It doesn't make gun control illegal - it says right in the amendment: "well regulated". Also, the way it's written, the purpose of it is clear: you can bear arms, if you're part of a well regulated militia. So you want to play with your toys - enlist in the Army.

They should also arrest him for a rape. Because, you know, he could - he has everything necessary for that!

http://www.reddit.com/tb/kr14a

No, of course they aren't copying Apple!

So much hypocrisy in this forum... No, Apple is not going after Samsung just because of the round corners. There are many other tablets with round corners, after which Apple is not going, for some reason. I can't remember ever going to a nearby BestBuy store and thinking "wow, this iPad looks weird..." about something that upon closer inspection turns out to NOT be iPad, until I saw the Galaxy 10.1. Only a blind person will argue that it's not "inspired" to a very high degree by iPad. And if you consider other things Samsung has done (a Galaxy phone power adapter being nearly 100% identical copy of Apple's iPhone adapter, using Apple App Store and Safari icons in its brick and mortar stores being the latest publicized examples) - it does make one wonder what's going on here.

As far as the tablet designs are concerned, isn't that curious that only after the iPad came out all these "there's no other way to make a tablet" arguments begun? Of course there's isn't, now that Apple has shown it! It's how it's always been: right as soon as someone comes up with a brilliant idea - "it's so obvious!" - and yet, nobody came up with that obvious idea before. Curious, isn't it? Yet, Microsoft had some interesting ideas about a tablet design that's nowhere near iPad's (which never realized, I might add). Their recently shown Mango UI is completely different from iPad's. It's weird for me to say so, but Microsoft really did innovate there, instead of going the easy way, as Samsung did.

HP's Touchpad and RIM's Playbook are two other examples - both different from iPad. Both had great potential, but lacked the polish that Apple has put in their iPad and iOS. They both failed, but not because they were bad - they failed because the companies that made them were being lazy.

I love my iPad. But I also LOVED both the Playbook and the Touchpad, and was considering buying one of them (although couldn't quite make my mind up which one :) ). I was leaning more towards the Playbook, being somewhat familiar with the QNX, but it's lack of an email client was a deal breaker for me (as well as pretty poor developer support). And that's one of the reasons it's failing. And HP's decision to abandon the Touchpad was a bummer as well. So both of them failed because of one or another stupid decisions made by the companies that produced them. And neither of them were imilar to the iPad to a degree to which Samsung's Galaxy Tab is.

So we now have at least _three_ different tablet approaches, clearly indicating it's not just about the "round corners". Two of them failed for reasons NOT related much to how they look or work. Another may or may not succeed. And then we have Samsung Galaxy Tab. Not a bad tablet, mind you - in fact the best Android tablet (and I wanna say "the only one worth looking at") by any means. But a copycat nonetheless.

Since you have ears - you can listen to the music, so why not just tax per ear? Or better yet - per cell in your body, you know - just to make sure that no individual cell takes advantage of enjoying the music without paying...

1) you're arguing that you OWN the PS3 in its entirety, where in fact you only own the hardware and A LICENSE to use the software. That's clearly spelled out right on the box. You don't own the software, however you assume that you have the right to own it, which is as communist as it gets.

2) I believe in private property - physical, intellectual or whatever else the might be. You own the physical property - a bunch of silicone, aluminum, some other metals, precious and not so much, plastic et cetera. Sony owns the intellectual property and offers you a license - a contract to use it under certain conditions. I don't know where you live - and don't care, quite frankly - but in the United States these rights are protected by law, and you can, of course, refuse to accept the license and return the product back to the store (within 30 days in most stores in the US). That's the law, if you don't like it - bring it up with your senator, campaign for the change, or move to the country where you like the laws. But you don't have the right to violate the law and then tell that you think the law is wrong. That's democracy for you: if majority bugs their lawmakers about the change - the change will be made. Otherwise - follow the letter of law.

3) you can exercise you right of speech as long as it does not violate rights of others. Again you demonstrate lack of understanding of basic principles laid out in The Constitution, Bill of Rights et cetera. Your right to free speech is not absolute, and even to the extent that you have it - it does not apply to commercial organizations, or individuals among themselves. I, for example, exercise my right to free speech right now, however it inconveniences you, apparently. That's what I call hypocrisy.

4) If I have the same car and figure out how to easily open it and tell others how to do it, and the next day your car is stolen using my method to open it - how would you feel?

Yep. What's theirs is theirs - even if it appears like a random set of some values to a simpler organisms ;)

What amuses me most is yours - and other people's who rare arguing with me here - lack of ability to see the whole picture, beyond the tip of your noses.

1) Sony gave the option to tinker by providing OtherOS option
2) Sony provided a _license_ to use the software - you don't own it, you only own hardware
3) Somebody found exploit in it and used it - good for him and maybe all two other "tinkerers"
4) Sony removed that option - bad for many who used the option to play with Cell
5) The "somebody" then found another exploit and used it, and distributed it - good for him, the same two tinkerers, and plenty of pirates and cheaters
6) Legitimate users now a) have no OtherOS option, b) are forced to update their systems too often, c) can't play some games online because of cheating, d) potentially face the requirement to enter serial codes or deal with some other DRM measures, or otherwise inconvenienced.

Now, does that majority of legitimate users, who paid their money to play conveniently play games, watch movies, listen to music etc., give a flying fuck about supposed "liberties" or "rights" of that minority? In what universe?

If you're using their property (hint: their security code and encryption key is their property) - sure, they can. Why do you think the "Intellectual Property" term has that second word in it?

Now, if you take a box, in which the PS3 sold in the store, there's a very prominent text on the back side of it, one piece of which reads as follows:

"The system software included within this product is subject to a limited license from Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Refer to www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula for further details" - in three languages (in North America - I'm sure it is in proper languages in the countries where it's sold).

Like I said - vote with your wallet: take your money elsewhere. Nobody forces you to buy Sony PS3, so if it's not doing what you want it to do - then you're a moron, who bought a wrong product.

Have you distributed your OS and has it done any damage to anyone?

It just does not compute in your tiny little communist mind that there's a difference between finding a key and keeping it and finding a key and making millions of copies of it - I doubt even this very sentence itself will compute in there... But whatever.

hint: hack is not an "idea". Nobody prevents you from telling others you can hack it. There's a good reason many decent security experts first warn the owner of the product they've found exploit to about the exploit, before releasing it - if they even have the intention to release it.

Your very own sentence "you cannot own what you purchase." shows your flawed logic. You own a gaming system. That's what you bought, that's what you've got. Like I said - if you don't like the fact that you bought a gaming system - perhaps you bought a wrong product, no? Vote with your $$ - don't buy products you don't like. If you bought and didn't like it - return. Otherwise - you're simply a moron, who bought a refrigerator when he needed an iron.

Precisely my point: tinker, see, reverse engineer for your own curiosity - nobody gives a shit indeed, until you release it publicly. It's not specific to Sony - it's just how things work. And you're merely one of those hypocrites, who advocates something as long as it doesn't work against them. You'd be on a completely different side of the fence, had you been a game developer, for example.

Are you being purposefully retarded? What in the hell are you talking about? I don't give two rat's asses about your freedom of speech, or anybody else's, for that matter - I'm not government (in case you are not aware - it only applies to government institutions, who are prohibited from restricting the right of free speech, read the amendment), and neither is Sony. Sony can restrict your right of speech as much as they like, within the confines of their domain, which PS3 security system and PlayStation Network are (and probably beyond, too - where they have the standing).

And yes, if you know what the outcome will be - it is intentional. You aren't going to argue in court "I stabbed my wife with a knife 10 times, knowing she will most likely die, but her death was unintentional", are you?

I stand up not for Sony, but for myself: I have no intention of hacking my PS3, and I had lost the ability to use OtherOS (or log into PSN, had I chosen not to upgrade the firmware), because it was used to compromise its security to begin with, which resulted in Sony removing the backdoor.

I've asked above and have never received an answer, so I'll ask again: what legitimate "tinkering" came out of the hack? We know the piracy is not enabled, we know cheating is now enabled, but besides that - what good did it bring?

Like I said - as long as it remains within your apartment, do whatever you please - you can even smash it into pieces and nobody will say a word.

What I'm arguing against is _public release of a hack_, which with 100% certainty will result in piracy and cheating (already has, as a matter of fact), so that clearly indicates its intentions. Which makes this posturing "we're just tinkerers" even more ludicrous - as if you're smart enough to circumvent the security measures, but stupid enough to not realize what the outcome of its public release will be? "Oh, I didn't know if I release the hack it will be used for piracy!" - really???

So you have the hackers to thank for it. Pity you're too feeble-minded to realize that. If you had your apartment broken into - you'd change the locks, install better doors et cetera. That's what Sony did. Had there been no hacking - there would not be a problem and OtherOS would still be available.

And yes, I was using the OtherOS, and yes, it's very annoying that Sony had removed it, however I understand their motivation (as misdirected as it may be). And I repeat myself once again: OtherOS gave pretty much every "tinkerer" out there everything they needed (which was to play with the Cell, primarily), so I can see no other reason for hacking than to play pirated games. Most those who argue with this are just too chicken to admit it and keep pounding their chests. One would have to be a complete moron to assume that hack such as this won't be used for piracy - even if you could come up with a _valid_ reason for its existence in whatever alternate universe you live. And even then - sure thing, hack it all you want, just be responsible and keep it to yourself. Making it available to the average joes just proves what your true intentions are.

If that didn't compute - don't bother answering.

I agree - it was an incomplete analogy. A better analogy would be if I had known what's in your house, all your private info and passwords to your bank accounts and had posted them online - for academic purposes.

Your analogy is also incorrect: the correct one would be is you rent an apartment in an apartment complex. You can enter any room in your apartment, you can't enter your apartment complex's maintenance areas and you can't use their equipment. And there are also restrictions on what you can do in that apartment (you can't make illegal drugs, for example - even if you OWN, not rent).

Again: you pay for what you're granted by the EULA. You don't agree with the EULA - you don't buy it and instead buy what let's you do what you want it to do. In case you haven't heard - PS3 up until recently has been sold at a loss, presuming that various fees from stuff sold for it would compensate the loss.

But anyway, like I have already said: those who wanted to play with the Cell could do so without hacking. Sony's was the most open gaming console. The hacking only began when the PS3 became more popular and more cool games started coming out for it - now there's a good reason to hack it.

And all I see from my perspective is this: now I can't install Linux on my PS3, and I don't want to hack it, because I like playing online and don't want to get banned - or get into legal trouble. So the only ones who are interested in this hack are indeed the cheaters or pirates, who don't play online anyway.