First of all, the AC's point still stands, you just have to flip it. A guy running a commercial porn site, under your rules, is a better cybercriminal than Kevin Mitnick.
Regardless, it IS illegal in many jurisdictions for people under a certain age to view pornographic material.
Just because it isn't a federal law doesn't mean it isn't illegal.
"Best" is subjective. Under no meaningful definition of the phrase "best cybercriminal" is being caught worthy of any significant consideration. As another example, if you went down that road, an 11 year old who runs Quickfrye or AOHELL without being caught is "better" at cybercrime than Mitnick was.
That doesn't make any sense. By what definition does the best criminal have to remain unidentified?
It's also completely illogical. In that scenario, if all cybercriminals were identified, there would be no "best" of the group, which is clearly not correct. Even if you're not very good, you could still be the "best". Being identified, then, certainly isn't sufficient to preclude from the "honor".
I wish people would just ignore folks like him after the first rebuttal, since it is sufficient to make the case one time and leave it at that rather than continually respond to increasingly irrational arguments (ants and culture? WTH?).
So much time is wasted arguing with people who have so clearly chosen to not obtain even the most trivial information on the matter that I have to wonder how many intelligent discussions are being missed with the wasted time... sigh.
Well, LGF wasn't always like that. Prior to 9/11 it was actually a pretty nice little general interest blog. The people were pleasant, Charles was a nice guy to talk to, and you could have nice, general conversations and some mild, interesting debate.
Even after it shifted to the radical political positions, insults, and extremist ranting that's there now, I stuck it out for a bit. What finally broke the camel's back though was the 2nd or 3rd time I saw discussions degenerate into frenzied arguments over the best way to "cleanse" the Muslim menace from the world.
Now, I basically just use it to contrast "normal" opinions against their extremist responses to everything for amusement.
Your argument might be a little more valid if it weren't centered entirely around the idea that you're psychic... you've somehow mystically divined that all people concerned about their 4th amendment rights are "children" and that not only will their be a court case dealing with the NSA database program itself, but that the case will be resolved in a certain way.
Perhaps you should consider forming the X-Men instead of wasting your incredible psychic powers telling all us poor fools how to think?
The most appropriate channel to begin discussion on government corruption is the media, because the people who are responsible for stopping abusive government are the people.
Whistleblowers go to the authorities to stop companies because it is the law's duty to deal with the problem.
Leakers go the press to stop government abuses because it is the electorate's duty to deal with the problem.
Some supporters of the Bush Administration have actually seriously suggested that blowing the whistle on this out of concerns of illegality SHOULD result in serious prosecution and detention.
In fact, I monitor Little Green Footballs from time to time, and I thought to check the LGF spin on the matter, and one of the first things they did with the NSA phone database story was focus on the fact that it was a leak, not the concerns of the apparent illegality of the program.
"Survival of the fittest" more appropriately refers to the process of "natural selection" which is a natural process recognized as one of the driving forces behind the more generalized concept of "evolution".
Also, natural selection was hypothesized well before Darwin's time, prior to 1800. Darwin's Origin of Species merely presented the first significantly coherent, scientifically sound argument for the factuality of natural selection.
In other words, Darwin didn't present the idea, he proved it. He also explicitly noted the prior presentations of the idea on various occasions.
In addition, you are inappropriately using an incorrect popular perception of evolution as a process which must necessarily improve a species when, in fact, evolution can and has actually harmed and even destroyed species through undesirable mutations (example: a fish could actually slowly evolve to lose fins and become immobile, pretty much guaranteeing extinction - another example is Neanderthal which evolved a number of high-energy-requirement attributes such as a large body and brain in a harsh environment that was only capable of providing minimal food sources).
That would never be a problem because no matter how often somebody has seen it, they'd always back again and again on the offchance that this time it's a little bit different.
Man, this joke could go on for another two or three pages and still be relevant if people keep playing it up...
In the 1980s, the NES was also using some fairly premium technology. The Wii is not using the latest and greatest components by today's standards. It makes sense that, when adjusted, the NES would have been significantly more expensive than the more advanced Wii: the NES components were at a much higher premium then much like the PS3's are now.
The behavior being corrected here was recognized in patent trolls, but it was by no means limited to them. Previously, patent trolls were simply filing suits and getting de facto injunctions as a result. It cost more to try and defend the dragging case than to simply come to a licensing agreement, so the trolls made it their business model to basically buy patents on the cheap and then extort companies producing actual products.
However, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so even companies that had valid patent complaints used this tactic to try and extort producers of actual goods rather than muddling through an actual case. Creative can't do that now, however. They have to prove that the case is not only valid, but that an injunction is actually necessary while the complaint is being argued.
They may well get an injunction if requested, but they won't just get one because they filed a lawsuit, they'll actually have to invest time into proving they need one.
You realize, I assume, that many lawyers out there are completely willing to take on a case like that, presuming it's reasonably clear cut, for both the notoriety of successfully taking on a big company and for a cut of the damages?
Most of the cases of a "small inventor" being "abused" by big corporations are actually little more than a "small inventor" signing undesirable contracts and then attempting to reneg on them. If a big company is egregiously abusing a person's patented ideas (which also involves significant financial damages), 99% of the time the case will be fairly clear cut, there will be a lawyer willing to get in on it for a cut of the damages, and the entire thing will be adequately resolved.
If people took a little more time to think through their decisions when dealing with big companies, especially when entereing into contract deals with them, many of the world's "unfair abuses of the little guy" would be readily avoided.
Apple lucked out. Creative can't get an injunction "just because" which could have been a serious blow to Apple's sales even if Creative ultimately lost the case.
I wasn't aware that once you called yourself a Christiwan you were mystically and unescapably bound to the word of the Bible and couldn't act in any way that is proscribed by it.
That must cause some interesting behavioral and mental problems when it comes to trying to unconditionally resolve contradictory passages on a single subject.
Or were you unaware that a very large number of religious individuals have a very common tendency to disregard inconvenient rules and guidelines in their belief systems when they personally or ideologically benefit from doing so?
I would like everybody to note, further, that the simplistic insults and immature behavior of the parent poster very accurately reflect many of the people in PvP in Guild Wars, which is another common complaint among players: the number of childish greifers who have overrun the game (the common joke is to ask whether or not you've stumbled into a Counterstrike server by mistake).
I raised my complaints, and those complaints are echoed by many others in many posts on many forums. If you disagree, fine. I'm not saying you should stop playing the game if you enjoy it, and if the issues I brought up are not of concern to you, feel free to buy it and enjoy.
This would cover just about anything if a broad enough interpretation is used. Technically, sites like Adelphia.com and Comcast.net "allow users to create their own content and share it" when "users" is defined as people who purchsed network access from them.
In fact, this would arguably ban just about everything non-commercial if one took it literally enough.
The argument is that it's "federally-funded" areas that are being targetted for enforcement, but wouldn't that amount to the government selectively banning content from the public? In which case wouldn't it be easy-pickings for a lawsuit over first amendment rights?
Your boorish response did not in any way express any new ideas that I have not already responded to.
And, as you've chosen to resort to childish insults to "defend" your position rather than advance any new ideas or evidence, I feel no particular reason to further press the issue with you. I am confident that I've proven my point over yours.
I would like to point out that within the Guild Wars fanbase, Factions has been met with a great deal of outright anger over a number of problems:
1. Compared to the original Guild Wars, despite costing the same, you get SIGNIFICANTLY less content. When you buy one of the chapters, you get 4 character slots. When you add on another chapter, you only get 2 more slots (e.g. - you double your cost, but you only get 50% more character space). The map is also much smaller.
2. The problem with character slots above means that your storage is limited. The original GW had an abundance of items, so storage was already problematic. The fact that if you combine chapters you get a diminishing return on character space compounds the existing storage problem a great deal. ArenaNet has claimed many times now that a fix is in progress for this.
3. Many people have complained about the "delivery boy" syndrome Factions suffers from. many of the quests, especially early on, require that you run messages or items from one person to another. Because there is now no way to explore on your own (see #4 and #5), this often means literally having to slog through dull, repetitious fights to do the quest.
4. In the first chapter, many people enjoyed exploring on their own and opened up areas by simply running around the map. In Factions, this is not possible as they have locked gates placed around Cantha that only open at the completion of missions (only six missions were actually necessary in Prophecies to complete the game).
5. Monsters were not very challenging and were easy to avoid in some places in Prophecies. In an attempt to solve this, many patrols were overlapped in Cantha and given a very wide range of movement. Unfortunately, this means that it's not uncommon to submit to a very large and growing group of enemies because other patrols came into range from far off while you were battling another group.
And, of course, the main problem:
6. GRIND.
In Prophecies, many people chose to grind for gold and items, but it was not required. In Factions, because of Alliances, the only way to get to many of the missions is:
a) To join a large guild - a daunting task as groups of trusted players solidify - so you can be part of a large alliance
b) Grind out "faction" points for your chosen side in the Canthan war to contribute to your Alliance so that you can retain control over towns - the only way you can play certain high level areas ("Elite" missions) is if you are part of the Alliance holding the related town, which requires these Faction points.
I would say Factions is an enormous disappoint. At guildwarsguru.com/forum you can find many, many people who agree.
I think the bigger story here is that there's been yet another leak of classified information without proper authorization.
I think the bigger story here is that another classified program has been found that may well be in violation of United States law. I think the bigger story here is that another classified program has been found that doesn't provide any public justification for its classification.
I think the bigger story here is the number of people who are so lacking in their own basic self-interest that they will protect illegitimate government activity that may very well be violating the exact wording of the fourth amendment despite having absolutely no particular reason to do so.
If these leakers who are sharing classified information with non-credentialed sources for their own personal reasons or political gain (there is a clear mechanism in place if they truly believed that a program was violating American law and leaking to a reporter is not it) continue to do this with such regularity, then they may as well just shut down the CIA and NSA and military intelligence agencies and just throw in the towel.
That's a pretty big statement about a program without anything to show for itself. Or can you cite me some examples of where this program has actually stopped a terrorist attack, or has halted activities that have been credibly shown to be likely to lead to a terrorist attack? Or, can you cite me credible research that has shown that this type of program could have, in the past, been applied to effectively halt credible or wholly instantiated threats?
Sorry, but when I have to choose between falling on the side of skepticism and blind faith regarding a governmental body, I chose to look out for my own hide first and take the smart route: strong skepticism.
History is firmly on my side in this matter. If you choose to blindly trust your government, no matter what government it may be, you may as well just climb into the oven now and be done with it.
He didn't dismiss the possibility of a deity existing, and nor do I. Neither do I simply assume that one exists.
In fact, therefore, it would appear that I enjoy the best of both worlds: I neither pretend to have some mystical insight into what lies beyond our current understanding of science such that I can declare to know what ISN'T, nor do I presume to know what hasn't been proven. I know what I know from facts, I believe what I believe from speculation, and when the two clash, the former must always win.
And that, my friend, is the key failing of followers of various religions when the discussion turns towards fact and logic: they (accurately) cry out that potential is stifled when a person pretends to know what doesn't exist, yet at the same time they stifle their own potential by pretending to know what does exist in the absence of any evidence to suggest any such thing.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, the AC's point still stands, you just have to flip it. A guy running a commercial porn site, under your rules, is a better cybercriminal than Kevin Mitnick.
Regardless, it IS illegal in many jurisdictions for people under a certain age to view pornographic material.
Just because it isn't a federal law doesn't mean it isn't illegal.
"Best" is subjective. Under no meaningful definition of the phrase "best cybercriminal" is being caught worthy of any significant consideration. As another example, if you went down that road, an 11 year old who runs Quickfrye or AOHELL without being caught is "better" at cybercrime than Mitnick was.
That doesn't make any sense. By what definition does the best criminal have to remain unidentified?
It's also completely illogical. In that scenario, if all cybercriminals were identified, there would be no "best" of the group, which is clearly not correct. Even if you're not very good, you could still be the "best". Being identified, then, certainly isn't sufficient to preclude from the "honor".
I wish people would just ignore folks like him after the first rebuttal, since it is sufficient to make the case one time and leave it at that rather than continually respond to increasingly irrational arguments (ants and culture? WTH?).
So much time is wasted arguing with people who have so clearly chosen to not obtain even the most trivial information on the matter that I have to wonder how many intelligent discussions are being missed with the wasted time... sigh.
Well, LGF wasn't always like that. Prior to 9/11 it was actually a pretty nice little general interest blog. The people were pleasant, Charles was a nice guy to talk to, and you could have nice, general conversations and some mild, interesting debate.
Even after it shifted to the radical political positions, insults, and extremist ranting that's there now, I stuck it out for a bit. What finally broke the camel's back though was the 2nd or 3rd time I saw discussions degenerate into frenzied arguments over the best way to "cleanse" the Muslim menace from the world.
Now, I basically just use it to contrast "normal" opinions against their extremist responses to everything for amusement.
Your argument might be a little more valid if it weren't centered entirely around the idea that you're psychic... you've somehow mystically divined that all people concerned about their 4th amendment rights are "children" and that not only will their be a court case dealing with the NSA database program itself, but that the case will be resolved in a certain way.
Perhaps you should consider forming the X-Men instead of wasting your incredible psychic powers telling all us poor fools how to think?
The most appropriate channel to begin discussion on government corruption is the media, because the people who are responsible for stopping abusive government are the people.
Whistleblowers go to the authorities to stop companies because it is the law's duty to deal with the problem.
Leakers go the press to stop government abuses because it is the electorate's duty to deal with the problem.
Some supporters of the Bush Administration have actually seriously suggested that blowing the whistle on this out of concerns of illegality SHOULD result in serious prosecution and detention.
In fact, I monitor Little Green Footballs from time to time, and I thought to check the LGF spin on the matter, and one of the first things they did with the NSA phone database story was focus on the fact that it was a leak, not the concerns of the apparent illegality of the program.
</pedantry>
Other than that, your point is taken
That would never be a problem because no matter how often somebody has seen it, they'd always back again and again on the offchance that this time it's a little bit different.
Man, this joke could go on for another two or three pages and still be relevant if people keep playing it up...
It's hard not to fall to vigilantism when there's no sherriff in town to keep the peace on your behalf...
In the 1980s, the NES was also using some fairly premium technology. The Wii is not using the latest and greatest components by today's standards. It makes sense that, when adjusted, the NES would have been significantly more expensive than the more advanced Wii: the NES components were at a much higher premium then much like the PS3's are now.
The behavior being corrected here was recognized in patent trolls, but it was by no means limited to them. Previously, patent trolls were simply filing suits and getting de facto injunctions as a result. It cost more to try and defend the dragging case than to simply come to a licensing agreement, so the trolls made it their business model to basically buy patents on the cheap and then extort companies producing actual products.
However, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so even companies that had valid patent complaints used this tactic to try and extort producers of actual goods rather than muddling through an actual case. Creative can't do that now, however. They have to prove that the case is not only valid, but that an injunction is actually necessary while the complaint is being argued.
They may well get an injunction if requested, but they won't just get one because they filed a lawsuit, they'll actually have to invest time into proving they need one.
You realize, I assume, that many lawyers out there are completely willing to take on a case like that, presuming it's reasonably clear cut, for both the notoriety of successfully taking on a big company and for a cut of the damages?
Most of the cases of a "small inventor" being "abused" by big corporations are actually little more than a "small inventor" signing undesirable contracts and then attempting to reneg on them. If a big company is egregiously abusing a person's patented ideas (which also involves significant financial damages), 99% of the time the case will be fairly clear cut, there will be a lawyer willing to get in on it for a cut of the damages, and the entire thing will be adequately resolved.
If people took a little more time to think through their decisions when dealing with big companies, especially when entereing into contract deals with them, many of the world's "unfair abuses of the little guy" would be readily avoided.
...Creative just filed a lawsuit against Apple regarding the iPod.
Doh!
Apple lucked out. Creative can't get an injunction "just because" which could have been a serious blow to Apple's sales even if Creative ultimately lost the case.
I wasn't aware that once you called yourself a Christiwan you were mystically and unescapably bound to the word of the Bible and couldn't act in any way that is proscribed by it.
That must cause some interesting behavioral and mental problems when it comes to trying to unconditionally resolve contradictory passages on a single subject.
Or were you unaware that a very large number of religious individuals have a very common tendency to disregard inconvenient rules and guidelines in their belief systems when they personally or ideologically benefit from doing so?
I've hired, well, captured and enslaved, 150 people who go over all the code...
So, basically, what you're saying here is that you're the President of Human Resources at EA Games?
and everything in the My Documents folder.
:\
Considering the people I know, I think you'd be better off deleting documents from the Desktop...
You "don't deign to outline what the rules should be", yet you know them well enough to make the statement you did at the start of this thread?
I would like everybody to note, further, that the simplistic insults and immature behavior of the parent poster very accurately reflect many of the people in PvP in Guild Wars, which is another common complaint among players: the number of childish greifers who have overrun the game (the common joke is to ask whether or not you've stumbled into a Counterstrike server by mistake).
I raised my complaints, and those complaints are echoed by many others in many posts on many forums. If you disagree, fine. I'm not saying you should stop playing the game if you enjoy it, and if the issues I brought up are not of concern to you, feel free to buy it and enjoy.
This would cover just about anything if a broad enough interpretation is used. Technically, sites like Adelphia.com and Comcast.net "allow users to create their own content and share it" when "users" is defined as people who purchsed network access from them.
In fact, this would arguably ban just about everything non-commercial if one took it literally enough.
The argument is that it's "federally-funded" areas that are being targetted for enforcement, but wouldn't that amount to the government selectively banning content from the public? In which case wouldn't it be easy-pickings for a lawsuit over first amendment rights?
Your boorish response did not in any way express any new ideas that I have not already responded to.
And, as you've chosen to resort to childish insults to "defend" your position rather than advance any new ideas or evidence, I feel no particular reason to further press the issue with you. I am confident that I've proven my point over yours.
Good day.
I would like to point out that within the Guild Wars fanbase, Factions has been met with a great deal of outright anger over a number of problems:
1. Compared to the original Guild Wars, despite costing the same, you get SIGNIFICANTLY less content. When you buy one of the chapters, you get 4 character slots. When you add on another chapter, you only get 2 more slots (e.g. - you double your cost, but you only get 50% more character space). The map is also much smaller.
2. The problem with character slots above means that your storage is limited. The original GW had an abundance of items, so storage was already problematic. The fact that if you combine chapters you get a diminishing return on character space compounds the existing storage problem a great deal. ArenaNet has claimed many times now that a fix is in progress for this.
3. Many people have complained about the "delivery boy" syndrome Factions suffers from. many of the quests, especially early on, require that you run messages or items from one person to another. Because there is now no way to explore on your own (see #4 and #5), this often means literally having to slog through dull, repetitious fights to do the quest.
4. In the first chapter, many people enjoyed exploring on their own and opened up areas by simply running around the map. In Factions, this is not possible as they have locked gates placed around Cantha that only open at the completion of missions (only six missions were actually necessary in Prophecies to complete the game).
5. Monsters were not very challenging and were easy to avoid in some places in Prophecies. In an attempt to solve this, many patrols were overlapped in Cantha and given a very wide range of movement. Unfortunately, this means that it's not uncommon to submit to a very large and growing group of enemies because other patrols came into range from far off while you were battling another group.
And, of course, the main problem:
6. GRIND.
In Prophecies, many people chose to grind for gold and items, but it was not required. In Factions, because of Alliances, the only way to get to many of the missions is:
a) To join a large guild - a daunting task as groups of trusted players solidify - so you can be part of a large alliance
b) Grind out "faction" points for your chosen side in the Canthan war to contribute to your Alliance so that you can retain control over towns - the only way you can play certain high level areas ("Elite" missions) is if you are part of the Alliance holding the related town, which requires these Faction points.
I would say Factions is an enormous disappoint. At guildwarsguru.com/forum you can find many, many people who agree.
I think the bigger story here is that there's been yet another leak of classified information without proper authorization.
I think the bigger story here is that another classified program has been found that may well be in violation of United States law. I think the bigger story here is that another classified program has been found that doesn't provide any public justification for its classification.
I think the bigger story here is the number of people who are so lacking in their own basic self-interest that they will protect illegitimate government activity that may very well be violating the exact wording of the fourth amendment despite having absolutely no particular reason to do so.
If these leakers who are sharing classified information with non-credentialed sources for their own personal reasons or political gain (there is a clear mechanism in place if they truly believed that a program was violating American law and leaking to a reporter is not it) continue to do this with such regularity, then they may as well just shut down the CIA and NSA and military intelligence agencies and just throw in the towel.
That's a pretty big statement about a program without anything to show for itself. Or can you cite me some examples of where this program has actually stopped a terrorist attack, or has halted activities that have been credibly shown to be likely to lead to a terrorist attack? Or, can you cite me credible research that has shown that this type of program could have, in the past, been applied to effectively halt credible or wholly instantiated threats?
Sorry, but when I have to choose between falling on the side of skepticism and blind faith regarding a governmental body, I chose to look out for my own hide first and take the smart route: strong skepticism.
History is firmly on my side in this matter. If you choose to blindly trust your government, no matter what government it may be, you may as well just climb into the oven now and be done with it.
He didn't dismiss the possibility of a deity existing, and nor do I. Neither do I simply assume that one exists.
In fact, therefore, it would appear that I enjoy the best of both worlds: I neither pretend to have some mystical insight into what lies beyond our current understanding of science such that I can declare to know what ISN'T, nor do I presume to know what hasn't been proven. I know what I know from facts, I believe what I believe from speculation, and when the two clash, the former must always win.
And that, my friend, is the key failing of followers of various religions when the discussion turns towards fact and logic: they (accurately) cry out that potential is stifled when a person pretends to know what doesn't exist, yet at the same time they stifle their own potential by pretending to know what does exist in the absence of any evidence to suggest any such thing.