Comment Good, now arrest them! (Score 1) 390
These people are arguably cyber-terrorists (but more realistically, 30+ year old obese men living in their parents basements)
These people are arguably cyber-terrorists (but more realistically, 30+ year old obese men living in their parents basements)
It's ridiculous to think we won't even get a dime.
Ex. Modern Warfare 2:
"Criticism has arisen of changes made to the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 including the lack of dedicated servers, latency issues of the listen server-only IWNET, lack of console commands, lack of support for matches larger than 18 players, and inability to vote towards kicking or banning cheating players immediately"
Remove the benefits of PC gaming, and gamers won't game on a PC..
nt
Inmate electrocuted. For some reason, I've got a craving for some BBQ rite now..
Just sayin'..
Honestly, I don't understand why such a simple, useful feature could be missed by both companies..
Only about an hour now. Time for a new battery, but OEM ones from Dell are overpriced.
Anyone know a reputable seller of high quality Dell Inspiron 1520 batteries?
Wait.. what?!
People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base. You have to *buy* something to be a customer.
Well.. not any more it doesn't.
Problem solved.. with only the fanatical FSF zealots still up in arms..
Did anyone commenting here actually read TFA (specifically, the court ruling)?
The reasoning for why the conviction was quashed had absolutely nothing to do with cached images. It was quashed because the police were ruled to have conducted an illegal (as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) search, despite having a search warrant to search for possession of child pornography.
Essentially, this is what happened:
1) Technician shows up to install an Internet connection on accused computer.
2) Technician notices probable child porn links in IE favourites (along with other legal porn links), and sees (legal) porn image, either on browser homepage or desktop. Technician also notices webcam hooked up to VCR (turned off at the time) directed at accused's 3 year old child.
3) Technician returns next day to finish work, and finds computer had been formatted.
4) Technician reports to social worker about possible child abuse. Social worker in turn informs RCMP.
5) Police obtain search warrant based on technician's observations.
6) (Four months after technician's initial visit) Police search accused's home, and find child pornography.
The court essentially ruled that the technician's observations did not legally justify a search. And I find this patently ridiculous.
HOLY MACRO!