Please don’t anyone tell them there is a unix command called “kill”.
Edit: -9
1 Like
The point that the prosecution needs a line of argument is probably valid. Whether they pursue a line which is sensible is another matter.
My (limited) understanding was that they were originally talking about wget and Roxio, and by implication a CD Writer. If a sensible line of argument was to be pursued we might expect it to be complete - i.e. (i) did the defendant also use a piece of software (which happens to be well known and used outside of UNIX) to burn CDs, and (ii) did the defendant use CD-Writing hardware (which happens to be found on most notebook/desktop computers, i.e. used by an even larger chunk of the world’s population) to accomplish said task? If these points were not included in the line of argument, it is incomplete. What reasons would the prosecution have for mentioning only the least well-known utility involved in the alleged chain of activity? Is this show for the judge or the media/public?
(Caveat: I wasn’t at the trial either and haven’t read much recent coverage. These points may be addressed elsewhere for all I know. Also I’m not American … it’s just that someone may be wrong in a trial on the internet…)
For me, I’m more focused on the tone of how wget was brought up. I’m leaning towards taking Joanne McNeil’s word on it over the conjecture I’m finding in this thread since, well… she was actually there in the courtroom.
It’s the fault of the prosecution/government that we can only go by witnesses since they’ve chosen to be so draconian/authoritarian in their approach to court transparency. For example, this fiasco:
Update:
This article was linked from Douglas Rushkoff’s article here today:
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
