Slashdot Mirror
Mega Finds New Home, Dotcom Says
hypnosec writes "Kim Dotcom has revealed that Megaupload's successor, Mega, which is reportedly launching on January 20, 2013, will be operating through a new domain name: Mega.co.nz. Through a tweet Dotcom announced that Mega has found a new home and that the new domain name is protected by the law. Dotcom also revealed that lobbyists won't be able to do anything about this, as 'judges are not influenced by politics in New Zealand.' Recent announcements about Mega's domain — Me.ga — didn't go as planned following a decision by the Government of Gabon to suspend the domain name. Dotcom had announced at the time that despite the blockage, Mega would launch as planned."
Who sets the laws in the first place and who changes laws? (Don't say "the people" you'll be modded down as mental.)
Mega CONZ... It's a TRAP! err, a Con!
Seems like it is a bit belated.
Domain sounds like Mega Cons when read aloud.
Not a shock, or anything. ;)
"..reportedly launching on January 20, 2012."
Who sets the laws in the first place and who changes laws? (Don't say "the people" you'll be modded down as mental.)
Everyone knows it's those with the cash.
Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
I just looked up the Wikipedia article called "Internet censorship in New Zealand" and followed all the references.
All it will take to get this very easily shut down is a bit of deliberate seeding with kiddie porn, or making up something similar.
Absolutely will not work.
Cash
Rules
Everything
Around
Me.ga
Despite all that has been said on this particular topic, I wonder why this is news is classified with a skull and crossbones, not under YRO, and tagged as piracy.
She blinded me with science, she tricked me with technology. ~ Thomas Dolby
New Zealand is a good place to start new business after your business is destroyed by your arrest which occurred on some Pacific country. Could you remind me in which country you were arrested, Kim?
no no no.. its called "The Golden Rule"
he who has the gold makes the rules
next thing you know its going to be a full fledged vegas convention with all kinds of weirdo's dressed in costume!
The politicians who receive the most votes.
That means "the people," through their delegates.
If everything is encrypted, how can Mega.co.nz be anything but a storage container of unknown files?
I couldn't agree more, but there is a problem: there is no "voting public" in the sense of a single entity making rational, well informed decisions. In a land of one hundred million voters, each voter can only execute one hundred-millionth of a decision and maybe try to influence a handful more hundred-millionths through personal persuasion. A great many of those individuals naturally (but not stupidly) concentrate on one overriding issue each, and not the same issue as the next guy.
The ridiculously anthropomorphic concept of "the decision of the voters" is nonsensical. There are one hundred million disparate decisions, based on widely varying criteria, reasoning processes, and emotions. These separate decisions then combine mathematically to result in an incoherent selection of winners across the spectrum of offices being contested. The resulting selection rarely pleases a very large percentage of voters, as an inherent result of the process.
A modest proposal. In industry we found it necessary to develop a balance to the concentrated power of large employers by having the employees band together in unions to synthesize concentrations of power of their own. Is it possible we should think of something similar in representative democracies? What if there were a provision to allow the creation of agents with agendas? What if individual voters could sign up to hand over their voting proxies to these agents? It would be optional, just as proxies in the investment world are optional. It gets a bit messy, because you would need different systems of agents at the national, state, and local levels, but that does not really make it very difficult to administer.
These various agents would each publish their own agenda, argue their cases, and solicit their own supporters. They would of course be required to publish their voting histories, so prospective supporters could evaluate their integrity. The gain is that they would not have the massive incentive to lie, cheat, and game the system like candidates do now; and they would be more resistant to being lied to, cheated, and games by the candidates.
OK, the decision making in the government is already representative. Are we sure the decision making in the elective process would not benefit from also being made representative?
I'm sure there are counter arguments, aspects I have missed, and fine tuning required. Any takers?
u must be new here
Back in 2003, I built the world's first DIY cruise missile in a garage here in New Zealand.
When the media found out, they approached the government for comment and the Prime MInister of the day (Helen Clark) admitted that in doing this, I had broken no laws.
Well when the US government found out what I'd been doing they were outraged and intense pressure was applied to the NZ government to shut down this low-cost-cruise-missile project.
But how could they do that? -- after all, the PM had admitted I'd broken no laws in doing so.
Well as we all (now) know, governments can do any damned thing they want and if they can't achieve their ends by fair means, they'll use foul ones.
As a result, they "Caponed" me and used the NZ equivalent of the IRS to bankrupt me by coming up with all manner of "assessed" tax liabilities and breaching an agreement I already had in place.
A local TV current affairs program did a piece on my plight:
Part 1
Part 2
and you can see from that, just how governments are able to sidestep or force the courts to do whatever they want -- when there's an agenda involved.
So Kim Dotcom ought to be very careful -- who knows what a savage dog will do when you back it into a corner?
I've written a book about this chapter (and others) of my life but suffice to say I have had some issues with publishers who don't want to get involved in a case where it's obvious that the rulebook gets tossed out the door in favor of covering asses at high levels.
Is it possible we should think of something similar in representative democracies? What if there were a provision to allow the creation of agents with agendas?
It's called a political party.
Yes, I know the current party system is deeply flawed. But what you describe is the idea of political parties, plain and simple.
There is also a more modern system with a more fine-grained and fluid agency system like this, invented by the Pirate Party, called Liquid Democracy. GIYF.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org