Legally a crime of passion, and premeditated murder are two different things. If they can prove he discussed killing her in advance, it matters.
Not to mention they may need to build a case against a possible insanity plea.
Not to mention the fact that he came to scene with another person. People keep forgetting there may be an accomplice here who hasn't been arrested. If they believe he discussed and planned the murders with an accomplice, then finding those conversations is critical.
You can argue that anyone who wants to murder innocent people is a nutjob. And there is evidence this was pre-meditated.
An insanity plea doesn't get you off just because you're a little nutty. The purpose of an insanity plea is for people who have lost connect with reality to the extent that they truly don't understand the repercussions of their actions.
He is a registered independent and never registered Republican, nor has any affiliation with the Tea Party.
He is pro-pot, anti-religion, and pro-Communism. He certainly doesn't fall within the demographic of any Republican or Tea Party member that I know of. He did have a personal history of hatred with Giffords and that appears to be his motivation. But feel free to continue to invent lies at your leisure.
The PSP currently has a 4.3 inch screen. If they match the pixel density of the iPhone 4 screen, they'd need a 4.7 inch screen to pull off 1280 x 720 (720p widescreen).
The question then becomes, can they match the iPhone's pixel density?
If they want PSN games that can be developed for the PS3 and PSP2 simulataneously, I assume they'll keep with TV resolutions. It makes life the simplest. The article said the PSP2 will have a "HD" screen.
Most people interpret HD as being 1280x720, and Full HD as 1920x1080. Full HD is unrealistic for a portable, but 1280x720 isn't completely out of the question. If they match the retina display of the iPhone, but a larger screen that is.
You do realize the FSF has repeatedly said Firefox isn't free software, and repeatedly asked Mozilla to block the installation of any non-GPL extension or plug-in, right?
If you think the FSF is fine with people using proprietary software and respects users's freedom of choice, then I don't know what to say, except the blast Ubuntu for allowing users to install proprietary software, blast the kernel for allowing proprietary firmware, and blast Mozilla for allowing proprietary software.
The FSF has called for putting users in a jail cell where they don't have the freedom to run the software they want, and insisting that anything less than their set of rules doesn't constitute free.
I really wanted to like the PSP, except I want something closer to a PS2/PS3 controller. I want dual analog controls that feel comfortable.
I game more on my iPhone than perhaps any other device at the moment because it is convenient and always with me. I don't want to carry a second dedicated device for gaming.
The Playstation Android phone intrigues me. If they had downloadable Playstation games, plus an Android phone in one device, I'd definately look at that. But again, the controls become a huge factor.
No, but the FSF goes after companies that ship mixed FOSS and proprietary software and declared that if users aren't using 100% FOSS software all the time, they aren't free.
I understand the FSF's views of software freedoms, but my point is that they're asking me to trade one set of restrictions for another set of restrictions while claiming their freedom is the only valid definition of freedom.
I'm saying this is comparable to what Google is doing here. They're pushing for the use of open codecs, at the cost of hurting user choice. So Google is clearly in the wrong, but when the FSF does the same thing they aren't?
I always wonder why this logic doesn't get applied to the FSF more often. When they demand 100% open software and blast people who wanting to make the choice to also use or ship proprietary software, they're advocating fewer choices and calling that freedom.
As much as I enjoy FOSS and open standards, I have this crazy belief that real freedom is freedom of choice.
Judges can strike down sections of the EULA even in a preliminary ruling before a trial. When my mother was sued over a no compete clause, the judge struck down the no compete clause from the contract in a preliminary ruling.
I purchase a Swiss-Army knife on the promise that it has 12 attachments that can perform a number of functions. After I purchase it, two of those features are removed.
(Let's not forget that Sony also removed backwards compatiblity, even though briefly they had support for it with software emulation, so it doesn't require the hardware chip).
It is deemed illegal for third parties to modify the Swiss-Army knife, but a third-party posts a tutorial that shows me how to get a bottle-opener back on my knife when I paid for that functionality.
As an end-user, I'm not that concerned that someone broke a fairly silly law simply by providing me with the information to add back in functionality I paid for. I'm upset that it was removed in the first place.
I could try to see it from Sony's perspective, except for the fact that I'm a consumer. And this is coming from a guy who has long defended Sony. Even though I was upset over the rootkit fiasco, I assumed it was one division of a massive company and I'd give them another shot. I purchased a Sony surround sound system, a new Bravia and a PS3.
But really I'm not very happy with Sony removing functionality from a device I purchased.
I'm not one of these guys who thinks piracy is great and that ip stands for "imaginary property". I believe people deserve to make money off their content. So I can understand where Sony is coming from.
The problem is two-fold.
1 - They did advertise features and then take them away. If I'm forced to use custom firmware to get those features back, then I don't have a problem with Geohot enabling people to write custom firmware.
2 - When Geohot approached Sony first, they had an opportunity to make their console more secure. Instead they decided to piss in the face of a guy trying to help them.
If I were Sony in this scenario, then I would have accepted the help of someone who discovered the exploit. That is just smart business.
GeoHot released a very minor exploit that by itself did not allow pirated games.
And ArsTechnica's story suggests GeoHot approached Sony and offered to help them make the PS3 more secure and prevent piracy. Sony wasn't interested.
If you discover a security exploit, the ethical thing to do is to inform that vendor first, which he did. Sony didn't listen to him, and then he released that exploit publicly.
Furthermore, Sony said their response would be to completely remove the OtherOS option. I'm going to wager that wasn't the only way to protect against the initial exploit.
GeoHot said in response he was now motivated to completely hack the PS3. I don't have to assume it was his motivation since he said it directly.
It isn't immaterial if this is seen as comparable to the DCMA exception granted for jailbreaking your phones.
Sony is claiming a breach of their EULA, but by filing a lawsuit they can have their EULA invalidated.
My mother signed a do-not-compete clause and then left for a competing business. The first business sued her assuming they were clearly in the right and wanted to prevent other people from leaving for competing companies. The judge ruled that the do-not-compete clause was not fair and struck it down, paving the way for others to leave. The company paid for an expensive lawsuit that hurt them.
If it is legal to circumvent copyright protection on the iPhone to unlock functionality, it might be deemed legal to write custom firmware on the PS3 to unlock functionality.
And all GeoHot did was publish the exploit. There is at least a chance this could blow up in Sony's face.
That exploit was minor and didn't allow you to do much of anything. He published a small exploit that he saw. The moment Sony removed OtherOS GeoHot said he was motivated to fully crack the PS3 to enable custom firmware.
The problem is that they may have picked the wrong person.
What if the EFF or another firm helps him pay legal costs to fight this? He isn't pirating material, nor distributing pirated material. Sony advertised a feature and sold consoles under the guise you'd have that feature, and then removed that feature.
GeoHot didn't hack the PS3 until Sony removed functionality.
And while you can argue circumventing copyright measures is illegal for any reason according to the DCMA, this isn't a criminal case, and a federal judge has already opened the door saying jailbreaking an iPhone to get additional functionality (not piracy) is legal.
Sony could actually hurt their own case by allowing a judge to rule against them.
I'm not confusing it. Warner Brothers suggested getting in bed with legal downloadable music was just enabling people on the internet to pirate things easier.
Part of the reason Apple ended up ownling online music is that none of the record companies had the vision (or common sense) to put together an iTunes product themselves first.
I just purchased Batman: Arkham Asylum on Steam. Because of Games for Windows Live, I had a lot of trouble getting the game to run at all. I had to search for solutions and fight with the game for a day before I could play it.
No, but the head of Warner Brothers music said it was akin to Coca Cola coming out of your faucet for free, and that you would never buy a coke again. He argued if music were made available in any digital format, that anyone could get it for free on the internet and no one would ever buy digital music.
iTunes proves that the music industry was wrong to fight downloadable music.
Slashdot Mirror
Legally a crime of passion, and premeditated murder are two different things. If they can prove he discussed killing her in advance, it matters.
Not to mention they may need to build a case against a possible insanity plea.
Not to mention the fact that he came to scene with another person. People keep forgetting there may be an accomplice here who hasn't been arrested. If they believe he discussed and planned the murders with an accomplice, then finding those conversations is critical.
You can argue that anyone who wants to murder innocent people is a nutjob. And there is evidence this was pre-meditated.
An insanity plea doesn't get you off just because you're a little nutty. The purpose of an insanity plea is for people who have lost connect with reality to the extent that they truly don't understand the repercussions of their actions.
He is a registered independent and never registered Republican, nor has any affiliation with the Tea Party.
He is pro-pot, anti-religion, and pro-Communism. He certainly doesn't fall within the demographic of any Republican or Tea Party member that I know of. He did have a personal history of hatred with Giffords and that appears to be his motivation. But feel free to continue to invent lies at your leisure.
The PSP currently has a 4.3 inch screen. If they match the pixel density of the iPhone 4 screen, they'd need a 4.7 inch screen to pull off 1280 x 720 (720p widescreen).
The question then becomes, can they match the iPhone's pixel density?
If they want PSN games that can be developed for the PS3 and PSP2 simulataneously, I assume they'll keep with TV resolutions. It makes life the simplest. The article said the PSP2 will have a "HD" screen.
Most people interpret HD as being 1280x720, and Full HD as 1920x1080. Full HD is unrealistic for a portable, but 1280x720 isn't completely out of the question. If they match the retina display of the iPhone, but a larger screen that is.
You do realize the FSF has repeatedly said Firefox isn't free software, and repeatedly asked Mozilla to block the installation of any non-GPL extension or plug-in, right?
If you think the FSF is fine with people using proprietary software and respects users's freedom of choice, then I don't know what to say, except the blast Ubuntu for allowing users to install proprietary software, blast the kernel for allowing proprietary firmware, and blast Mozilla for allowing proprietary software.
The FSF has called for putting users in a jail cell where they don't have the freedom to run the software they want, and insisting that anything less than their set of rules doesn't constitute free.
I really wanted to like the PSP, except I want something closer to a PS2/PS3 controller. I want dual analog controls that feel comfortable.
I game more on my iPhone than perhaps any other device at the moment because it is convenient and always with me. I don't want to carry a second dedicated device for gaming.
The Playstation Android phone intrigues me. If they had downloadable Playstation games, plus an Android phone in one device, I'd definately look at that. But again, the controls become a huge factor.
So where exactly is the niche for a PSP2?
The 3DS will have two screens. The top will be a 3D screen with a 800 x 240 px (effectively 400 x 240 WQVGA per eye) at 238 ppi resolution.
My iPhone 4 has a 960 x 640 px resolution.
I doubt the PSP2 will only have a 340x240 resolution.
No, but the FSF goes after companies that ship mixed FOSS and proprietary software and declared that if users aren't using 100% FOSS software all the time, they aren't free.
I understand the FSF's views of software freedoms, but my point is that they're asking me to trade one set of restrictions for another set of restrictions while claiming their freedom is the only valid definition of freedom.
I'm saying this is comparable to what Google is doing here. They're pushing for the use of open codecs, at the cost of hurting user choice. So Google is clearly in the wrong, but when the FSF does the same thing they aren't?
How does that work?
Licensing encumbrance is unacceptable.
I buy a computer to perform tasks. I expect it to perform those tasks, and ultimately I will run whatever software performs those tasks best for me.
Telling me that I can't perform a task because FOSS doesn't exist for it, or I have to use a lesser solution simply because it is FOSS isn't freedom.
That is simply trading one set of restrictions for another.
I always wonder why this logic doesn't get applied to the FSF more often. When they demand 100% open software and blast people who wanting to make the choice to also use or ship proprietary software, they're advocating fewer choices and calling that freedom.
As much as I enjoy FOSS and open standards, I have this crazy belief that real freedom is freedom of choice.
Judges can strike down sections of the EULA even in a preliminary ruling before a trial. When my mother was sued over a no compete clause, the judge struck down the no compete clause from the contract in a preliminary ruling.
Imagine this scenario.
I purchase a Swiss-Army knife on the promise that it has 12 attachments that can perform a number of functions. After I purchase it, two of those features are removed.
(Let's not forget that Sony also removed backwards compatiblity, even though briefly they had support for it with software emulation, so it doesn't require the hardware chip).
It is deemed illegal for third parties to modify the Swiss-Army knife, but a third-party posts a tutorial that shows me how to get a bottle-opener back on my knife when I paid for that functionality.
As an end-user, I'm not that concerned that someone broke a fairly silly law simply by providing me with the information to add back in functionality I paid for. I'm upset that it was removed in the first place.
I could try to see it from Sony's perspective, except for the fact that I'm a consumer. And this is coming from a guy who has long defended Sony. Even though I was upset over the rootkit fiasco, I assumed it was one division of a massive company and I'd give them another shot. I purchased a Sony surround sound system, a new Bravia and a PS3.
But really I'm not very happy with Sony removing functionality from a device I purchased.
I'm not one of these guys who thinks piracy is great and that ip stands for "imaginary property". I believe people deserve to make money off their content. So I can understand where Sony is coming from.
The problem is two-fold.
1 - They did advertise features and then take them away. If I'm forced to use custom firmware to get those features back, then I don't have a problem with Geohot enabling people to write custom firmware.
2 - When Geohot approached Sony first, they had an opportunity to make their console more secure. Instead they decided to piss in the face of a guy trying to help them.
If I were Sony in this scenario, then I would have accepted the help of someone who discovered the exploit. That is just smart business.
GeoHot released a very minor exploit that by itself did not allow pirated games.
And ArsTechnica's story suggests GeoHot approached Sony and offered to help them make the PS3 more secure and prevent piracy. Sony wasn't interested.
If you discover a security exploit, the ethical thing to do is to inform that vendor first, which he did. Sony didn't listen to him, and then he released that exploit publicly.
Furthermore, Sony said their response would be to completely remove the OtherOS option. I'm going to wager that wasn't the only way to protect against the initial exploit.
GeoHot said in response he was now motivated to completely hack the PS3. I don't have to assume it was his motivation since he said it directly.
That's nothing. AOL mailed out at least 20 million per month.
It isn't immaterial if this is seen as comparable to the DCMA exception granted for jailbreaking your phones.
Sony is claiming a breach of their EULA, but by filing a lawsuit they can have their EULA invalidated.
My mother signed a do-not-compete clause and then left for a competing business. The first business sued her assuming they were clearly in the right and wanted to prevent other people from leaving for competing companies. The judge ruled that the do-not-compete clause was not fair and struck it down, paving the way for others to leave. The company paid for an expensive lawsuit that hurt them.
If it is legal to circumvent copyright protection on the iPhone to unlock functionality, it might be deemed legal to write custom firmware on the PS3 to unlock functionality.
And all GeoHot did was publish the exploit. There is at least a chance this could blow up in Sony's face.
That exploit was minor and didn't allow you to do much of anything. He published a small exploit that he saw. The moment Sony removed OtherOS GeoHot said he was motivated to fully crack the PS3 to enable custom firmware.
This isn't a criminal case. You can sue anyone for any reason. That is how lawsuits have always worked.
I can't believe some people are so stupid they still haven't realized that.
The problem is that they may have picked the wrong person.
What if the EFF or another firm helps him pay legal costs to fight this? He isn't pirating material, nor distributing pirated material. Sony advertised a feature and sold consoles under the guise you'd have that feature, and then removed that feature.
GeoHot didn't hack the PS3 until Sony removed functionality.
And while you can argue circumventing copyright measures is illegal for any reason according to the DCMA, this isn't a criminal case, and a federal judge has already opened the door saying jailbreaking an iPhone to get additional functionality (not piracy) is legal.
Sony could actually hurt their own case by allowing a judge to rule against them.
It is a DEV server, so perhaps the entire point is to code against an alpha-version of what will eventually become RHEL.
I'm not confusing it. Warner Brothers suggested getting in bed with legal downloadable music was just enabling people on the internet to pirate things easier.
Part of the reason Apple ended up ownling online music is that none of the record companies had the vision (or common sense) to put together an iTunes product themselves first.
The first car to add Farmville support will become the best selling car in the country.
I just purchased Batman: Arkham Asylum on Steam. Because of Games for Windows Live, I had a lot of trouble getting the game to run at all. I had to search for solutions and fight with the game for a day before I could play it.
Pirated versions of games seem to just work.
No, but the head of Warner Brothers music said it was akin to Coca Cola coming out of your faucet for free, and that you would never buy a coke again. He argued if music were made available in any digital format, that anyone could get it for free on the internet and no one would ever buy digital music.
iTunes proves that the music industry was wrong to fight downloadable music.