Except that in the post above yours, Geohot said the vacation was paid for in November.
And really, expecting him to foot the bill for a crazy lawsuit from a company that has an income millions of times greater than his is just silly.
Of course he'd say that. You expect him to admit that he's using the donations from hundreds or thousands of people for a use other than he said he would?
I expect people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Of course he couldn't pay for the lawsuit defense himself, but don't you think he could have at least put in his personal money for his own cause too?
Didn't he already put in personal money before saying "Hey I can't take on a gigantic corporation on by myself guys, could use a hand"
It's not like he was sued and the next hour he was begging for donations. And I'm a little worried about how you're automatically assuming he's using money donated to him on a vacation based on...
uh...
him being on vacation?
EDIT: Out of curiosity, are you also are highly doubting Sony's position as well, what with the amount of bending they're doing to sue Hotz in California? Because basically, so far it boils down to "Because we say so"
Well I don't know what kind of vacation he's on or how long in advance he had to pay out money and not be able to be refunded. I've never taken a vacation as far away as Geohot has. But it seems highly likely to me that he could have used that money for his defense.
Well I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me Sony could win over GeoHot, because in the end a certain amount of the case will depend on the judge's perception, and GeoHot hasn't done himself any favors at all. If Sony started with an iffy case, I think they have it pretty solid now. GeoHot's behavior makes me believe he really is a scumbag deep down. It's not so much based on legal technicalities to me in my mind, because again, I'm not a lawyer.
MechMantis, Hotz has lied before, the PSN account for example. We've only got his word that the whole trip was paid for months before he was sued. It is not "idiotic" to question this.
MechMantis, Hotz has lied before, the PSN account for example. We've only got his word that the whole trip was paid for months before he was sued. It is not "idiotic" to question this.
That's still in the air, according to Groklaw, who examined what she actually could. She also has some legal training.
And that's one thing he's "lied" on. One. And that was brought up the exact same day. Or at least, I learned about the two the same day.
I'm sorry, what kind of vacation requires you to lock down all your money 4 months in advance (Nov to now) with no chance of refund?
You and Geohot are scrambling against all logic to defend his actions, which to this point, have been spotty and immature in the best light.
Quite a few! Especially ones involving planes, hotel bookings, and international travel! Like the one Hotz is on!
And even then, this shows, at worst, an unwillingness to axe a planned vacation due to being sued by a major corporation and then, after the no-refund deadline, realizing he doesn't have enough money to fight this alone.
Or just an unwillingness to axe a vacation. Which, considering the circumstances, isn't that bad.
EDIT: Keep in mind he was sued in January, perhaps he thought he'd be able to get it thrown out of court before he had to cancel his vacation. There's all kinds of ways he'd be unable to cancel everything and get the funds back instantly to pay for an unexpected lawsuit.
Thinking he might be using the donations for a vacation is really goddamn fucking stupid. Even if he did, he would be reamed with lawsuits faster than hell.
GeoHot doesn't seem like a typical 21 year old, he seems more like a sociopath.
Yay for internet armchair psychology. While at it, diagnose a few people with autism.
Apparently some people haven't heard of non-refundable tickets. I threw away a couple hundred dollars because I couldn't make pax prime this year, and I had no chance of refunds on that. It could have easily been much more expensive, had I had a hotel reserved, a longer flight, etc etc.
Not to say this is what he did, but its certainly a plausivility.
I'm also getting conflicting info. It's being reported that Hot removed the controllers from the hard drives before sending them off the Sony. Of other half has that he was running RAID and never turned over the controller card, making the drives scrambled.
Either way, dick move, especially when you are in another country when the discovery is made.
That's not tampering -- they wanted the HDDs, they got the HDDs. If Sony had even a hint of competence they would have asked for the RAID controller as well, but Sony not being competent is what caused this whole mess in the first place.
In fact, I imagine GeoHot is wishing that he had did a full disk encryption on top of everything else right now.
Also: Question: Would turning over the controller card count as, say, a violation of his 5th amendment rights? That is to say, if a judge demands a password for your private account, do you have to turn it over?
KiTA on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
@KiTA since we're talking about a Civil case, I don't believe the 5th ammendment applies. But I have been wrong in the past.
Apothe0sis on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I can see why he wouldn't be able to use that money for his legal defense. Because, you see, it was gone two months before.
Seriously this is just idiotic. "Maybe money that was already used could have been repurposed for a snap legal fund!"
If only money worked that way. If only.
I'm sorry, what kind of vacation requires you to lock down all your money 4 months in advance (Nov to now) with no chance of refund?
You and Geohot are scrambling against all logic to defend his actions, which to this point, have been spotty and immature in the best light.
Pointing out possible alternatives is not illogical.
Refuting possible alternatives on the basis of intuition, because you sure as hell don't have any more facts than the rest of us, most definitely is.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I'm sorry, what kind of vacation requires you to lock down all your money 4 months in advance (Nov to now) with no chance of refund?
You and Geohot are scrambling against all logic to defend his actions, which to this point, have been spotty and immature in the best light.
What the hell are you talking about? Most airlines will not refund you and, in fact, most I have dealt with go so far as to require you to pay extra money for insurance just so you can cancel if you get sick. Yep, you have to pay extra money to be able to cancel if you get sick.
Also, if he had already planned a vacation there is no way in hell I am going to give him shit for going through with that just because some stupid ass corporation wants to make an example out of him.
As for the logic part, you are not one to talk. The only one that I see in this thread with an axe to grind is you, Diamond.
This is a civil case. Unless he's committed an actual crime, which he has not, there is no reason to prevent him from leaving the country. Otherwise you could just lock people down by suing them.
This is a civil case. Unless he's committed an actual crime, which he has not, there is no reason to prevent him from leaving the country. Otherwise you could just lock people down by suing them.
Pretty much this. I mean, if I was in a high profile case I don't know if I would plan a new trip or anything, but if it was bought and paid for then I don't see the point of not taking a vacation.
Sony is pretty much trying to scream their head off about every little thing geohot does.
Pointing out possible alternatives is not illogical.
Refuting possible alternatives on the basis of intuition, because you sure as hell don't have any more facts than the rest of us, most definitely is.
So why is my alternative illogical then? Don't be a hypocrite. Don't give me that shit, you don't have any more facts about this than I do.
What the hell are you talking about? Most airlines will not refund you and, in fact, most I have dealt with go so far as to require you to pay extra money for insurance just so you can cancel if you get sick. Yep, you have to pay extra money to be able to cancel if you get sick.
Also, if he had already planned a vacation there is no way in hell I am going to give him shit for going through with that just because some stupid ass corporation wants to make an example out of him.
Bullshit, he had months to cancel his trip, and he had months till he could have ordered his plane tickets.
Do you think he's a hero? a savior? You may not 'give him shit' but I will point out that absurdities in his behavior. He set himself up for this, the corporation didn't randomly target him. By the way, you seem really angry about Sony.
As for the logic part, you are not one to talk. The only one that I see in this thread with an axe to grind is you, Diamond.
Again, with the ad hominem attacks against me. You have nothing to back up what you say so you attack me instead of my opinion. That's not even a valid logical argument.
Pointing out possible alternatives is not illogical.
Refuting possible alternatives on the basis of intuition, because you sure as hell don't have any more facts than the rest of us, most definitely is.
So why is my alternative illogical then? Don't be a hypocrite. Don't give me that shit, you don't have any more facts about this than I do.
What the hell are you talking about? Most airlines will not refund you and, in fact, most I have dealt with go so far as to require you to pay extra money for insurance just so you can cancel if you get sick. Yep, you have to pay extra money to be able to cancel if you get sick.
Also, if he had already planned a vacation there is no way in hell I am going to give him shit for going through with that just because some stupid ass corporation wants to make an example out of him.
Bullshit, he had months to cancel his trip, and he had months till he could have ordered his plane tickets.
Do you think he's a hero? a savior? You may not 'give him shit' but I will point out that absurdities in his behavior. He set himself up for this, the corporation didn't randomly target him. By the way, you seem really angry about Sony.
As for the logic part, you are not one to talk. The only one that I see in this thread with an axe to grind is you, Diamond.
Again, with the ad hominem attacks against me. You have nothing to back up what you say so you attack me instead of my opinion. That's not even a valid logical argument.
What's wrong with having a planned vacation? If he paid and planned it before the litigation started, what is there to question?
I'm not the one attacking other forum members because of my opinion. I just think GeoHot has handled this whole thing very poorly, and I don't see where anyone can defend his behavior.
The vacation seems absurd because he just got off asking people for money to defend his case. I can see a scenario where there was absolutely no way to get his money back, but I think that's very unlikely from what we all know about his character.
So why shouldn't he be able to have a vacation anyways? Because if he hadn't stuck his neck out so many times and lead such a high profile lifestyle, he never would have ran into these problems. He isn't being sued by Sony because of his specific hacking contributions as because he was the face behind many of the hacks. And I believe a person should be responsible for what they get themselves into, rather than relying on others.
The only reason I keep typing stuff about it is because so many people don't want to accept what I'm saying as possible.
Honestly I don't think much of GeoHot, especially after his rap video. He thinks he's a hero or something, when all I see him as is an attention seeking rebel who will manipulate others to gain fame and power. Sony is just the typical heartless corporation.
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
I do not understand Diamond.
You're arguing that assuming that GeoHotz has committed fraud, a felony, by paying for his Spring Break trip with his donated legal defense money, posted evidence of this online and is probably a sociopath, and that even if he isn't, then asking for donations and not using his money (which is not the case anyway) to defend against what he and a large number of people consider a frivolous lawsuit designed to intimidate and bankrupt he is being a jerk - is the or at least a reasonable position to take?
Despite the fact that Spring Break is at the same time every year, must be booked well in advance to ensure that you can travel and stay where you want, when you want, that not offering refunds for travel/accommodation is BAU and GeoHotz wasn't planning on being sued 6 months ago? And again he and many others believe that this lawsuit is not only legally misguided but immoral in its intent.
One of these positions is not like the other one. Bill Maher is not the equivalent of Glen Beck. Thinking Obama is a secret muslim and not an American citizen is not like thinking the Bush administration were complicit in war crimes.
What's wrong with having a planned vacation? If he paid and planned it before the litigation started, what is there to question?
I'm not the one attacking other forum members because of my opinion. I just think GeoHot has handled this whole thing very poorly, and I don't see where anyone can defend his behavior.
The vacation seems absurd because he just got off asking people for money to defend his case. I can see a scenario where there was absolutely no way to get his money back, but I think that's very unlikely from what we all know about his character.
So why shouldn't he be able to have a vacation anyways? Because if he hadn't stuck his neck out so many times and lead such a high profile lifestyle, he never would have ran into these problems. He isn't being sued by Sony because of his specific hacking contributions as because he was the face behind many of the hacks. And I believe a person should be responsible for what they get themselves into, rather than relying on others.
The only reason I keep typing stuff about it is because so many people don't want to accept what I'm saying as possible.
He didn't use any of the legal defense money on his vacation
it was already paid for
he is not a flight risk because he hasn't committed a crime
He didn't use any of the legal defense money on his vacation
it was already paid for
he is not a flight risk because he hasn't committed a crime
he is being sued, not tried
I am arguing that had he not received said donations he would have canceled his vacation and used that money for his defense. So I see it as the money being one and the same. I realize he is legally allowed to take this vacation (unless it really is fraud). I am talking about his character, not the law, which I stated earlier. I know if I were being sued because of something dumb I did, I wouldn't ask for people's money then go on a vacation. If that seems acceptable to you, fine.
You're arguing that assuming that GeoHotz has committed fraud, a felony, by paying for his Spring Break trip with his donated legal defense money, posted evidence of this online and is probably a sociopath, and that even if he isn't, then asking for donations and not using his money (which is not the case anyway) to defend against what he and a large number of people consider a frivolous lawsuit designed to intimidate and bankrupt he is being a jerk - is the or at least a reasonable position to take?
Despite the fact that Spring Break is at the same time every year, must be booked well in advance to ensure that you can travel and stay where you want, when you want, that not offering refunds for travel/accommodation is BAU and GeoHotz wasn't planning on being sued 6 months ago? And again he and many others believe that this lawsuit is not only legally misguided but immoral in its intent.
One of these positions is not like the other one. Bill Maher is not the equivalent of Glen Beck. Thinking Obama is a secret muslim and not an American citizen is not like thinking the Bush administration were complicit in war crimes.
Honestly I don't even understand what you typed. That is the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen (on this forum anyways).
I am arguing that had he not received said donations he would have canceled his vacation and used that money for his defense. So I see it as the money being one and the same. I realize he is legally allowed to take this vacation (unless it really is fraud). I am talking about his character, not the law, which I stated earlier.
Again, you're assuming he could have gotten money back from this. Most likely, he couldn't have. Also, remember he asked for donations, and then stopped accepting them. If he was a bad character, he probably could have racked up easily double what he got.
If you think he's a bad guy, go for it. But its really illogical to think that he used donation funds to either purchase, or ensure that he could take, the trip. But at the end of it, who knows? Its silly to take a strong stance either way, but since we live in an innocent until proven guilty system and all...
I am talking about his character, not the law, which I stated earlier. I know if I were being sued because of something dumb I did, I wouldn't ask for people's money then go on a vacation. If that seems acceptable to you, fine.
Talking about Geohot's character is not the important aspect of the litigation; I'm not sure how anything about his character will determine how the Judge rules the case.
Again, you're assuming he could have gotten money back from this. Most likely, he couldn't have. Also, remember he asked for donations, and then stopped accepting them. If he was a bad character, he probably could have racked up easily double what he got.
If you think he's a bad guy, go for it. But its really illogical to think that he used donation funds to either purchase, or ensure that he could take, the trip. But at the end of it, who knows? Its silly to take a strong stance either way, but since we live in an innocent until proven guilty system and all...
I'm assuming that based on his prior behavior. Everything from the rap video, to partially disassembling the evidence before sending it, to the way he asked for donations. It is purely a belief on my behalf, and I realize I am mostly alone in this critical view of him on this forum, but I know many others agree with me.
I think it's illogical to side with someone like GeoHot even if you believe his ultimate goal is correct. To me it seems as if he will do more damage to his cause than not, especially with his conduct.
Talking about Geohot's character is not the important aspect of the litigation; I'm not sure how anything about his character will determine how the Judge rules the case.
From the little I do know about such cases, I believe it will play a fairly large part. Why would he create the rap video? Why would he mess with the hardware he sent in? What possible purpose does this serve but to express his contempt for the process?
Diamond, while I am undecided on who I think is in the right, I completely agree that Geohot has acted like a complete douchebag with contempt for the process. He does himself no favors.
Bullshit, he had months to cancel his trip, and he had months till he could have ordered his plane tickets.
Do you think he's a hero? a savior? You may not 'give him shit' but I will point out that absurdities in his behavior. He set himself up for this, the corporation didn't randomly target him. By the way, you seem really angry about Sony.
Once again showing you know nothing about plane tickets at all. Try to think about this for a little bit. Why do you think one would order tickets months in advance? Think hard.
Again, with the ad hominem attacks against me. You have nothing to back up what you say so you attack me instead of my opinion. That's not even a valid logical argument.
You might want to educate yourself on what an ad hominem attack is before you accuse people of it.
Here, let me just help you:
You are a goose, therefore what you say is wrong or idiotic. This is ad hominem—also known as "poisoning the well."
What you say is idiotic or wrong, therefore you are a goose. There's no logical fallacy here. I am using my eyes and coming to the conclusion that you don't know what you are talking about in the slightest.
It's quite funny that I can hit 'submit' and know what your reply is going to be before you make it.
There are lots of stupid corporations and Sony ranks high in this regard. The amount of goosery going on at this trial is a good example of this, too. There's this meme called "lolsony" that you may have heard at some point in your internet life; you think it came from nowhere?
You might want to educate yourself on what an ad hominem attack is before you accuse people of it.
It's quite funny that I can hit 'submit' and know what your reply is going to be before you make it.
There are lots of stupid corporations and Sony ranks high in this regard. The amount of goosery going on at this trial is a good example of this, too. There's this meme called "lolsony" that you may have heard at some point in your internet life; you think it came from nowhere?
From wikipedia :
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
What we are basically doing is advocating our separate viewpoints. I think GeoHot is a buffoon and you'd be a fool to support him, you apparently think Sony is the almighty evil.
Your argument is you are correct because there's an internet meme made by people who are mad at Sony?
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
Yep, this is exactly what I just said—except I didn't go into detail about how it's not always a fallacy. I'm not sure why you are quoting this, but okay!
What we are basically doing is advocating our separate viewpoints. I think GeoHot is a buffoon and you'd be a fool to support him, you apparently think Sony is the almighty evil.
Your argument is you are correct because there's an internet meme made by people who are mad at Sony?
Let me educate you on the next fallacy, then. That bolded there is called a "straw man." A straw man is when you set up a position that your opponent does not, in fact, hold, or if you exaggarate their position to a ridiculous degree to make it easier to attack.
As for the argument part, are you some kind of absolutist, or something? No, my argument isn't automatically correct based on one variable. Also, I think maybe you have the timeline wrong on "lolsony." It goes like this: Sony acted retarded over and over again, then people noticed that and created a meme. Sony has been very helpful in upholding that meme, too. You seem to think this is some kind of procrustean nerdraging operation, which is utterly false.
This argument is derailing the shit out of this thread. Without any new information perhaps we should just chill out for now? I don't want to see this thread get locked.
We could go over how 'Sony' is taking a vacation every damn day probably, but since there's is probably more expensive it's ok!
Or how if Geohot IS committing fraud and used the defense money for his trip he really sucks at committing fraud since if I recall correctly he cut off donations really quick. If you're going to take money for a vacation you also take a whole lot of spending money, that fool!
Xeddicus on
"For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
No, he didn't include the generic RAID controller that the neutral party told them to go buy and the hard drives work.
What's the source for that claim? Because GeoHot hasn't stated that and neither has anyone else.
The official documents just call it an integral part, it's not very clear.
GeoHot's lawyer called them "generic controller cards" but it's not clear if that means the controller PCB for the HDD or something like a RAID controller...
The IO board on a hard drive is not generic, so he'd be talking about the RAID controller.
FyreWulff on
0
mntorankusuI'm not sure how to use this thing....Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
Obviously there's not enough information here to say one way or another, but if it's true that GeoHot only left out the RAID controller, there's a pretty good chance that the one he was using is built into his computer's motherboard.
If that's the case, he should not be expected to provide the motherboard when they asked for the hard drives. That, combined with the hard drives, would practically constitute "the entire computer", which they obviously didn't ask for.
1) GeoHot is in South America on a planned vacation that Sony knew about all along.
2) The vacation was bought and paid for before litigation even happened.
3) No defense money went towards the trip
4) Whatever the "controller" was for the HDDs, the neutral party handed them over and everything is square now.
addendum) Geohotz has a problem with professionalism and can be a gigantic cock-bag at times, but we all know this. If anything, however, it appears that Sony was the one making a tempest in a teapot. Looks like it worked. The sudden shrieking that Geohotz bolted to Brazil, even though Sony's counsel knew he was on vacation is proving that Sony is kind of acting like a bag of dicks too.
This is just the stupid discovery games. We are going to have about ten more months of this, at least. Hell, discovery for the SCO v. IBM lawsuit lasted three years! (2003-2006). We haven't even seen the extension game yet. That's ones good. That's where continuance after continuance is filed a day before the litigants have to show up in front of a judge. SCO pulled that shit for a year and a half.
Grab some popcorn guys, we haven't even seen the opening credits yet!
Posts
Well I don't know what kind of vacation he's on or how long in advance he had to pay out money and not be able to be refunded. I've never taken a vacation as far away as Geohot has. But it seems highly likely to me that he could have used that money for his defense.
Well I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me Sony could win over GeoHot, because in the end a certain amount of the case will depend on the judge's perception, and GeoHot hasn't done himself any favors at all. If Sony started with an iffy case, I think they have it pretty solid now. GeoHot's behavior makes me believe he really is a scumbag deep down. It's not so much based on legal technicalities to me in my mind, because again, I'm not a lawyer.
my twitter | my youtube
And he was sued in January
I can see why he wouldn't be able to use that money for his legal defense. Because, you see, it was gone two months before.
Seriously this is just idiotic. "Maybe money that was already used could have been repurposed for a snap legal fund!"
If only money worked that way. If only.
That's still in the air, according to Groklaw, who examined what she actually could. She also has some legal training.
And that's one thing he's "lied" on. One. And that was brought up the exact same day. Or at least, I learned about the two the same day.
I'm sorry, what kind of vacation requires you to lock down all your money 4 months in advance (Nov to now) with no chance of refund?
You and Geohot are scrambling against all logic to defend his actions, which to this point, have been spotty and immature in the best light.
my twitter | my youtube
Quite a few! Especially ones involving planes, hotel bookings, and international travel! Like the one Hotz is on!
And even then, this shows, at worst, an unwillingness to axe a planned vacation due to being sued by a major corporation and then, after the no-refund deadline, realizing he doesn't have enough money to fight this alone.
Or just an unwillingness to axe a vacation. Which, considering the circumstances, isn't that bad.
EDIT: Keep in mind he was sued in January, perhaps he thought he'd be able to get it thrown out of court before he had to cancel his vacation. There's all kinds of ways he'd be unable to cancel everything and get the funds back instantly to pay for an unexpected lawsuit.
Yay for internet armchair psychology. While at it, diagnose a few people with autism.
Not to say this is what he did, but its certainly a plausivility.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
That's not tampering -- they wanted the HDDs, they got the HDDs. If Sony had even a hint of competence they would have asked for the RAID controller as well, but Sony not being competent is what caused this whole mess in the first place.
In fact, I imagine GeoHot is wishing that he had did a full disk encryption on top of everything else right now.
Also: Question: Would turning over the controller card count as, say, a violation of his 5th amendment rights? That is to say, if a judge demands a password for your private account, do you have to turn it over?
Pointing out possible alternatives is not illogical.
Refuting possible alternatives on the basis of intuition, because you sure as hell don't have any more facts than the rest of us, most definitely is.
What the hell are you talking about? Most airlines will not refund you and, in fact, most I have dealt with go so far as to require you to pay extra money for insurance just so you can cancel if you get sick. Yep, you have to pay extra money to be able to cancel if you get sick.
Also, if he had already planned a vacation there is no way in hell I am going to give him shit for going through with that just because some stupid ass corporation wants to make an example out of him.
As for the logic part, you are not one to talk. The only one that I see in this thread with an axe to grind is you, Diamond.
Pretty much this. I mean, if I was in a high profile case I don't know if I would plan a new trip or anything, but if it was bought and paid for then I don't see the point of not taking a vacation.
Sony is pretty much trying to scream their head off about every little thing geohot does.
So why is my alternative illogical then? Don't be a hypocrite. Don't give me that shit, you don't have any more facts about this than I do.
Bullshit, he had months to cancel his trip, and he had months till he could have ordered his plane tickets.
Do you think he's a hero? a savior? You may not 'give him shit' but I will point out that absurdities in his behavior. He set himself up for this, the corporation didn't randomly target him. By the way, you seem really angry about Sony.
Again, with the ad hominem attacks against me. You have nothing to back up what you say so you attack me instead of my opinion. That's not even a valid logical argument.
my twitter | my youtube
What's wrong with having a planned vacation? If he paid and planned it before the litigation started, what is there to question?
I think you suffer from the belief that you actually have to be present every day in court when you're sued. You do not.
When I was on jury duty, neither legal team was even there when we rendered the verdict. It was just us (the jury), the judge, and the bailiff.
Once again, just because he's being sued should not mean he loses his right to travel.
I'm not the one attacking other forum members because of my opinion. I just think GeoHot has handled this whole thing very poorly, and I don't see where anyone can defend his behavior.
The vacation seems absurd because he just got off asking people for money to defend his case. I can see a scenario where there was absolutely no way to get his money back, but I think that's very unlikely from what we all know about his character.
So why shouldn't he be able to have a vacation anyways? Because if he hadn't stuck his neck out so many times and lead such a high profile lifestyle, he never would have ran into these problems. He isn't being sued by Sony because of his specific hacking contributions as because he was the face behind many of the hacks. And I believe a person should be responsible for what they get themselves into, rather than relying on others.
The only reason I keep typing stuff about it is because so many people don't want to accept what I'm saying as possible.
Honestly I don't think much of GeoHot, especially after his rap video. He thinks he's a hero or something, when all I see him as is an attention seeking rebel who will manipulate others to gain fame and power. Sony is just the typical heartless corporation.
my twitter | my youtube
You're arguing that assuming that GeoHotz has committed fraud, a felony, by paying for his Spring Break trip with his donated legal defense money, posted evidence of this online and is probably a sociopath, and that even if he isn't, then asking for donations and not using his money (which is not the case anyway) to defend against what he and a large number of people consider a frivolous lawsuit designed to intimidate and bankrupt he is being a jerk - is the or at least a reasonable position to take?
Despite the fact that Spring Break is at the same time every year, must be booked well in advance to ensure that you can travel and stay where you want, when you want, that not offering refunds for travel/accommodation is BAU and GeoHotz wasn't planning on being sued 6 months ago? And again he and many others believe that this lawsuit is not only legally misguided but immoral in its intent.
One of these positions is not like the other one. Bill Maher is not the equivalent of Glen Beck. Thinking Obama is a secret muslim and not an American citizen is not like thinking the Bush administration were complicit in war crimes.
He didn't use any of the legal defense money on his vacation
it was already paid for
he is not a flight risk because he hasn't committed a crime
he is being sued, not tried
I am arguing that had he not received said donations he would have canceled his vacation and used that money for his defense. So I see it as the money being one and the same. I realize he is legally allowed to take this vacation (unless it really is fraud). I am talking about his character, not the law, which I stated earlier. I know if I were being sued because of something dumb I did, I wouldn't ask for people's money then go on a vacation. If that seems acceptable to you, fine.
Honestly I don't even understand what you typed. That is the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen (on this forum anyways).
my twitter | my youtube
Again, you're assuming he could have gotten money back from this. Most likely, he couldn't have. Also, remember he asked for donations, and then stopped accepting them. If he was a bad character, he probably could have racked up easily double what he got.
If you think he's a bad guy, go for it. But its really illogical to think that he used donation funds to either purchase, or ensure that he could take, the trip. But at the end of it, who knows? Its silly to take a strong stance either way, but since we live in an innocent until proven guilty system and all...
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Talking about Geohot's character is not the important aspect of the litigation; I'm not sure how anything about his character will determine how the Judge rules the case.
I'm assuming that based on his prior behavior. Everything from the rap video, to partially disassembling the evidence before sending it, to the way he asked for donations. It is purely a belief on my behalf, and I realize I am mostly alone in this critical view of him on this forum, but I know many others agree with me.
I think it's illogical to side with someone like GeoHot even if you believe his ultimate goal is correct. To me it seems as if he will do more damage to his cause than not, especially with his conduct.
From the little I do know about such cases, I believe it will play a fairly large part. Why would he create the rap video? Why would he mess with the hardware he sent in? What possible purpose does this serve but to express his contempt for the process?
my twitter | my youtube
Sony asked for hard drives
he sent hard drives
If the court orders you to hand over something, you don't give them other stuff with it. That's a pretty good way to piss judges off
Once again showing you know nothing about plane tickets at all. Try to think about this for a little bit. Why do you think one would order tickets months in advance? Think hard.
You might want to educate yourself on what an ad hominem attack is before you accuse people of it.
Here, let me just help you:
It's quite funny that I can hit 'submit' and know what your reply is going to be before you make it.
There are lots of stupid corporations and Sony ranks high in this regard. The amount of goosery going on at this trial is a good example of this, too. There's this meme called "lolsony" that you may have heard at some point in your internet life; you think it came from nowhere?
From wikipedia :
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
What we are basically doing is advocating our separate viewpoints. I think GeoHot is a buffoon and you'd be a fool to support him, you apparently think Sony is the almighty evil.
Your argument is you are correct because there's an internet meme made by people who are mad at Sony?
I think I'm done here.
my twitter | my youtube
"Diamond, what you're saying is wrong because you're an idiot" is an ad hominem attack.
Now you know.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Paragon made one reason, out of a plethora of reasons, and you think one meme passes as all reason?
Yep, this is exactly what I just said—except I didn't go into detail about how it's not always a fallacy. I'm not sure why you are quoting this, but okay!
Let me educate you on the next fallacy, then. That bolded there is called a "straw man." A straw man is when you set up a position that your opponent does not, in fact, hold, or if you exaggarate their position to a ridiculous degree to make it easier to attack.
As for the argument part, are you some kind of absolutist, or something? No, my argument isn't automatically correct based on one variable. Also, I think maybe you have the timeline wrong on "lolsony." It goes like this: Sony acted retarded over and over again, then people noticed that and created a meme. Sony has been very helpful in upholding that meme, too. You seem to think this is some kind of procrustean nerdraging operation, which is utterly false.
If so now Hes trying to be "smart" but really thats not how this game works when you are in litigation over millions of dollars you don't play games.
well after the rap video we all know he think this is funny but still really? Taking the controller card off comon son!
Or how if Geohot IS committing fraud and used the defense money for his trip he really sucks at committing fraud since if I recall correctly he cut off donations really quick. If you're going to take money for a vacation you also take a whole lot of spending money, that fool!
What's the source for that claim? Because GeoHot hasn't stated that and neither has anyone else.
The official documents just call it an integral part, it's not very clear.
GeoHot's lawyer called them "generic controller cards" but it's not clear if that means the controller PCB for the HDD or something like a RAID controller...
my twitter | my youtube
If that's the case, he should not be expected to provide the motherboard when they asked for the hard drives. That, combined with the hard drives, would practically constitute "the entire computer", which they obviously didn't ask for.
Here are the facts as I see them
1) GeoHot is in South America on a planned vacation that Sony knew about all along.
2) The vacation was bought and paid for before litigation even happened.
3) No defense money went towards the trip
4) Whatever the "controller" was for the HDDs, the neutral party handed them over and everything is square now.
addendum) Geohotz has a problem with professionalism and can be a gigantic cock-bag at times, but we all know this. If anything, however, it appears that Sony was the one making a tempest in a teapot. Looks like it worked. The sudden shrieking that Geohotz bolted to Brazil, even though Sony's counsel knew he was on vacation is proving that Sony is kind of acting like a bag of dicks too.
This is just the stupid discovery games. We are going to have about ten more months of this, at least. Hell, discovery for the SCO v. IBM lawsuit lasted three years! (2003-2006). We haven't even seen the extension game yet. That's ones good. That's where continuance after continuance is filed a day before the litigants have to show up in front of a judge. SCO pulled that shit for a year and a half.
Grab some popcorn guys, we haven't even seen the opening credits yet!