you anything unless I explain why it would be of benefit to them to do so, or what I think they could do to make it happen. Anything less is the adult equivalent of a child who wants a pony, and can't appreciate that buying it would mean selling the family house.
I like how you invoked your own law to instantly dismantle your own point.
His point, although not a truth, was a valid observation that referring to other people as sheep or sheeple will cause many people to downgrade their opinion of you, thus diminishing ability to make your case.
Google search is the mechanism via which +1 works, if you were on the search team and didn't see how you were in a position to assist then you probably won't earn the full bonus. Guess what, android is a platform for google tools (inc search). Making +1 easier to use and more attractive to users on phones could help. Sometimes, especially outside of base-level roles, your achievement can't be measured purely on individually controlled tasks. Assisting others in your team, creating processes that improve future performance, work as part of cross-departmental teams etc are all valueable contributions.
Do I think 25% bonus for +1 is 'fair' for a hardware architect? No. Do I think Google knows that adding social information to their search results will provide a 'stickier' (one people are less likely to give up) and 'better' (one people will rate more highly) search experience? Yes, and I think they know that they need to get good at this fast. Perhaps it's not for everyone, but I think the vast majority of people will find it brilliant if they search for "Indian, Manchester" and two results their contacts rate highly are highlighted in the result etc.
Perhaps part of the concern relates to the fact that we're investing in research and treatments to help people who are overweight, diabetic etc? The government puts effort into keeping people alive, even when their own actions go against this. The argument for this kind of intervention is that many people 'want' to be healthy, live longer etc, but don't have the 'willpower' required. They agree with government intervention to make their own natural behaviour harder.
People who commit suicide cost less in healthcare and pensions. That doesn't (automatically) mean we should leave people to jump off buildings etc.
I think the bottomline argument is reasonably simple. The government is going to tax you. How they take the money off you is flexible. Using taxation to 'guide' decisions is currently in vogue.
It's no different to games having scores, achievements etc. By your logic, the game should be compelling without any metrics of success or rewards. The reward is actually playing the game to begin with. Clearly people are motivated by competition, and/or bettering themselves. If providing mechanisms like that at work means that people work harder AND get more enjoyment, it's a good idea.
If someone is already doing work they find enjoyable, this kind of mechanism is hardly going to change that.
I've tried to see the point in Twitter, but apart from making it easier to have group conversations by SMS I really can't work out what it is supposed to achieve. Most 'good' sources on Twitter are effectively informative, and could provide the content more effectively using RSS, email etc.
I can understand the reason that games companies want tax breaks in the UK. If other countries are offering those kind of incentives, it makes setting up or remaining profitable in the UK more difficult. If I was a UK developement studio I'd be asking for the same thing.
Even given the above, I doubt this is something the government should do. The UK is planning to decrease its structural deficit over the next few years. If were going to fund tax breaks, why do it for games developement and not pharma, military hardware, automotives, medical equipment etc? People argue for their own interests (news at 11), the point of a democratic republic is that representatives of the people, who have the time and ability, to look at the bigger picture decide what is really important.
In which case your both right, based on your own definitions, which is a pretty nonsensical idea. If you're communicating with other people, then you can only do it effectively by using the widely socially agreed definition. If you want to make up your own meanings, why not make up your own words as well, that way we'll know what your saying doesn't make any sense to anyone but you.
A solution that lasts for 150 years is a brilliant solution. Our ancestors, in 1860, couldn't hope to produce solutions that would actually last until now. They had a global population of 1.25 billion (there are 6 times as many people now). Not only did they not have the internet, they didn't have phones, they didn't have air mail, in fact the pony express was still expanding!
If, in the 1860s they'd worried about solutions lasting until now, we'd have an endless supply of hay to feed our horses and lots of oil for our lamps. Nuclear power didn't exist 70 years ago. It almost certainly won't be what our ancestors will be using in 2160 either.
How is that an ideal world? You didn't even stop to consider the natural implications of this policy if it were put in place.
EA can afford to go for global release on all titles. The cost to them is a small amount of inconvience, perhaps having to delay US release a day or two, or drop some foriegn lang versions (and leave them with English versions only).
Indie developers on the other hand are fucked. They can't support a global release, in fact, they might not be planning on releasing outside of one/two countries unless they can fund expansion through the initial release. Doing this now means they need to:
1/ Release a product globally, epically fail to support it and trash its reputation.
2/ Only release it in the countries they can actually support, and effectively lose the ability to sell anywhere else as everyone got it for free.
3/ Release via Steam or some other market, still not offering proper support for most countries and accepting that you can't publish truely independently anymore.
Of course the most obvious problem with your 'suggestion' is that it would encourage even more people (especially small developers) to make their products reliant on authorised access to a remote server. If your product can't work without someone having a (paid for) account, and active connection to your server (because it performs some essential computation) then you remove the risk of people getting the software for free because you haven't released there yet.
Of course it's because they think it makes them more money, that's so blindly obvious I can't really understand why it's even worth bringing up. What you've let completely fly over your head, is that they think staggering the releases, which has benefits in terms of supply chain, media and advertising support etc is why it will make them more money.
The fact your ignorant of the complexities involved in managing those areas of a business and project effectively does not make them simple. The view your espousing is in no way better than people who are ignorant of science and therefore decide that science is nonsense. Finally, why would they risk cocking it up, very few people gave even the slightest bit of a damn about a week delay, the small fraction that do just try and make up for it in excessive moaning.
The fact that a 40 year old plant, with technology two generations behind new reactors, has been hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake, and a tsunami has not caused a disaster (obviously, yet) is very reassuring.
You talk about someone else being plain ignorant, in a post that is packed to the rafters with hyperbolic attempts to overstate the events so far. No one who knows anything about radiation is worried about radiation levels reaching 10x background. That's 0.05mSv per day, less than what you pick up every fortnight.
I think using an ongoing event like this as a pro- or anti-nuclear is wrong. There will be lessons to learn later, and if it finishes without a disaster, I personally will be more confident in the safety of current and future nuclear plants.
Perhaps he could mug someone instead, or rob a bank. He'd get the money faster, and I'm sure we'd all turn a blind eye because of his poor old mother right? No.
It would be trivially easy for Google to structure their store contracts in such a way that account revocation and loss of earnings were explicitly accepted in the case of infringement. You say it won't deter 'pro' criminals, yet if they consistently are denied revenue and forced to create new developer accounts ($15 IIRC), they'll quickly realise it isn't an effective money maker.
Your argument against detering infringers in case they go straight is as illogical as suggesting stores give shop lifters carte blanche in case they choose to start paying one day. Google may be able to get away with ignoring the needs of legit developers, due to the size of the android userbase, but it doesn't mean they should.
Your a fucking idiot. You're not thinking, you're letting your complete ignorance in this field and fear concoct impossible risks, and sharing idiotic solutions to those imaginary issues.
There are more extreme steps Japan could take to have near complete control. Unfortunately all of them include operating near the reactors and exposed fuel rods (the real threat). If they could do this easily (without workers being exposed to higher levels of radiation near these areas) I'm sure they would.
Calling the police was easily the smartest thing she did. 99.9% of Facebook events work perfectly well, it's the rare exceptions that some group of 'tards decide to crash. Given the number of people who said they were coming, even if she 'cancels' the event there's a good chance a lot of univited people are going to turn up at her door. Making the police aware in advance makes it easier for them to respond should anything happen, and ensures she isn't suspected of encouraging it if it does.
When companies are adding caps etc it is because they believe it will decrease costs. If there is competition in the market then that saving will, reasonably, quickly make its way through to lower costs to consumers. If there isn't competition, that saving will be kept as pure profit indefinitely. Charging for use isn't inherently evil, even though internet use has a very low variable cost, sharing the fixed costs of infrastructure etc based on level of use is acceptable.
The thing that I have a massive issue with is when companies start to differentiate based on content provider. I'd like to believe that this could work fine in a free market, sadly I don't think it will. Small businesses have boomed on the internet, and I doubt the likes of Skype, Youtube etc would have come about if the only way to get 'priority' on each ISPs network was to pay up.
Probably not, especially if users are aware of why the ban is in place. Generally military staff have the intelligence to not intentionally disobey instructions/request. The use of these sites could be decreased dramatically, just be telling them not to use them for a while, the block is simply a way of putting a low barrier in place to discourage the final 25% or so of use.
It's like trying to diet. Many people know they should snack less, but struggle to resist temptation. Not having snacks in the house doesn't stop you going out and buying them, however it provides a slight disincentive which helps some people stop snacking.
In the UK it is normal to have to pay the fees for the other party, especially in a case like this. This means that it's quite likely that if he had accepted he was guilty, instead of fighting a lengthy legal battle to try and weasel out of it, he would be paying very little in lawyer's fees.
I might be wrong but I think I've seen that film...
Apparently because you've got more than an equal quota all by yourself.
People make assumptions. You can let that negatively affect you, or you can accept it and be more effective. You can pick whichever option you want, I know I will. I made the mistake of including a 'geeky' hobby on a cv, it stayed there until an interviewee was concerned that I might not be able to handle working in a tough enviroment (one that was certainly easier than the one I had been working in before). He made a wrong assumption, based on incorrect world view. That doesn't make him a bad person, it just shows that he, like everyone else isn't perfect.
Wow. Using 'straw men' in your creation of a straw man argument, my hypocrisy detector nearly blew a fuse.
You may have won in a specific case, that doesn't mean it is a winning strategy. Mathematically, a strategy based on pure randomness can't be more or less likely to win on average. Why? Because you can effectively ignore what the non-random player selects. There is a 1/3 chance you will randomly pick the same, 1/3 that you will randomly pick the one that beats them and 1/3 that you will pick the one that loses.
Your theory about patterns is wrong. Even if they are incorrectly detecting a pattern it doesn't change the odds of your random choice winning/losing/drawing.
A good strategy would mix random choices with selectively picked moves. Effectively you would need to double-guess what the computer system thinks your pattern is. Very good systems would then track if they are being tracked etc. Two 'perfect' systems would trade increasingly rare attempts to score, as they realise that the best reliable result they can hope for is a draw. This is because any winnning strategy must be based on predicting your opponents choices, the more you act upon your predictions the more a good opponent can learn about how your algorithm works and how to defeat it.
I can let the fact your naive enough to think humans are good at making genuinely random (or even pseudo-random) decisions go. What I don't understand is why did you bother posting, you're evidently not informed on the subject or experienced in a related field. Your post, at best, wastes other peoples time and, at worst, misleads others.
You are completely out of touch if you think the difference in depth between the iPad and IPad 2 is as inconsequential as a 2mm change would be. Setting up a strawman (a fictional 2mm change) and attacking that, rather than 4.6mm (35% thinner) and also 127g lighter (16%).
Obviously the size of the device is important, otherwise we'd all be happy walking around with devices the thickness of a novel. You might be both informed and think that the difference in this specific incidence is not important. Frankly I doubt it. I can say that having played with both devices the size and weight difference is noticable, and beneficial.
I won't be buying an iPad because I have numerous issues with Apple's business practice. I do however greatly admire their current hardware. Hopefully other manufacturers won't ignore this in the next batch of android tablets because, frankly, I'm getting tired of waiting.
But would it? The same argument is proposed here time and time again. The law makes it illegal to refuse to hand over a password. The prosecutions case would go like this: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. The defendant has a hard drive with enough space to store 300 CDs worth of information. He has encrypted it to hide his illegal activities, and has only given us a password for 30 CDs worth (your dummy volume). He continues to refuse to give us access to the other 270 CDs worth, where we believe he keeps records of his illicit activities".
Defence then bores and confuses the jury for hours about encryption, dummy volumes, garbage files etc. Jury isn't interested, but does think anyone going through all that trouble and using such 'advanced' security must have something to hide.... Guilty.