Slashdot Mirror

from the top of page 42 of the indictment (69. jjj.)

jjj. Starting as early as August 9, 2009, a member of the Mega Conspiracymade multiple transfers in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce through PayPal, Inc. toCW, a resident of Moseley, Virginia, which is in the Eastern District of Virginia, as part of theMega Conspiracy’s “Uploader Rewards” program. CW received total payments from theConspiracy of $2,900, including payments of $100 and $600 on August 9, 2009; a payment of $500 on October 8, 2009; a transfer of $1,500 on December 23, 2009; and a payment of $200 on June 21, 2010.

from the bottom of page 4

7. Megaupload.com advertises itself as a “cyberlocker,” which is a private data storage provider. However, as part of the design of the service, the vast majority of Megaupload.com users do not have significant capabilities to store private content long-term .Unregistered anonymous users (referred to as “Non-Members” by the Conspiracy) are allowed to upload and download content files, but any Non-Member-uploaded content that is not downloaded within 21 days is permanently deleted. Similarly, registered free users (or “Members”) are allowed to upload and download content files, but each uploaded file must be downloaded every 90 days in order to remain on the system. Only premium users have a realistic chance of having any private long-term storage, ...

(i never used the service so can't say how it was, but this is the allegation)

A store that distributes stolen goods would be a better one.

No, such a store would be charged with crimes related to theft:

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/jan/21/redding-motorcycle-owner-arrested-chop-shop-charge/

Garyâ(TM)s Motorcycle Services Center owner Gary William Kenerson, 61, was arrested Thursday on drug- and theft-related charges.

On the other hand, Megaupload was charged with:

1. Conspiracy to commit racketeering
2. Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement
3. Conspiracy to commit money laundering
4. Criminal copyright infringement
5. Criminal copyright infringement by electronic means

As anyone who bothered to read the actual indictment would have known:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment

Get a load of that coincidence. it 'coincides' just 2 days after sopa protests, and involves almost all major technology companies that have major stakes on internet. Just like how the megaupload bust 'coincided' a day after sopa protests, yesterday.

I don't think Apple, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, or Lucas Film were involved in the SOPA/PIPA protest.

So that leaves Google and Adobe, but if you just take a look at the dates of the numerous subpoenas on the document itself. There is no sign that the DOJ was going to let up in this case.

If you would read the indictment, it's not a single complaint. It's the fact that the owners were sending emails to each other about how they were paying uploaders cash for copyrighted works to drive traffic and subscriptions.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment

Now, one could argue that shutting down the entire service was the wrong way to go about this, but one should not argue that a single complaint was the cause of the take-down of the entire cloud.

As for being extra-judicial, that indictment was signed by a judge and the foreman of the grand jury that heard the arguments.

Apparantly if "Premium users of the site, a small percentage of the overalluser base, are able to download and upload files with few, if any, limitations." you will loose all access and possibly even be indictable by the nutbags running the U.S. legal system.

The servers can be seized as evidence and the service shut down to prevent additional harm being done while the case is decided. It's effectively very similar to a restraining order. It's a civil thing, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply, but rather until the issue is determined, the justice department moves to ensure more harm is not done. The idea is that to do so it should be pretty damn clear that policies are not being followed and the indictment does a pretty good job of documenting how they were not.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment - around page 30 is the most damning part.

This is a criminal case, not a civil case. It's not similar to a restraining order. Evidence was seized so that it can be used to prosecute the accused. I wish them good luck with their defense. They're sure going to need it.

The servers can be seized as evidence and the service shut down to prevent additional harm being done while the case is decided. It's effectively very similar to a restraining order. It's a civil thing, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply, but rather until the issue is determined, the justice department moves to ensure more harm is not done. The idea is that to do so it should be pretty damn clear that policies are not being followed and the indictment does a pretty good job of documenting how they were not.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment - around page 30 is the most damning part.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment - Full indictment with the evidence you claim hasn't been presented.

It appears from the ticket that they've forgotten about their plausible deniability requirement. The FBI are basically claiming they knew full well what was on the site and actively search their machines for infringing content which they KEPT.

That looks like the core; the rest (including the money laundering) looks like wishful thinking to me, but they may manage to make it stick.

Oh and the phrase "mega conspiracy" sounds like a very unprofessional way to refer to the defendants.

Then read the actual Indictment. It looks pretty bad for MU. Especially since the government keeps calling Megaupload "The Conspiracy". You can't support a Conspiracy can you? That's just downright criminal!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment It looks actually really, really, bad based on the evidence the federal prosecutors are presenting. As loud as the cry is about censorship, government being pawns of the MAFIAA, etc, it seems that MegaUpload crossed the line and brought this down on themselves.

Yes. It worked out so well for net neutrality when Google got involved.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal

It's a good thing Google doesn't have any entangling business relations with media companies, like they did with carriers.

Oh wait.

Go ahead, sign the petition on the Google homepage. Just remember: It will be used to show populist support of the more "Google-friendly" verbiage of the exact same legislation.

If, however, I instead placed detailed, step-by-step instructions for how to perform that synthesis in a kitchen sink under those windshield wipers, then I would go to jail and make a lot of meth heads very happy.

You would not go to jail. It's entirely legal to publish easy to follow step by step instructions to do anything, including meth.

You might not go to jail but there is no guarantee you wont have an accident or end up missing. If governments or organizations want something to stay secret they can resort to extreme measures.

If, however, I instead placed detailed, step-by-step instructions for how to perform that synthesis in a kitchen sink under those windshield wipers, then I would go to jail and make a lot of meth heads very happy.

You would not go to jail. It's entirely legal to publish easy to follow step by step instructions to do anything, including meth.

Interesting article written by a Harvard Law professor detailing specific cases show how SOPA violates the constitution. http://www.scribd.com/doc/75153093/Tribe-Legis-Memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1

Well, when we do find it, and it leads to the TOE, God will be close behind: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19550880/GUT-The-Grand-Unified-Theory-A-oneact-play-with-seven-blackouts

The leaked draft bill is here:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/75107593?access_key=key-22cz53lb62552asmdd43

The pertinent part is paragraph 18.

Wow.

I tried to understand the utter insanity written there, but I can't move past one line in particular:

I would like to know how you are privy to the inflation rate! The inflation rate I'm talking about is the original definition of the term...

Finding the current inflation rate is a complicated procedure. Apparently we can sidestep all of that by picking an obsolete definition for inflation, which doesn't account for the effects of using debt as currency.

This should prove entertaining indeed, but in the interest of maintaining my sanity, we'll review only a few more key details:

A partial audit of the FED has indicated that very recently they have over $15,000,000,000,000.00 of cash dispensing that they were keeping secret. This is a astronomical amount.

Yes it is, and yet it's inconsequential at the same time. The oft-quoted $16-trillion figure comes from page 131 of the GAO audit report, which is explained on page 130:

For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion.

Looking at the actual balances of money loaned out, the peaks of all loan programs totals only about $2.5 trillion, with only about $1 trillion outstanding as of June of 2011 ($900 billion of which is in long-term investments). Notably, all of that "secret" $16 trillion was paid back except for $13 billion (which the report doesn't appear to mention how long its term is). Again, no actual wealth was created. Equal amounts of money and debt were added to the economy, and annihilated shortly thereafter, which is one of the primary raisons d'être of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Nothing grinds to a halt.

Under long-term periods of high inflation (and I mean inflation by the modern, useful definition), yes it can. Saved money loses its purchasing power, so people are less inclined to save. As prices continue to rise, salary increases usually lag well behind the curve, meaning that more of the population are unable to afford the increased cost of living.

...And after that we're back to the ramblings about freezing assets, a secret group of people who can magically steal wealth from others, and utter ignorance the economic importance of the automotive companies. Such a lovely day on Slashdot.

Wow.

I tried to understand the utter insanity written there, but I can't move past one line in particular:

I would like to know how you are privy to the inflation rate! The inflation rate I'm talking about is the original definition of the term...

Finding the current inflation rate is a complicated procedure. Apparently we can sidestep all of that by picking an obsolete definition for inflation, which doesn't account for the effects of using debt as currency.

This should prove entertaining indeed, but in the interest of maintaining my sanity, we'll review only a few more key details:

A partial audit of the FED has indicated that very recently they have over $15,000,000,000,000.00 of cash dispensing that they were keeping secret. This is a astronomical amount.

Yes it is, and yet it's inconsequential at the same time. The oft-quoted $16-trillion figure comes from page 131 of the GAO audit report, which is explained on page 130:

For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion.

Looking at the actual balances of money loaned out, the peaks of all loan programs totals only about $2.5 trillion, with only about $1 trillion outstanding as of June of 2011 ($900 billion of which is in long-term investments). Notably, all of that "secret" $16 trillion was paid back except for $13 billion (which the report doesn't appear to mention how long its term is). Again, no actual wealth was created. Equal amounts of money and debt were added to the economy, and annihilated shortly thereafter, which is one of the primary raisons d'être of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Nothing grinds to a halt.

Under long-term periods of high inflation (and I mean inflation by the modern, useful definition), yes it can. Saved money loses its purchasing power, so people are less inclined to save. As prices continue to rise, salary increases usually lag well behind the curve, meaning that more of the population are unable to afford the increased cost of living.

...And after that we're back to the ramblings about freezing assets, a secret group of people who can magically steal wealth from others, and utter ignorance the economic importance of the automotive companies. Such a lovely day on Slashdot.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38567356/Circuit-schematic-and-technical-details-for-receiving-7-83hz-Schumann-frequencies
http://www.backyardastronomy.net/schumann_resonance.html
http://pe2bz.philpem.me.uk/Comm/-%20ELF-VLF/-%20-%20Projects/-%20Receiver/-%20E-Field-Whistler/S-000-Shumann-E-Field/p5.html

Actually, I went and read the executive order here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74042394/Managing-Government-Records-November-28-2011

which itself says nothing about Web 2.0 itself. Nor about moving to the cloud. The requirements laid out there are business level, and basically translate to the following: "You have 120 days to come up with system level requirements to move our data from hard copy to soft copy."

With this said, the section from the order that you're quoting is 2-b-i. It refers to the need to have a unified solution for archiving all existing electronic communication. Would you prefer that every department and agency have its own? And here I thought you might be in favor of cutting costs and efficiency.

Finally, your link shows that Obama has issued 17 signing statements in 3 years. That's about 6 per year. Bush issued 161 over 8 years. That's 20 per year. The number of executive orders is similar. And honestly, the Democrats in congress didn't play the cloture games that the Republicans play now. They made a huge stink about the ONE appointment that the Democrats tried to block (remember the chants of "up ur down! up ur down!"). Now, the Republicans won't let a damn thing to the floor of the Senate for a vote that doesn't explicitly further their causes. In other words, false equivalance fail.

If you look at the executive order itself:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74042394/Managing-Government-Records-November-28-2011

you'll find that while formats aren't called out explicitly, it basically instructs the archivist to come up with a comprehensive system within a limited amount of time. It's a pretty high level set of business level requirements; basically, these business level requirements translate to, "give me the system level requirements docs and specifics within four months." I can't imagine that such a system wouldn't include the proposed formats.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73235083/The-growing-impact-of-full-disk-encryption-on-digital-forensics

Here is the original article...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73235083/The-growing-impact-of-full-disk-encryption-on-digital-forensics

I have submitted this as a question to "ask Slashdot" but my question is the following: Is the superluminal neutrino considered to be compatible with information theory? And if it is, why exactly would it be incompatible with Einstein? I have uploaded the draft of my analysis on the topic to http://relevancetheory.blogspot.com/2011/11/general-theory-of-relevance.html and http://www.scribd.com/doc/73219743/The-General-Theory-of-Relevance-and-Reliability and would love all help verifying the argument. In essence, it seems that if we create an information theoretically consistent model where we assign a minimal rest mass of 1 to the photon and to empty space and (in consequence) the maximum speed two solid objects could move towards each other were 2 * c then superluminal neutrinos would become compatible with Einstein (although his formula would have to be extended into E = mcc * 2 ). My analysis includes an experiment that could (if my model is right) demonstrate the accelerating redshift effects currently associated with Dark Energy in earthly laboratories, so if nothing else that experiment (described in the section about Dark Energy towards the end) is perhaps the fastest way for you to see if there is a mistake in my argument?

Any help I can get with understanding if the analysis in my draft is faulty or correct would be greatly appreciated!

You've obviously never watched MacGyver

Bumpers, fuel tanks, engine manifolds, interiors, etc. Also lots of aluminium (also non-magnetic).

Plastic fuel tanks are safer - they don't eventually leak at the seam, condensation doesn't cause them to rust out, and they have more give in a crash.

Here is bit from the original post with links to further info as well as a copy of the transcript (in German):

"It would seem that Apple has to reimbuse Motorola for damages dating back to early 2002. OUCH!!!

Further, according to a story released on Saturday, Motorola has finally made a rather large dent in the Apple offensive. It would seem that, effective immediately, Apple is not allowed to sell any mobile devices in Germany. This is apparently due to two (2) infringements against Motorola wireless patents."

actually the more interesting part of the deal is that Apple has to pay Moto damages dating back to april 2003. http://www.scribd.com/doc/71622154/11-11-04-Default-Judgment-for-MMI-Against-Apple

Not if the patents belong to the GSM standard, and instead Google gets slapped for patent abuse like Samsung is about to. http://www.google.de/search?q=samsung+eu+patent+abuse&hl=de&client=firefox-a&hs=nrP&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=zNa3Tr0HyYniBM6hpd8D&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBoQ_AUoBA&biw=1560&bih=1304

actually the more interesting part of the deal is that Apple has to pay Moto damages dating back to april 2003. http://www.scribd.com/doc/71622154/11-11-04-Default-Judgment-for-MMI-Against-Apple

Sobreseimiento (as in the original report) != dismissal

Just nitpicking, though. I don't think there is a case.

Someone really detected and queried about it on MS Forums: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18474538/Microsoft-Answers-Forum

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47498765/Google-Safe-Browsing-v2-API-implementation-notes#outer_page_6

Web browser sends first 32bits of sha256 hash of URL to google to check against database. Then if it matches (response from google) it sends the whole sha256 hash.

It's easy for google to get the real url form sha256 hash of it, they have a pretty big database of urls ;-)

Nope, she has an American name because she created a fake stage persona and kept her given, legal name private and isolated from her stage persona.

To sign up for IMDbPro, she had to give them her legal name (it was on her credit card), and now she's claiming they went out and did public records searches to find her birthdate.

Here's the document.

The BBC article is light on the details to the point of distorting the issue. There's a better write-up at Paid Content, which also has a link to the complaint. It's not just about ageism; the Jane Doe alleges that IMDb pulled her birthdate from her credit-card information and then published it, ignoring takedown requests.

Maybe if you actually read the patent and had some imagination

Maybe if you'd read the 'patent' you'd know, it, ummmm, isn't a patent.

It's a registered design that's being disputed, ie. the shape.

Here it is: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

If you're going to argue that that particular shape is radically different from dozens of others which came before it or that it's somehow not obvious or simply the next step from designs like the one below then you're an idiot.

eg. Take away this device's keyboard (which is needed because it's Windows and people expect to be able to do some work, not just 'browse') and it looks an awful lot like an iPad to me: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Tablet.jpg

Note date of that photo: 2006

The best part is: The iPad does still have one button on it but it's not shown in the registered design...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

The design case is not about "a rectangle".

Assuming that the design patent that I saw is the one that Apple accused Samsung of infringing (it was linked to on Slashdot, so that's a big assumption, I know), it really was just a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen.

After a quick Google search, I found this one - http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001. Of course, that's from Troll-of-the-Century Florian, so keep the grains of salt handy.

The difference is much like the difference between a Chevy Impala and a Fiero as a Ferrarri kit car.

Have you actually seen the 'design' this court case is revolving around?

Here ya go: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

A pencil sketch of a rectangle with rounded corners and a square drawn on the front.

Yeah, that could only have been done by an utter design genius.

If I'm correct then the answer to this suit should be a very short "Fuck off, Troll"

Sounds like that's exactly what they did when first contacted. Paragraph 13:

On or about May 12, 2011, Astrolabe sent a “takedown notice” to both the National Institute of Health [hereinafter “NIH”], and the University of California Los Angeles hereinafter “UCLA”], which have failed and/or refused to remove the unauthorized publication and copying of the Works.See Exhibit 1, May 12, 2011, Letter to NIH, and Exhibit 2, May 12, 2011,Letter to UCLA

Complaint

The document in PDF format will be here shortly:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67775601

This patent for instance clearly states 'redundant': http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=33&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6714559&OS=6714559&RS=6714559 What about sites with only one wap? There are so many loopholes with this....it's ridiculous. Broadcom themselves never even claimed to own the only rights to wifi back when they had this paltry array of patents, let alone all of the others that they posses. Then I came across this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50324501/Innovatio-IP-Ventures-v-ABP-et-al "JURY TRIAL DEMANDED" Good luck, assholes.

If you have ever gone to see the IgNobels or watched them on video, you have seen the paper airplane blizzard. Here is a screenplay in which the paper airplanes play a pivotal role: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13651346/The-EightFoot-Bride-an-original-screenplay

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

So much for the claim that “The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty.”

As for Congress’ understanding of the limits of the Constitution at the time the Act was passed, it is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson was the President of the Senate during the 5th Congress while Jonathan Dayton, the youngest man to sign the United States Constitution, was the Speaker of the House.

http://bakka111.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/the-individual-mandate/

Though perhaps modern day Republicans know the founders' intentions better than John Adams?

Babies already have this, experiment: place a thick glass plate between two solid objects, making a bridge. Place child on one of the objects and encourage it to crawl over the glass bridge (height) to the other. Baby will be happy to do so, or drool, or poop (whipe, change and repeat). If it notices the drop below it, watch its reaction. It won't have one UNTIL it sees its mother. Mother looks happy? Baby happy. Mother looks scared? Baby is scared. Suddenly the height is something it must apparently fear, and it will.

That's a really cool story, but it's almost entirely false.

The Visual Cliff experiment, by its original developers

This experiment teaches us a lot about the development of perception, in both humans and animals. It doesn't say anything at all about looking to mommy for approval.

Maybe this is an easier proposition than I thought, but I'm half-way through A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine and it looks like getting anything accomplished in chemistry is much harder than I used to think. The hardest things I know of, like diamond or carbides, look like they have simple molecular structures so are they difficult to simulate or are there more complex substances that are similarly hard bulk materials?

I say bulk because even unobtainium is useless if the stuff falls apart in fractions of a second. Knowledge is nice, but add utility and it's so much better.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

Any features not in that drawing aren't protected. It's a *very* simple drawing.

You mean, this particular one, the completely generic featureless screen on a tablet from the Community Design filing on which the decision was based?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

I read about this originally in this Techcrunch article:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/09/apple-ftw-german-court-upholds-galaxy-tab-10-1-sales-ban/

In it, they link to the design in question, Community Design 000181607 for the iPad:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

Look at it! I mean look at it! It is literally a rounded rectangle with a screen on the front! I'm not even exaggerating. Look at it!

`According to a cable sent by the US embassy in Tunis on 22 September, 2006, Microsoft was so keen to get the Tunisian government to drop its policy favouring open-source software that it agreed to set up a "program on cyber criminality" to cover training. The deal also entailed the company giving the Tunisian regime, headed by President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, the original source code for Microsoft software.' link

"Tunisia has its own certificateauthority and since 2007 the root certificate has been included in Microsoft Internet Explorer.This certificate is not included in common other browsers like Safari or Firefox. If you visit from one of those browsers you will see a certificate error" link