I'm not getting in another debate with you guys. If you disagree, fine. Keep sticking your head in the sand. There's a reason everyone on just about every forum is acting the way they are and it has nothing at all to do with lack of intelligence or ignorance. You on this forum are not the chosen few.
Gosh you just love to insult people and then run away don't you. Stop being so rude. Your opinion is not protected. If you don't want to defend it don't post it.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Knowing a bit of Sony's track record for abusing the legal system, I'm not sure who is sticking his head in the sand here, are you from Sony Defense Force or something ?
I dont give a shit about Geohotz or his hacks for that matter, none what so ever, I do however care about consumer rights and a fair legal system (...), which yours truly wants to alter in their favour.
I'm no special fan of Sony, they've pissed me off many times. It's just in my opinion I think they're right this time. That's just my opinion.
most people here agree that Hotz is pretty stupid but is the less of the two evils involved
I'm not getting in another debate with you guys. If you disagree, fine. Keep sticking your head in the sand. There's a reason everyone on just about every forum is acting the way they are and it has nothing at all to do with lack of intelligence or ignorance. You on this forum are not the chosen few.
Wait, are we still pointing out fallacies in your arguments?
Knowing a bit of Sony's track record for abusing the legal system, I'm not sure who is sticking his head in the sand here, are you from Sony Defense Force or something ?
I dont give a shit about Geohotz or his hacks for that matter, none what so ever, I do however care about consumer rights and a fair legal system (...), which yours truly wants to alter in their favour.
I'm no special fan of Sony, they've pissed me off many times. It's just in my opinion I think they're right this time. That's just my opinion.
most people here agree that Hotz is pretty stupid but is the less of the two evils involved
Hotz is a typical example of the breed. Brash, entitled, almost punk in his sensibility. That's got nothing to do with whether what he's doing is right or fair though. He has no responsibility to act professionally here, and in fact a little righteous indignation - as long as it's righteous - is probably the healthy attitude to take.
Seol on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
I think he occasionally acts like a twit and that this is irrelevant to wether this should be illegal.
so it's more like I want him to stop being immature because regardless of him being so I want him to win.
I'm not willing to sabotage something this important because I don't approve of him. You don't have to like people to want them to win. This isn't a football game.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Knowing a bit of Sony's track record for abusing the legal system, I'm not sure who is sticking his head in the sand here, are you from Sony Defense Force or something ?
I dont give a shit about Geohotz or his hacks for that matter, none what so ever, I do however care about consumer rights and a fair legal system (...), which yours truly wants to alter in their favour.
I'm no special fan of Sony, they've pissed me off many times. It's just in my opinion I think they're right this time. That's just my opinion.
But there are objective legal facts here - hiding behind "it's my opinion" is not sufficient and it makes it utterly unclear WHAT t is that you believe.
I'm not getting in another debate with you guys. If you disagree, fine. Keep sticking your head in the sand.There's a reason everyone on just about every forum is acting the way they are and it has nothing at all to do with lack of intelligence or ignorance.You on this forum are not the chosen few.
IRT underlined:
Diamond, there are about a bazillion counter-arguments and examples against this fallacy that the majority acts rationally and intelligent. Gay marriage? Evolution? Climate change? Flat earth? Nuclear power? Bush? Taxes in America? This list can go on for hours.
Also, both bolded sentences are ad hominems as they are not just insults but also indicates that we are wrong because we are ignorant and on this forum, respectively.
For the record, I think Hotz makes hackers look bad and endangers consumer rights and reverse engineering in America by acting like a goose. His antics represent more than just him—which is a shame because I wouldn't mind it if he ended up getting whacked on the nose with a newspaper as long as it didn't affect everyone else. That said, it does, in fact, affect everyone else, and then there is bullshit like this:
I actually saw the communication between the lawyers and the third-party talking about the hard drives. It was explained quickly, resolved amicably, and then recontextualized by Sony in their official filing. It was a pretty scuzzy move, and seemed to be deliberately misleading.
. . . not to mention how idiotic the legal system is in the states. No, I think I am going to firmly side with the young upstart here.
Personally, I don't see the benefit of losing more freedoms with the items you buy a good thing, which is what Sony is essentially trying to do. What this will do is set a precedent for other companies if they so choose to be dickish. It's really more than just Sony or game publishers and console makers. It could come to any electronic manufacturer, or any other company. Consumer Rights are important!
Also, Geohot is a dick, I don't like him myself, but I'm on his side.
SoulGate on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
I don't know why everyone is jumping on the GeoHotz is a dick bandwagon. It's become one of those "I'm even-handed! I see both sides" touch stones despite it not really being clear as to why.
Apothe0sis on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
Please don't start meta-analysing the thread. It's irrelevant.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I'm struggling to think why I should bother to fight against the raging groupthink of this forum, and point out why it's wrong to correlate the masses with the evolution debate (i.e. some people think evolution is untrue and others think Sony is right so that must mean those people are wrong?), or how stifling my opinion based on the fact that it's an opinion is fine and good (if opinions didn't matter, this thread should have a single post in it) and how I shouldn't be allowed to express my opinion because I should have to fight against the ridiculous claims thrown against me (no, I will not take the time to point out all of them there have been plenty before), where others take the very definitions of logic and fallacies and muck them up while violating the rules of debate themselves.
I have made myself a target by expressing a contrary opinion, and rather than accepting it you all have gone to extreme lengths to prove the utter wrongness of my opinion.
Now you have me defending not my opinion but the validity of my arguments. You are taking them out of context and misinterpreting them.
So no, I will not bother with taking the great lengths to explain to the each and every one of you, those who have no bothered to read the countless posts I have already made on each and every subject you question me on time and time again.
Want satisfaction? Read the entire thread over again.
What me to just be wrong, and for everyone else who takes an opinion different to your own to stop speaking? Sorry, it's not gonna happen.
And no doubt there will be several replies to this post simply because your pride can not allow this insult to go unpunished. Rather, I think we should all let this matter drop. If you don't like my opinion, ignore it, but don't try to tell me why I'm wrong without at least reading back to the previous debates or trying to find another means why my logic may be unfounded. Instead of trying to insult me further because I dared not agree with you, accept that I have a different view of the entire matter. I accept your views and I understand them, I simply do not agree.
Diamond, iirc, your arguments are "Consumers should have no rights to their own devices because Geo made a stupid rap video, and took both donations for a legal fund and also a vacation that had less than nothing to do with a legal defense fund!!1!one!"
Diamond, iirc, your arguments are "Consumers should have no rights to their own devices because Geo made a stupid rap video, and took both donations for a legal fund and also a vacation that had less than nothing to do with a legal defense fund!!1!one!"
I'm struggling to think why I should bother to fight against the raging groupthink of this forum, and point out why it's wrong to correlate the masses with the evolution debate (i.e. some people think evolution is untrue and others think Sony is right so that must mean those people are wrong?)
You are drawing conclusions from where there aren't any. You are being absolutist, and you seem to be projecting that absolutism. Once again, no I do not believe that just because of one variable that makes anyone right or wrong (the variables are barely even related in that particular case, too!).
I have made myself a target by expressing a contrary opinion, and rather than accepting it you all have gone to extreme lengths to prove the utter wrongness of my opinion.
This one is called Ad Misericordiam (appeal to sympathy). The real reason why people are jumping you is because of statements like the bolded up there and your many, many logical fallacies that I, and others, have been pointing out.
Anyway, I will stop responding to you unless it is extremely topical, because we are mucking up the thread now.
Well maybe you should restate why you feel Sony is right in this argument, because that is a summary of what you've said over the last ~5 pages.
I mean, if we are all getting your argument so completely wrong, maybe instead of saying "I already inadequately explained my position" you should, maybe, re-explain your position.
Well maybe you should restate why you feel Sony is right in this argument, because that is a summary of what you've said over the last ~5 pages.
I mean, if we are all getting your argument so completely wrong, maybe instead of saying "I already inadequately explained my position" you should, maybe, re-explain your position.
Maybe you should read the entire thread, and get some reading comprehension because I've said nothing of the sort. If you're getting my argument that off base, maybe you should take some English language courses.
Well maybe you should restate why you feel Sony is right in this argument, because that is a summary of what you've said over the last ~5 pages.
I mean, if we are all getting your argument so completely wrong, maybe instead of saying "I already inadequately explained my position" you should, maybe, re-explain your position.
Maybe you should read the entire thread, and get some reading comprehension because I've said nothing of the sort. If you're getting my argument that off base, maybe you should take some English language courses.
I am entirely unable to intuit a coherent position based off of what you have said in the last 5 pages or so.
I am entirely unable to intuit a coherent position based off of what you have said in the last 5 pages or so.
I do not have time to read 45 pages.
You're also the guy that wrote an entire paragraph without a single period. If you don't have the time to actually read what I'm typing, why should I take my time to type it all over again?
I am entirely unable to intuit a coherent position based off of what you have said in the last 5 pages or so.
I do not have time to read 45 pages.
You're also the guy that wrote an entire paragraph without a single period. If you don't have the time to actually read what I'm typing, why should I take my time to type it all over again?
Fine, here was the point of the post of which you speak:
Opinions being contrary does not make them equivalent. Just because they are on opposite sides does not make them equally reasonable. In this particular case, I argue that there are good reasons to believe that assertions to the effect of "You don't know that GeoHotz didn't spend his donation money on his vacation." are not well founded.
Your turn?
EDIT: Also, have been reading what you've been typing, I just can't determine what your position as a whole might be from what you have said - that most obvious is A) uncharitably incoherent and explicitly disavowed.
Well maybe you should restate why you feel Sony is right in this argument, because that is a summary of what you've said over the last ~5 pages.
I mean, if we are all getting your argument so completely wrong, maybe instead of saying "I already inadequately explained my position" you should, maybe, re-explain your position.
Maybe you should read the entire thread, and get some reading comprehension because I've said nothing of the sort. If you're getting my argument that off base, maybe you should take some English language courses.
Hey guys, can we stop the back and forth bit and just ask Diamond to clearly and calmly iterate his position, and reasons for holding this position so that a reasonable debate might take place?
I am entirely unable to intuit a coherent position based off of what you have said in the last 5 pages or so.
I do not have time to read 45 pages.
You're also the guy that wrote an entire paragraph without a single period. If you don't have the time to actually read what I'm typing, why should I take my time to type it all over again?
Fine, here was the point of the post of which you speak:
Opinions being contrary does not make them equivalent. Just because they are on opposite sides does not make them equally reasonable. In this particular case, I argue that there are good reasons to believe that assertions to the effect of "You don't know that GeoHotz didn't spend his donation money on his vacation." are not well founded.
Your turn?
That is one of several assertions I have made throughout this thread. I believe my assertion that George's donations contributed to his ability to take a vacation now, despite the probability that he did pay for at least part of his vacation back in November is a valid opinion. It is a more cynical opinion, but it is as backed up by facts as any other opinion on the matter. It just depends on if you believe everything George says or not.
Hey guys, can we stop the back and forth bit and just ask Diamond to clearly and calmly iterate his position, and reasons for holding this position so that a reasonable debate might take place?
Is that cool, Diamond?
I have already stated everything I need to state to establish my opinion earlier in the thread. I have iterated numerous times, and expecting the comprehension of everyone in the thread to suddenly increase upon iterating yet again would be truly insane.
"Geohotz took donations instead of using all his own money, so he should lose this case; and also? He made a stupid video which the judge should punish him for regardless that the video was neither illegal, nor had anything to do with the case"
Every other post you've made from page 33 (where you never posted until 38) until now has just been mud slinging.
"Geohotz took donations instead of using all his own money, so he should lose this case; and also? He made a stupid video which the judge should punish him for regardless that the video was neither illegal, nor had anything to do with the case"
Every other post you've made from page 33 (where you never posted until 38) until now has just been mud slinging.
Burtle, I feel a kind of admiration for you right now but this is probably not a good investment of your time.
Gaslight on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I am entirely unable to intuit a coherent position based off of what you have said in the last 5 pages or so.
I do not have time to read 45 pages.
You're also the guy that wrote an entire paragraph without a single period. If you don't have the time to actually read what I'm typing, why should I take my time to type it all over again?
Fine, here was the point of the post of which you speak:
Opinions being contrary does not make them equivalent. Just because they are on opposite sides does not make them equally reasonable. In this particular case, I argue that there are good reasons to believe that assertions to the effect of "You don't know that GeoHotz didn't spend his donation money on his vacation." are not well founded.
Your turn?
That is one of several assertions I have made throughout this thread. I believe my assertion that George's donations contributed to his ability to take a vacation now, despite the probability that he did pay for at least part of his vacation back in November is a valid opinion. It is a more cynical opinion, but it is as backed up by facts as any other opinion on the matter. It just depends on if you believe everything George says or not.
Right, and as I was alluding to in the post with which you take such umbrage - your cynical interpretation is an unnecessary one given the facts of the situation:
It is a spring break vacation which must be booked well in advance.
it is not uncommon to have to pay up front without the possibility of refund.
The facts regarding Sony's legal team's knowledge of his previously scheduled are well known.
Spending any of the legal defense money on a vacation would be fraud, which is a felony - posting evidence thereof would be insane.
Capping it at $10,000 and taking the above risk is likewise insane. $10,000 is not enough money to make it worthwhile
Furthermore, even if we were to conclude that GeoHotz didn't pre-pay his spring break holiday (i.e. he had the money for his vacation but still asked for donations, not using the vacation money for legal fees) that doesn't indicate any sort of impropriety. The argument here is that the legal attack upon GeoHotz is frivolous and intended to bankrupt and intimidate and is considered illegitimate by both GeoHotz and his legal contributors. Expecting GeoHotz to pay for any of his defense would be completely contrary to that view - making him pay serves to further the attempt to damage GeoHotz financially with the burden of litigation, the view is that GeoHotz didn't do anything wrong and isn't morally obligated to take it upon himself to bear the full responsibility.
All that said - I still am unable to determine what your larger position is?
We who you oppose have a fairly straight foward position:
Consumers should, and do have a legal right to modify and repurpose hardware that they have purchased. If doing so does not rely upon the use of copyrighted software to perform then this legal right is maintained. Using mathematics and a knowledge of cryptography to reverse engineer what the hardware requires to run its software is likewise legal and should remain so. Sony's legal attack A) wrong about the law and wrong morally.
"Geohotz took donations instead of using all his own money, so he should lose this case; and also? He made a stupid video which the judge should punish him for regardless that the video was neither illegal, nor had anything to do with the case"
Every other post you've made from page 33 (where you never posted until 38) until now has just been mud slinging.
Please, stop trying to summarize my statements and intention. You completely lack the ability or impartiality to do so. Quotation marks are for quotes, not for your own twisted and ignorant appraisal of my words.
As an example, what you just did: "Geohotz is a perfectly honest and pure being who should absolutely win his case because he is just, he said so, after all."
That is one of several assertions I have made throughout this thread. I believe my assertion that George's donations contributed to his ability to take a vacation now, despite the probability that he did pay for at least part of his vacation back in November is a valid opinion. It is a more cynical opinion, but it is as backed up by facts as any other opinion on the matter. It just depends on if you believe everything George says or not.
Just asking for some clarification here: When you say that "George's donations contributed to his ability to take a vacation", do you mean that you surmise he's using the donated funds to pay for his trip? Or do you mean that, if it weren't for the donations, he would have to use his own money to pay for legal fees, and therefore wouldn't have the funds for the vacation?
Hey guys, can we stop the back and forth bit and just ask Diamond to clearly and calmly iterate his position, and reasons for holding this position so that a reasonable debate might take place?
Is that cool, Diamond?
I have already stated everything I need to state to establish my opinion earlier in the thread. I have iterated numerous times, and expecting the comprehension of everyone in the thread to suddenly increase upon iterating yet again would be truly insane.
Fact of the matter is the search function is not working right now, and it's a lot of work to dig through all of the prior pages to find your exact position. I realize it would be very taxing on you to concisely state your position again, but it's obvious people don't know why you're standing where you are right now. If you're not going to bother clarifying anything for anybody, then you're cluttering up the thread with useless goosery. I thought I asked pretty politely for some clarity, and if this is how you're going to respond when someone makes an honest-to-goodness attempt to understand you and delineate your position then I'm not sure how worth it it is to continue discussing this with you at the risk of having the thread closed due to goosery.
Just asking for some clarification here: When you say that "George's donations contributed to his ability to take a vacation", do you mean that you surmise he's using the donated funds to pay for his trip? Or do you mean that, if it weren't for the donations, he would have to use his own money to pay for legal fees, and therefore wouldn't have the funds for the vacation?
The latter most likely, but I wouldn't rule out the former.
Right, and as I was alluding to with the post you take such umbrage with - your cynical interpretation is an unnecessary one given the facts of the situation:
It is a spring break vacation which must be booked well in advance.
it is not uncommon to have to pay up front without the possibility of refund.
The facts regarding Sony's legal team's knowledge of his previously scheduled are well known.
Spending any of the legal defense money on a vacation would be fraud, which is a felony - posting evidence thereof would be insane.
Capping it at $10,000 and taking the above risk is likewise insane. $10,000 is not enough money to make it worthwhile
Your last 3 points are not 'facts'. They are your opinions. I don't believe Sony's lawyers are fundamentally less scrupulous than George's (an opinion). I don't believe George is unwilling to commit fraud (again, just my opinion). And I don't believe the value of his donations factors into his actions either way (IMO).
Furthermore, even if we were to conclude that GeoHotz didn't pre-pay his spring break holiday that doesn't indicate any sort of impropriety. The argument here is that the legal attack upon GeoHotz is frivolous and intended to bankrupt and intimidate and is considered illegitimate by both GeoHotz and his legal contributors. Expecting GeoHotz to pay for any of his defense would be completely contrary to that view - making him pay serves to further the attempt to damage GeoHotz financially with the burden of litigation, the view is that GeoHotz didn't do anything wrong and isn't morally obligated to take it upon himself to bear the full responsibility.
All that said - I still am unable to determine what your larger position is?
We who you oppose have a fairly straight foward position:
Consumers should, and do have a legal right to modify and repurpose hardware that they have purchased. If doing so does not rely upon the use of copyrighted software to perform then this legal right is maintained. Using mathematics and a knowledge of cryptography to reverse engineer what the hardware requires to run its software is likewise legal and should remain so. Sony's legal attack A) wrong about the law and wrong morally.
I don't believe the vacation is really the core element. It's just that I made a few statements earlier in the thread and people have been trying to undermine my opinion ever since. It's a small part of the overall debate.
I will agree this particular lawsuit is a relatively pointless act by Sony, but I also believe George's actions in being a high profile spokesperson in the PS3 hacking efforts lead to his current situation. Thus, he is an unwise hacker, and he is getting what he deserves (in my opinion). However, I believe a victory by George could seriously undermine the economy of 'closed' platforms, which I in particular, enjoy. You believe he didn't do anything morally wrong, I believe he did. And besides that, I believe he did the wrong thing, and in a dumb way.
I believe the system as it has been of closed computer platforms has worked very well for the consumer in the last 20 years. A judge will decide if Sony is right or wrong in the lawsuit, but I believe for once they are morally correct. There are too many jobs and too many consumers like myself that rely on closed systems.
To make this even more morally ambiguous and confusing to you and others. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with me modding my own Xbox 1 in my own home (or anyone else). I've done it, I enjoy it. I would even consider modding my PS3 at some point. That's probably gonna blow some of your minds.
My opinion on all these matters are very complicated, it's not meant to be summed up in simple ways, I guess.
I realize it would be very taxing on you to concisely state your position again.
Well obviously it must be a helluva lot more work than just piling up replies insulting and belittling people who disagree.
Please, stop the slander against me. Is that so much to ask? If someone writes a entire paragraph without a period or can not understand statements I believe are perfectly clear, don't I have a right to complain?
It is not my intention to insult people by saying they need to learn English better. I am being perfectly serious and literal.
See, the thing is? Even if you go back and read from page 38 forward, which are the only places Diamond has posted since at least page 33, I checked.
Even if, every time Diamond passes a judgement on this case it is because of the way Geo acts not weather his actions were legal or not.
Diamond goes so far as to say,
I am talking about his character, not the law, which I stated earlier.
I think GeoHot is a buffoon and you'd be a fool to support him
ould have been easier to believe that he was taking the lawsuit seriously if he hadn't made his rap video
I never asked for donations from my fans to fight the lawsuit so I could save my personal money for a trip to South America, and I ESPECIALLY never made a shitty rap video showing my contempt for the legal situation
t 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
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
You see these quotes diamond? These are actually from you, not my summary of you. You are of the opinion that Geo should lose/Sony should win because you dislike the way Geo acts outside of court.
Do you now understand why we all disagree with you so much? His actions outside of court do NOT change weather his actions in this trial are legal or not.
Burtletoy on
0
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
Just asking for some clarification here: When you say that "George's donations contributed to his ability to take a vacation", do you mean that you surmise he's using the donated funds to pay for his trip? Or do you mean that, if it weren't for the donations, he would have to use his own money to pay for legal fees, and therefore wouldn't have the funds for the vacation?
The latter most likely, but I wouldn't rule out the former.
When it comes to whether or not he's misusing the donated funds, I may not agree with your suspicion, but I will certainly agree with the fact that there's not enough solid evidence to prove one way or the other. If he is using the donated funds to go on vacation, and then lying about it to the press and public, I think everyone would agree that's terrible.
When it comes to the donated funds allowing the vacation because George doesn't need to use his own money to pay legal fees, isn't that the whole point? He asked for donations in the face of a rather titanic legal undertaking, because he knew he couldn't foot the bill himself. People donated to that cause, and now the fees are covered. What the man does with his personal funds beyond that is his own business. He asked for donations with the express intention of not using his personal money to cover the legal fight, so people knew what they were donating for when they chipped in.
See, the thing is? Even if you go back and read from page 38 forward, which are the only places Diamond has posted since at least page 33, I checked.
Even if, every time Diamond passes a judgement on this case it is because of the way Geo acts not weather his actions were legal or not.
Diamond goes so far as to say,
I am talking about his character, not the law, which I stated earlier.
I think GeoHot is a buffoon and you'd be a fool to support him
ould have been easier to believe that he was taking the lawsuit seriously if he hadn't made his rap video
I never asked for donations from my fans to fight the lawsuit so I could save my personal money for a trip to South America, and I ESPECIALLY never made a shitty rap video showing my contempt for the legal situation
t 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
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
You see these quotes diamond? These are actually from you, not my summary of you. You are of the opinion that Geo should lose/Sony should win because you dislike the way Geo acts outside of court.
Do you now understand why we all disagree with you so much? His actions outside of court do NOT change weather his actions in this trial are legal or not.
Well I thank you for taking the time to make a proper reply, but you are still misunderstanding my position. When I said 'I am talking about his character', I mean within the statement you pulled that quote from. That does not mean I am ALWAYS talking about his character. I do think he's a buffoon and you'd be a fool to support him, that is one of my opinions on the matter. I would have trusted George much more today if he had never made the rap video. I do believe Sony may win because of George's behavior as opposed to the legal facts.
When this all started I didn't believe Sony had too much of a case, but as things have evolved I now believe they could win.
See, the thing is? Even if you go back and read from page 38 forward, which are the only places Diamond has posted since at least page 33, I checked.
Even if, every time Diamond passes a judgement on this case it is because of the way Geo acts not weather his actions were legal or not.
Diamond goes so far as to say,
I am talking about his character, not the law, which I stated earlier.
I think GeoHot is a buffoon and you'd be a fool to support him
ould have been easier to believe that he was taking the lawsuit seriously if he hadn't made his rap video
I never asked for donations from my fans to fight the lawsuit so I could save my personal money for a trip to South America, and I ESPECIALLY never made a shitty rap video showing my contempt for the legal situation
t 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
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
You see these quotes diamond? These are actually from you, not my summary of you. You are of the opinion that Geo should lose/Sony should win because you dislike the way Geo acts outside of court.
Do you now understand why we all disagree with you so much? His actions outside of court do NOT change weather his actions in this trial are legal or not.
Well I thank you for taking the time to make a proper reply, but you are still misunderstanding my position. When I said 'I am talking about his character', I mean within the statement you pulled that quote from. That does not mean I am ALWAYS talking about his character. I do think he's a buffoon and you'd be a fool to support him, that is one of my opinions on the matter. I would have trusted George much more today if he had never made the rap video. I do believe Sony may win because of George's behavior as opposed to the legal facts.
When this all started I didn't believe Sony had too much of a case, but as things have evolved I now believe they could win.
And I thank you for taking the time to actually put something together at the top of this page.
If Sony wins because of Hotz's behavior, it will be because they have been using devious and underhanded PR/courtroom antics. I don't care how much you support their win because you want closed systems, you should want their behavior to be on the up-and-up, and since this whole South America fiasco they've made it clear that they'll gain any advantage they can, no matter how silly it is.
Hotz has had this vacation paid for for a long time. Sony knew this, yet they let it be reported differently. That's pretty scummy, even if you hope they win. Can we at least agree on that?
So, we are finally back to the crux of the argument.
What is your opinion on this case, and how/what/why the things that Geo did are illegal/legal?
Please don't respond with "Geo took donations AND A VACATION!"
Or
"Geo made a stupid rap video!"
I mean, I'd be all for being allowed to sue people for making stupid rap videos.
But that isn't what this case is about and the implications of sony winning this case is an erosion of well entrenched consumer values of property rights and backwards engineering.
Posts
Gosh you just love to insult people and then run away don't you. Stop being so rude. Your opinion is not protected. If you don't want to defend it don't post it.
most people here agree that Hotz is pretty stupid but is the less of the two evils involved
Wait, are we still pointing out fallacies in your arguments?
Appeal to Authority!
Do I win a prize?
so it's more like I want him to stop being immature because regardless of him being so I want him to win.
I'm not willing to sabotage something this important because I don't approve of him. You don't have to like people to want them to win. This isn't a football game.
But there are objective legal facts here - hiding behind "it's my opinion" is not sufficient and it makes it utterly unclear WHAT t is that you believe.
Actually, it's argumentum ad populum (appeal to the majority), but close enough!
Here you go:
In the interest of accuracy, I'll point out that his earlier straw man was also the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. I should start up a bingo card.
IRT underlined:
Diamond, there are about a bazillion counter-arguments and examples against this fallacy that the majority acts rationally and intelligent. Gay marriage? Evolution? Climate change? Flat earth? Nuclear power? Bush? Taxes in America? This list can go on for hours.
Also, both bolded sentences are ad hominems as they are not just insults but also indicates that we are wrong because we are ignorant and on this forum, respectively.
For the record, I think Hotz makes hackers look bad and endangers consumer rights and reverse engineering in America by acting like a goose. His antics represent more than just him—which is a shame because I wouldn't mind it if he ended up getting whacked on the nose with a newspaper as long as it didn't affect everyone else. That said, it does, in fact, affect everyone else, and then there is bullshit like this:
. . . not to mention how idiotic the legal system is in the states. No, I think I am going to firmly side with the young upstart here.
Also, Geohot is a dick, I don't like him myself, but I'm on his side.
I have made myself a target by expressing a contrary opinion, and rather than accepting it you all have gone to extreme lengths to prove the utter wrongness of my opinion.
Now you have me defending not my opinion but the validity of my arguments. You are taking them out of context and misinterpreting them.
So no, I will not bother with taking the great lengths to explain to the each and every one of you, those who have no bothered to read the countless posts I have already made on each and every subject you question me on time and time again.
Want satisfaction? Read the entire thread over again.
What me to just be wrong, and for everyone else who takes an opinion different to your own to stop speaking? Sorry, it's not gonna happen.
And no doubt there will be several replies to this post simply because your pride can not allow this insult to go unpunished. Rather, I think we should all let this matter drop. If you don't like my opinion, ignore it, but don't try to tell me why I'm wrong without at least reading back to the previous debates or trying to find another means why my logic may be unfounded. Instead of trying to insult me further because I dared not agree with you, accept that I have a different view of the entire matter. I accept your views and I understand them, I simply do not agree.
my twitter | my youtube
Which obviously means I am correct.
Oh the humanity!
Did I get that right?
No, you did not.
my twitter | my youtube
You are drawing conclusions from where there aren't any. You are being absolutist, and you seem to be projecting that absolutism. Once again, no I do not believe that just because of one variable that makes anyone right or wrong (the variables are barely even related in that particular case, too!).
This one is called Ad Misericordiam (appeal to sympathy). The real reason why people are jumping you is because of statements like the bolded up there and your many, many logical fallacies that I, and others, have been pointing out.
Anyway, I will stop responding to you unless it is extremely topical, because we are mucking up the thread now.
I mean, if we are all getting your argument so completely wrong, maybe instead of saying "I already inadequately explained my position" you should, maybe, re-explain your position.
Maybe you should read the entire thread, and get some reading comprehension because I've said nothing of the sort. If you're getting my argument that off base, maybe you should take some English language courses.
my twitter | my youtube
I am entirely unable to intuit a coherent position based off of what you have said in the last 5 pages or so.
I do not have time to read 45 pages.
You're also the guy that wrote an entire paragraph without a single period. If you don't have the time to actually read what I'm typing, why should I take my time to type it all over again?
my twitter | my youtube
Anyway, Escapist and GameSpy have journalistic integrity-- after this for jumping on a headline for hits instead of waiting for the full story
Fine, here was the point of the post of which you speak:
Opinions being contrary does not make them equivalent. Just because they are on opposite sides does not make them equally reasonable. In this particular case, I argue that there are good reasons to believe that assertions to the effect of "You don't know that GeoHotz didn't spend his donation money on his vacation." are not well founded.
Your turn?
EDIT: Also, have been reading what you've been typing, I just can't determine what your position as a whole might be from what you have said - that most obvious is A) uncharitably incoherent and
Classic stuff.
Is that cool, Diamond?
That is one of several assertions I have made throughout this thread. I believe my assertion that George's donations contributed to his ability to take a vacation now, despite the probability that he did pay for at least part of his vacation back in November is a valid opinion. It is a more cynical opinion, but it is as backed up by facts as any other opinion on the matter. It just depends on if you believe everything George says or not.
I have already stated everything I need to state to establish my opinion earlier in the thread. I have iterated numerous times, and expecting the comprehension of everyone in the thread to suddenly increase upon iterating yet again would be truly insane.
my twitter | my youtube
"Geohotz took donations instead of using all his own money, so he should lose this case; and also? He made a stupid video which the judge should punish him for regardless that the video was neither illegal, nor had anything to do with the case"
Every other post you've made from page 33 (where you never posted until 38) until now has just been mud slinging.
Burtle, I feel a kind of admiration for you right now but this is probably not a good investment of your time.
Right, and as I was alluding to in the post with which you take such umbrage - your cynical interpretation is an unnecessary one given the facts of the situation:
Furthermore, even if we were to conclude that GeoHotz didn't pre-pay his spring break holiday (i.e. he had the money for his vacation but still asked for donations, not using the vacation money for legal fees) that doesn't indicate any sort of impropriety. The argument here is that the legal attack upon GeoHotz is frivolous and intended to bankrupt and intimidate and is considered illegitimate by both GeoHotz and his legal contributors. Expecting GeoHotz to pay for any of his defense would be completely contrary to that view - making him pay serves to further the attempt to damage GeoHotz financially with the burden of litigation, the view is that GeoHotz didn't do anything wrong and isn't morally obligated to take it upon himself to bear the full responsibility.
All that said - I still am unable to determine what your larger position is?
We who you oppose have a fairly straight foward position:
Consumers should, and do have a legal right to modify and repurpose hardware that they have purchased. If doing so does not rely upon the use of copyrighted software to perform then this legal right is maintained. Using mathematics and a knowledge of cryptography to reverse engineer what the hardware requires to run its software is likewise legal and should remain so. Sony's legal attack A) wrong about the law and
Please, stop trying to summarize my statements and intention. You completely lack the ability or impartiality to do so. Quotation marks are for quotes, not for your own twisted and ignorant appraisal of my words.
As an example, what you just did: "Geohotz is a perfectly honest and pure being who should absolutely win his case because he is just, he said so, after all."
my twitter | my youtube
Just asking for some clarification here: When you say that "George's donations contributed to his ability to take a vacation", do you mean that you surmise he's using the donated funds to pay for his trip? Or do you mean that, if it weren't for the donations, he would have to use his own money to pay for legal fees, and therefore wouldn't have the funds for the vacation?
Fact of the matter is the search function is not working right now, and it's a lot of work to dig through all of the prior pages to find your exact position. I realize it would be very taxing on you to concisely state your position again, but it's obvious people don't know why you're standing where you are right now. If you're not going to bother clarifying anything for anybody, then you're cluttering up the thread with useless goosery. I thought I asked pretty politely for some clarity, and if this is how you're going to respond when someone makes an honest-to-goodness attempt to understand you and delineate your position then I'm not sure how worth it it is to continue discussing this with you at the risk of having the thread closed due to goosery.
Well obviously it must be a helluva lot more work than just piling up replies insulting and belittling people who disagree.
The latter most likely, but I wouldn't rule out the former.
Your last 3 points are not 'facts'. They are your opinions. I don't believe Sony's lawyers are fundamentally less scrupulous than George's (an opinion). I don't believe George is unwilling to commit fraud (again, just my opinion). And I don't believe the value of his donations factors into his actions either way (IMO).
I don't believe the vacation is really the core element. It's just that I made a few statements earlier in the thread and people have been trying to undermine my opinion ever since. It's a small part of the overall debate.
I will agree this particular lawsuit is a relatively pointless act by Sony, but I also believe George's actions in being a high profile spokesperson in the PS3 hacking efforts lead to his current situation. Thus, he is an unwise hacker, and he is getting what he deserves (in my opinion). However, I believe a victory by George could seriously undermine the economy of 'closed' platforms, which I in particular, enjoy. You believe he didn't do anything morally wrong, I believe he did. And besides that, I believe he did the wrong thing, and in a dumb way.
I believe the system as it has been of closed computer platforms has worked very well for the consumer in the last 20 years. A judge will decide if Sony is right or wrong in the lawsuit, but I believe for once they are morally correct. There are too many jobs and too many consumers like myself that rely on closed systems.
To make this even more morally ambiguous and confusing to you and others. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with me modding my own Xbox 1 in my own home (or anyone else). I've done it, I enjoy it. I would even consider modding my PS3 at some point. That's probably gonna blow some of your minds.
My opinion on all these matters are very complicated, it's not meant to be summed up in simple ways, I guess.
Please, stop the slander against me. Is that so much to ask? If someone writes a entire paragraph without a period or can not understand statements I believe are perfectly clear, don't I have a right to complain?
It is not my intention to insult people by saying they need to learn English better. I am being perfectly serious and literal.
my twitter | my youtube
Even if, every time Diamond passes a judgement on this case it is because of the way Geo acts not weather his actions were legal or not.
Diamond goes so far as to say,
You see these quotes diamond? These are actually from you, not my summary of you. You are of the opinion that Geo should lose/Sony should win because you dislike the way Geo acts outside of court.
Do you now understand why we all disagree with you so much? His actions outside of court do NOT change weather his actions in this trial are legal or not.
When it comes to whether or not he's misusing the donated funds, I may not agree with your suspicion, but I will certainly agree with the fact that there's not enough solid evidence to prove one way or the other. If he is using the donated funds to go on vacation, and then lying about it to the press and public, I think everyone would agree that's terrible.
When it comes to the donated funds allowing the vacation because George doesn't need to use his own money to pay legal fees, isn't that the whole point? He asked for donations in the face of a rather titanic legal undertaking, because he knew he couldn't foot the bill himself. People donated to that cause, and now the fees are covered. What the man does with his personal funds beyond that is his own business. He asked for donations with the express intention of not using his personal money to cover the legal fight, so people knew what they were donating for when they chipped in.
Well I thank you for taking the time to make a proper reply, but you are still misunderstanding my position. When I said 'I am talking about his character', I mean within the statement you pulled that quote from. That does not mean I am ALWAYS talking about his character. I do think he's a buffoon and you'd be a fool to support him, that is one of my opinions on the matter. I would have trusted George much more today if he had never made the rap video. I do believe Sony may win because of George's behavior as opposed to the legal facts.
When this all started I didn't believe Sony had too much of a case, but as things have evolved I now believe they could win.
my twitter | my youtube
And I thank you for taking the time to actually put something together at the top of this page.
If Sony wins because of Hotz's behavior, it will be because they have been using devious and underhanded PR/courtroom antics. I don't care how much you support their win because you want closed systems, you should want their behavior to be on the up-and-up, and since this whole South America fiasco they've made it clear that they'll gain any advantage they can, no matter how silly it is.
Hotz has had this vacation paid for for a long time. Sony knew this, yet they let it be reported differently. That's pretty scummy, even if you hope they win. Can we at least agree on that?
What is your opinion on this case, and how/what/why the things that Geo did are illegal/legal?
Please don't respond with "Geo took donations AND A VACATION!"
Or
"Geo made a stupid rap video!"
I mean, I'd be all for being allowed to sue people for making stupid rap videos.
But that isn't what this case is about and the implications of sony winning this case is an erosion of well entrenched consumer values of property rights and backwards engineering.