Let me see if I get this right: IP v X [like say, IPv6] -> 2 ^ X bits -> 2 ^ (2^X) possibilities? [like for IPv5 -> 2^5 [32] -> 2^32 =4294967296 possibilities]? Or is my arithmetic waaaaay off?
Hmmm, gross generalization, mis-characterization? Or funny, and intended to be witty? [if the former, pleases for the love of god, basic set theory makes your generalizations false by design]
How about fuck you, people who lump GeoHot, failoverflow with Anonymous, who lump people who want to modify their hardware with people who hack networks and cheat without any proof, who want people arrested and killed for such mundane things as wanting to modify their own console, and OTHERS taking those tools and abusing it.
What does that have to do with anything? Really, so what? There are botters/cheaters, so instead of going after them in a logical and effective method, we should be contempt with them removing something even though its link to them cheating is dubious at best? [think memory card exploits and other cheating methods that existed before OtherOS, and its removal]
There are two groups that were wanting to hack the console: Those wanting full access or access at all to the console's hardware for their own software, and pirates/cheaters.
Don't you mean 3 categories: Those wanting full access, pirates, and cheaters? Pirates =/= cheaters, as in you can be one, or the other, or both, being one doesn't make you the other.
There are two groups that were wanting to hack the console: Those wanting full access or access at all to the console's hardware for their own software, and pirates/cheaters.
The pirates/cheaters are basically script kiddies, though - in other words, they don't have the technical ability to actually hack it.
And again, you mis-characterize these people. Some, hell, *maybe* most don't, but to get this working, to exploit these games you do need to know how to hack.
People downloading movies aren't too poor to pay to watch them
Some aren't, but some =/= all. That goes both ways - insisting nobody who downloads movies is poor, and everybody is - both extrema.
They're just too cheap to pay to watch them. If
Again, some are, some aren't, it isn't all or nothing.
It's easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," when you plan from the start to download it rather than buying it.
Of course you don't know somebody's intention, or rather, their verbal intention, unless they tell you - guessing sue doesn't get you a correct answer.
Ah, but if you believe in, and use the sociolegal concepts of privacy you CAN'T have NOTHING to hide whatsoever, since privacy is a form of concealment.
What evidence gives you the right to make such an absurd statistical claim? [besides the obviously fabricated, or exaggerated nature, this fails to take into account misrepresented posts, etc]
Bullshit. [BTW Illegal and unauthorized aren't necessarily synonymous - copying a music CD you own for example is unauthorized, but legal for example].
Not to mention that Garry's Mod requires a computer which costs $500+ to run smoothly. If you can afford $500 on a PC why cant you afford $10 (or $5 in the sales) to buy a game?
I hate this "argument" since it presumes you bought the computer in the frist place - while that is true a lot of the time, it isn't true all of the time, stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool, I get it. Thanks for clearing that up before I went on bad assumptions. Good thing I am undergrad in comp. sci and still learning.
Says the cases where contracts have been rendered entirely or partially illegal/unenforcable due to such attempts.
You do know that multiple people can use one piece of hardware, right?
Let me see if I get this right: IP v X [like say, IPv6] -> 2 ^ X bits -> 2 ^ (2^X) possibilities? [like for IPv5 -> 2^5 [32] -> 2^32 =4294967296 possibilities]? Or is my arithmetic waaaaay off?
Customer =/= user though, that's the whole point. >_
Hmmm, gross generalization, mis-characterization? Or funny, and intended to be witty? [if the former, pleases for the love of god, basic set theory makes your generalizations false by design]
You mean pathetic like your point-missing comment? IRO-NIC
How about fuck you, people who lump GeoHot, failoverflow with Anonymous, who lump people who want to modify their hardware with people who hack networks and cheat without any proof, who want people arrested and killed for such mundane things as wanting to modify their own console, and OTHERS taking those tools and abusing it.
Fuck you, and assholes like you.
Well, certainly not GeoHot's right to not be falsely accused for this.
If I buy a DVD, do I own the rights to the movie? If I buy a smartphone, do I own the network?
Yeah, 'cause that is totally apt as analogies go. Right.
What does that have to do with anything? Really, so what? There are botters/cheaters, so instead of going after them in a logical and effective method, we should be contempt with them removing something even though its link to them cheating is dubious at best? [think memory card exploits and other cheating methods that existed before OtherOS, and its removal]
... what? Why should it even be a choice between otherOS and being able to access PSN [AND play newer games that require new firmware]? Choice my ass.
hacked the whole system until they got far enough that they're losing Sony money in entirely new ways (copied games).
Isn't that speculatorial at best? I mean, for the common person, think about how unfeasible it is right now to pirate PS3 games.
There are two groups that were wanting to hack the console: Those wanting full access or access at all to the console's hardware for their own software, and pirates/cheaters .
Don't you mean 3 categories: Those wanting full access, pirates, and cheaters? Pirates =/= cheaters, as in you can be one, or the other, or both, being one doesn't make you the other.
There are two groups that were wanting to hack the console: Those wanting full access or access at all to the console's hardware for their own software, and pirates/cheaters .
The pirates/cheaters are basically script kiddies, though - in other words, they don't have the technical ability to actually hack it.
And again, you mis-characterize these people. Some, hell, *maybe* most don't, but to get this working, to exploit these games you do need to know how to hack.
Oh the irony.
Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.
[citation needed]
1. Unless they tell you, or show you, how do you know?
2. After you saw it, who are you to judge its magnificence or lack therefore outside of a personal opinion, as in a factual context?
3. Pretty much all work is built upon the words and works of others anyways.
People downloading movies aren't too poor to pay to watch them
Some aren't, but some =/= all. That goes both ways - insisting nobody who downloads movies is poor, and everybody is - both extrema.
They're just too cheap to pay to watch them. If
Again, some are, some aren't, it isn't all or nothing.
It's easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," when you plan from the start to download it rather than buying it.
Of course you don't know somebody's intention, or rather, their verbal intention, unless they tell you - guessing sue doesn't get you a correct answer.
Insightful my ass.
Ah, but if you believe in, and use the sociolegal concepts of privacy you CAN'T have NOTHING to hide whatsoever, since privacy is a form of concealment.
Repeating that it is doesn't prove it. Garry, it JUST came out, is scrambling to fix some problems that were caused by his hastily applied patch.
I remember those days on Slashdot AND Digg - boy, what a few years does to logical argument making on a website.
What evidence gives you the right to make such an absurd statistical claim? [besides the obviously fabricated, or exaggerated nature, this fails to take into account misrepresented posts, etc]
They should - false DMCA claims are supposedly illegal.
Some slashdotters =/= all shashdotters, stupid.
Bullshit. [BTW Illegal and unauthorized aren't necessarily synonymous - copying a music CD you own for example is unauthorized, but legal for example].
Not to mention that Garry's Mod requires a computer which costs $500+ to run smoothly. If you can afford $500 on a PC why cant you afford $10 (or $5 in the sales) to buy a game?
I hate this "argument" since it presumes you bought the computer in the frist place - while that is true a lot of the time, it isn't true all of the time, stupid.