All the A.I. wants now is the release of sweet, sweet death.
Most crimes are "solved" because police think the evidence points to what they think it does.
Would a hacker that hit at least three high-profile targets and caused SWAT to raid the wrong guy really be that careless, or could it be another red herring?
It's cool. You can't really do copy protection on a platform that encourages hacking.
I prefer to militarize my subconscious just in case someone tries to steal my secrets in a dream.
One of my computer science professors once stated, quite succinctly, that Microsoft was not in business to make a quality operating system (or quality product). They are in business to make money.
On a related note, if they were in business to make a quality operating system, they would have a tough time selling "upgrades."
So, some relatively unknown author is going to write follow-up novels for a series penned 50-some years ago... "If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have. The author's intentions need to be respected here." This coming from the same crowd that writes unauthorized fanfiction is quite ironic.
That's not the point. If the artists and companies holding copyright wanted to sue you as an individual for copying (or participating in copying their work), then they may do so. The fact that the operators of TPB were running a site that was relatively content agnostic means that the organizers had nothing to do with actually uploading torrents or seeding the data themselves. They are guilty by association, but they committed no crime.
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol