Yes, but you have to acknowledge there is a difference between killing people for money and sneaking chocolate before dinner. It's a sliding scale, and some crimes definitely are evil.
Sounds like a law written by people who never played video games being fought by people who want to sell them to minors.
Maybe they should be told about other games. Return to Castle Wolfenstein teaches kids to set fire to Nazis. Freedom Fighters teaches kids to hate commies. C&C Generals teaches kids to fight terrorists. Doom 3 teaches kids to fight hell. Final Fantasy 7 teaches kids to fight city stomping monsters.
It's all about context. Kids under 15 probably shouldn't be allowed to play GTA, the lesson there is that you can get away with crime. But there are other games containing violence they should be allow, SWAT3 allows you to be violent but encourages you not to.
I'm not a network security person, but the few courses I did on the subject at uni drilled this into my head: don't test a computers security without permission (preferably written) even if you work for the company that owns them. Surely any network security engineer would know not to do this?
And wouldn't a person in the security field know enough to check out a site *before* giving them card details? And then going to a more trustworthy site, say oh I don't know redcross.org?
To be honest, I think cyber-related crimes need a higher level of punishment for them because they are so hard to trace, and so prevalent. I do think though he would have gotten away with a slapped wrist or fine, but he did lie, which should definitely be factored in, how could they trust what he said about his motives after that? It'd be like getting caught trying to pick the lock on someones house because they were out and had left their lights on.
Just out of curiousity, what could doing a directory traversal (/../) possibly prove about the validity of a site?
Oh, and do credit cards provide fraud protection for this kind of thing?
Surely the best way to force a reform of the patent laws is to use them.
Imagine this:
All the pro open source / free software people start applying for as many patents as possible, covering any technology related matters, and the broader they are, the better. They then donate these patents to a new organisation whose goal is to look for infringments of these patents by large companies, and then get money from them. The money is used finance the organisation, and any left over is ploughed into various open source endeavours.
If that doesn't force the big companies to buy new patent laws from the american government, I don't know what would.
Surely this opens them up to all kinds of tricks.
Say for example you made an mp3 of you singing for 60 minutes while hitting a bucket with a rake. Call it music. Then stick it in your shared folder with a name like Star_Wars_Revenge_of_Sith_Part_1.avi.
To know whats in the file, they have to download it, which would mean that they are, by their own logic at least, making your pre-release musical 'artwork' available for sharing. If they don't, they are just going to waste lots of money on lawsuits they can only lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but you have to acknowledge there is a difference between killing people for money and sneaking chocolate before dinner. It's a sliding scale, and some crimes definitely are evil.
Sounds like a law written by people who never played video games being fought by people who want to sell them to minors. Maybe they should be told about other games. Return to Castle Wolfenstein teaches kids to set fire to Nazis. Freedom Fighters teaches kids to hate commies. C&C Generals teaches kids to fight terrorists. Doom 3 teaches kids to fight hell. Final Fantasy 7 teaches kids to fight city stomping monsters. It's all about context. Kids under 15 probably shouldn't be allowed to play GTA, the lesson there is that you can get away with crime. But there are other games containing violence they should be allow, SWAT3 allows you to be violent but encourages you not to.
I'm not a network security person, but the few courses I did on the subject at uni drilled this into my head: don't test a computers security without permission (preferably written) even if you work for the company that owns them. Surely any network security engineer would know not to do this? And wouldn't a person in the security field know enough to check out a site *before* giving them card details? And then going to a more trustworthy site, say oh I don't know redcross.org? To be honest, I think cyber-related crimes need a higher level of punishment for them because they are so hard to trace, and so prevalent. I do think though he would have gotten away with a slapped wrist or fine, but he did lie, which should definitely be factored in, how could they trust what he said about his motives after that? It'd be like getting caught trying to pick the lock on someones house because they were out and had left their lights on. Just out of curiousity, what could doing a directory traversal (/../) possibly prove about the validity of a site? Oh, and do credit cards provide fraud protection for this kind of thing?
It's because the populations keep rising methinks. People are shagging more than inventing.
Surely the best way to force a reform of the patent laws is to use them. Imagine this: All the pro open source / free software people start applying for as many patents as possible, covering any technology related matters, and the broader they are, the better. They then donate these patents to a new organisation whose goal is to look for infringments of these patents by large companies, and then get money from them. The money is used finance the organisation, and any left over is ploughed into various open source endeavours. If that doesn't force the big companies to buy new patent laws from the american government, I don't know what would.
So the next logical step for them is to release music we don't want to make sound. It could explain Britney Spears.
Surely this opens them up to all kinds of tricks. Say for example you made an mp3 of you singing for 60 minutes while hitting a bucket with a rake. Call it music. Then stick it in your shared folder with a name like Star_Wars_Revenge_of_Sith_Part_1.avi. To know whats in the file, they have to download it, which would mean that they are, by their own logic at least, making your pre-release musical 'artwork' available for sharing. If they don't, they are just going to waste lots of money on lawsuits they can only lose.