Yep, just cannot say that "Hey, the judicial got it wrong and gets it wrong more often than not!" along with the whole "There is a punking lot on the books that should not be illegal today and is religious/other morality trying to be forced on people through fiat of law when they are harming no one but themselves and usually not even themselves!"
Exactly.... this is not simply the server in question sending back "We do not support encryption!" This is something actively changing the packet while in transit falsifying the "We do not support encryption!" when the server in question is saying "Yeah, we support encryption, turn it on!"
Anonymous, look at what they have been doing..... then try to tell me that they did not basically say that by their actions. They have been playing fast and loose with what the law actually allows from day one, second one, MILLI-SECOND one.
Plus, they have to prove that he KNEW that the person was committing a crime and did not ban/remove the things in question when he was informed.
Which Kim Dotcom did and which the DMCA SPECIFCALLY said was all he had to do. Remove the things when informed of them, NOT proactively screen for them, which the people writing the DMCA realized was IMPOSSIBLE to do.
Except that some of these laws are oversteps and overreaches that conflict with other laws and rights.... so, when that is the case, breaking the law is not just legally justified, it is morally justified as well.
"Da law is da law" is the argument that mouth-breathing retards use who have absolutely no critical thinking skills. And yes, that seven letter r-word is the correct one to use in this case.... it might even be KIND to those people.
People are looking for too many 'easy outs' for their health issues. You have to get down to the nitty-gritty of exactly what you are trying to fix (overweight, diabetic, etc.) and realize that most likely you will not be able to TOTALLY fix those issues but can lessen them.
This. This would not stand on appeal if Frank wanted to be a hardass on this. However, at this point, he is probably becoming weary of the whole damned thing (that is what the prosecutors want, they want to wear someone out so that they will give up and say "I'll plea!") and just wants it to be over at this point.
Or talking anywhere period.... which is going to be a non-starter in the real world. The fact is that, contrary to popular belief, most people do not speak any louder into a phone than they do talking to a person beside them.
Some companies would like to disagree with you on that. I.E. the companies who try to sue over older NES-PS2 era games being uploaded online and made available for no cost or just donations for server fees.
Umm.... no. The PS2 emulators for computer that I have seen have 'issues' with various games... not rendering shadows properly, having the wrong textures/colors for various things, etc.
The Saturn emulators out there are touchy as well and have issues.
Really, I don't understand why these device makers do not make emulators for their systems after they stop selling their systems. Is it that hard to do? I'd have to say "No" considering that non-company hackers can do it, by and large.
Bingo, mad. Consoles usually only last 10 years, tops with the hardware and even the game carts/discs before they are irreparably damaged due to scratches or other things.
We need to backup those things to a computer system that is more difficult to damage in order to not lose a lot of games to disc rot and console damage.
Personally, I feel it is past time to make console manufacturers release ALL their documents and make their own emulator that works on the most common OS's available at the time (I.E. today Windows 7+, iOS, Android, OSX) so that we do not lose a bunch of cultural advancements.