That is true, but "guilty mind" is misleading - it doesn't necessarily mean that you had to intend a crime, just that you intended the action.
Please mod parent up. 28 comments are modded to +5, and not a single one of them mentions this important distinction.
Saying "Yes, I intended to take the 56000 photos, but I did not intend to do anything illegal" is not a valid defense against criminal intent.
Yes, I read TFA too. But the reason for my question was: How is it a YRO issue that you get arrested after making a harmful virus and spreading it. Would anyone here think that this should NOT be punishable?
As I understand the YRO category, it is mainly used for cases where there is a difference between what we think should be allowed/disallowed/possible, and what authorities/courts/companies/legislators think should be allowed/disallowed/possible. And I see no such difference here.
Of course it is funny that he thought he could legally get away with destroying other peoples' files as long as he made sure not to use any copyrighted material in the process. But that belongs in the Idle category, I think.
Sorry, but how is this a YRO issue?
In a collection of badly translated English signs in China, this one should be at the very top:
http://www.vincentchow.net/2340/chinese-restaurant-name-translate-server-error
should of payed for that pro spell check and not use the free build in one.
Maybe you should have too... I think "built in" would be the term you were looking for.
I don't know what is worse here - that you made a really embarrassing whoosh, or that you only found one error in the quoted text.
How about
If( foo = true) a=x;
Set a to x if you succeeded in setting foo to true?
If you are going to quote the full parent in one block anyway, why are you not just using the "Quote Parent" button? It's both easier and less error prone.
Because the two only buttons in the interface I am using, are Preview and Submit. But I could use the Preview button more than I do...
And once again I fail at using quote tags.
The point is the fight, not whether or not a particular device has been cracked. TI (and to be fair, plenty of other companies) are engaged in a constant struggle to prevent users from exercising their right to run whatever software they want on their computers. You might construe it as, "Well you can still run the software, you just don't know how" but realistically speaking, the devices are being designed to thwart the user's attempt to install software without thwarting the manufacturer. That is a strike against us and our rights, regardless of how you phrase it.
I will try rephrase the grandparent's statement to make it more clear to you:
Fighting to crack a certain device is not fighting for a right - it is fighting to be able to excercise the right you already had.
Cracking the device does not give you more or less rights than you had before cracking it. If you want to change the rights, you have to influence the legislators.
Worse yet, he even named the help.
Don't worry. It is not because grub has developed any interest in the lives of his hired help and has learned the name of his butler. In order to make life easier for himself, he renames all his butlers to "Charles" when they are hired.
When you fill out forms, they have a question about sex and you answer boy or girl.
So "Yes, please" is not the correct answer?
That explains a lot about those rejected forms...
"Your Honor, I demand this contract be thrown out as evidence!"
"On what grounds?"
"On the grounds that it incriminates my client!"
Liar Liar?
Yes, but only from law suits. It will not protect you from actual bombers or bullets. --This is not really a joke because it is way to accurate.
You're exaggerating. As far as I know not a single shot has been fired anywhere on earth because of a picture.
Exaggerating?
Let us see what has happened as a direct result of the 12 Mohammed cartoons which were printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten:
The Danish embassy in Pakistan was bombed and 8 people were killed.
More or less successful attempts were made of burning down 2 Danish embassies and 1 Danish consulate.
One of the cartoonist was attacked in his home by a man with an axe.
Arrests have been made, also in the USA, of people planning terror actions against Jyllands-Posten, and of people planning to murder one of the cartoonists.
A lot of people were killed in the protest riots in muslim countries after those cartoons. And yes, shots WAS fired. Some claims that the body count is 139, but that is probably exaggerated. I only remember news reports of 5-10 deaths.
So, how can I say "1% greater" and make it mean "add" rather than "multiply"?
By using the term "percentage point" (like I already did in the posting you replied to).
When something increases 50% from 2% to 3%, the increase is 1 percentage point.
Signing documents, adding notes, adding addendum, filling out forms, etc. There is more to PDF's then text.
Uhm, if this was the functionality discussed here, Notepad and vi would be just as vulnerable.
You are clearly confusing:
1. A program which saves changes to the loaded file when the user requests it.
2. A program which writes to other files in the file system, when the document requests it.
The problem with Adobe Reader is #2, not #1. So, to repeat the GP's question:
Why does a PDF viewer need to give the document the ability to write at all?
To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)
