Think about it from Sony's perspective. Think about the costs they laid out to bring the entire Playstation to market. Don't they have a right to try and control what happens to their product
Sony's perspective on whether they do or do not have a right to control their product post-sale is irrelevant -- they can believe that they have that right all they want, but it doesn't make it so. What they do have a right to control is the service they provide; banning devices and/or users from PSN and the like is entirely legit. Who would possibly expect them to do otherwise?
People can argue that once a system is bought, it no longer belongs to Sony, but they do have controlling right to the technology that continues to exist in the system.
Indeed, people do make that argument. Some of them even sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The entire idea that Sony is out to get it's customers strikes me a spurious and unsupported argument. If a retailer of any product was "out to get their customer," what would it do to their business in the long run?
Definitely -- no legitimate business can hassle its customers and get away with it. On an unrelated note, bought any good CDs lately?
...When the US president declares war
Technically speaking, the president doesn't have the authority to declare war -- only congress has that power. Consequently the US hasn't been at war since February 10, 1947. Peace is nice, ain't it?
I was already aghast at Gizmodo for running a story with the poor engineer's name -- there was absolutely no journalistic reason to give his name other than to give Gawker's editors a bit of titillation. He's a human being; human beings make mistakes. I'm more than slightly disappointed that Slashdot, a community that should be sympathetic to the guy, is having a laugh at his expense. Seriously -- who hasn't ever lost their phone or their wallet?
If, mind you, it was even legitimately lost in the first place -- which I still don't believe.
Neither! This data is statistically useless -- what we need to know is how many attacks occurred in the first half of 2008, otherwise the comparison is completely useless. Look at it this way: what if (due to some outside factor) the vast majority of cyber attacks occur in the first half of the year? We know nothing about the distribution of attacks over time, and so we can draw no conclusions from this report!
I hate it when people misuse statistics...
Backed up the system lately?