Posted on 01/03/2007 11:04:31 AM PST by newgeezer
No I simply referred to him as a hacker since he has obvious hacker symbology in his username, which clearly threw you into a tizzy, not me. If you feel you can finally somehow prove it's not possible for him to be a hacker you can keep trying, but trying to lie and claim I'm the one "going nuts" and not you is not working. It's hysterically funny, actually LOL.
This can't be true. We all know Apple products never have security issues.
Like that new iPhone...I heard you can backdate your stock trades on it...
It appears you are being intentionally obtuse again, and again taking my words out of their context yet again. "Lifting" DOES equate to "stealing" (or in this case copyright infringement). I put it in quotes because, in the obvious context that you again ignore, I don't think Microsoft "stole" anything.
You have to find the stack for NT 3.1, as Microsoft replaced the BSD stack as of 4.0.
More lies. You're willing to give Russian crackers a free pass for illegal activity, then falsely accuse legitimate businesses of crimes. No wonder you want to be a defense attorney when you grow up.
You're waaaaaaaaay off base here. L33t is much more associated with gaming than hacking. And let's not even get into the hypocrisy of you using LOL, one of the earliest pieces of internet slang on the path to development of l33t.
Actually, that would mean absolutely nothing. Microsoft could have paid Spider $20 million for the stack, but Spider wasn't the author, so it doesn't matter. The Regents of Berkeley holds the copyright, and the terms of its license must be honored. But as I've said before (and contrary to your assertions), I know of no evidence that Microsoft violated the BSD license.
I find that purchase kind of funny though. Microsoft paid for something it could have gotten for free straight from Berkeley.
Wait, change that, I think they replaced the stack in 3.5.
OK--btw, do you still have copies of the NT 3.1 boot disks--I have an ISO of a CD I picked up for cheap, but can't run it in VMware or qemu without the blasted boot disks. And my Win98-based general one doesn't work.
i can then check NT 3.1 and see what it says. I didn't see it in NT 3.51, btw.
I don't give them a free pass if the activity is explicitly illegal under a solid statute.
These guys' activities were only illegal because of the DMCA, which I might add is constantly being appealed because there is no constitutional basis to support the law (meaning it simply defaults back to being yet another shredding of the First Amendment).
Evenso, the DMCA requires you profit from it. These guys didn't make a penny from it.
Thus the argument of "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law."
Another lie of denial. Several times, including on this thread. You claimed you were justified in knowingly and purposefully lying for months due to "GE's paranioa of Russians", etc. You do like lying "for fun" don't you, just as you've admitted on this thread as well.
Another little law exercise here. If attribution is indeed not there (not proven yet), then it becomes a question of who removed the attribution.
If Microsoft did it, then they are liable for civil damages and criminal punishment (knowingly and for profit, the key ingredients).
If Spider did it, then Spider is liable for civil damages and criminal punishment. But Microsoft would be mostly off the hook. You could not then say Microsoft knowingly infringed, and in that case all criminal bets are off, and civil damages can't be very high (and Microsoft would probably sue Spider to recover them anyway). Microsoft's remedy for future infringement would be simple and relatively inexpensive: stick the attribution back in and then put the new code in the next patch and all future install shipments.
I already showed you a federal trial of other Russians who cracked Adobe. Take your claims it was unconstitutional up with the judge.
Link, please, and IN CONTEXT. And remember: justification and fault are two different things. A "reason, fact, circumstance" is the first definition for "justification", while fault in this context deals with responsibility for an action. And I don't remember you holding a gun to my head, forcing me to type it.
BTW, have you finally figured out your context test in #360? Or do you still think I accused you of having sex with goats?
Typical, you make endless excuses including lies you admit to perpetrating for months in defense of illegal Russian hacking, but can't wait to accuse an American corporation of theft of a product that is generally given away for free. Just as we'd expect, toss a few lies on top and you'll be done LOL.
They were selling the cracking software: "for profit" requirement met.
They admitted they knew about the DMCA: "willful" requirement met.
On second thought, now that you provided the Adobe C&D, you can say that their infringement was willful for the time after the letter (assuming the letter actually got to the hackers, as it was not sent directly to them). However, the article still shows not a hint of them doing it for financial gain. Both are required by law.
The obvious unconstitutionality, stupidity, and downright unfairness to the public of the DMCA is an entirely different matter. I can explain that if you'd like.
Why don't you two get a room? See that little button marked "mail"? If you guys used that for your mutual flamefest, maybe the rest of us could find the posts pertinent to this thread.
Show me, with a link, and IN CONTEXT, where I accused either of these corporations of "theft" (actually, copyright infringement) of the BSD TCP/IP stack.
If you can't then admit your libel and retract your statement. I actually want to see "I committed libel against you, and I apologize. I fully retract the statement." And after that, you can apologize for all of your past instances of libel.
BTW, you're lucky that libel is a civil issue, not a criminal one. Earlier though, I could not have prevailed in a libel case against you. Absolutely nobody here believed your drivel, so it would be impossible for me to show damage to my reputation. However, I now have a case since one other FReeper finally believed you.
As is his style, GE destroyed this thread long ago. It's not worth saving anymore. Besides, there are a few of us in this with GE.
I just want to know about the Mac bugs: flaws or FUD?
You know ... the subject of the thread?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.