Name 1 thing bit of data that you've given to Google that they don't allow you to download them other than your ANONYMOUS search history.
Just so that you know, google does not allow you download non-anonymous search history either. I am usually logged in, when I perform a seach on google. Neither does google allow you download the search results you have visited (it does not even allow you view them I believe). Google does not allow me to download the list of websites I have visited and Google had noticed that I had visited it. It does not allow me to download the timestamps and IPs of my logins. I can go on and on, but you get my point. Google collect tons of information about me, which I dont get access to.
Okay, say I have been using this feature on chrome for a while, and say the password is saved by chrome and it allows me to look it up. Now I want to switch to IE (for whatever reasons). Now for each of the websites I have to open chrome password manager and locate the right password, copy it and paste it in IE. This is labour intensive enough that, nobody would ever want to do it. That sounds like a lock-in to me (my definition of lock-in is the inability to easily switch to a competing service).
And about the childish torts (what are you, 13?), its you who needs a clue.
there's nothing to stop ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE from parking a car out front of either of these places with cameras in them pointed at the front doors of these businesses
The property owner can ask them to leave and if they refuse to, stick them with a trespassing charge. If it is sort of robotic camera, they have the right to confiscate it. With the drone, they cannot do anything.
Indian law requires the government to negotiate a contract with the lowest bidder, that satisfies the requirements. If they wanted the capabilities of F-35, I am pretty sure the cheapest would have been the F-35.
I reviewed an academic paper (which unfortunately the others on the PC didn't like, so it wasn't accepted) which examined the economic model of Megaupload, related services, third-party links to Megaupload, and the popular files, especially the "Uploader Rewards", and concluded that the company's business model really was about "Profit from Piracy".
I agree with you on this, but it is not yet illegal to "Profit from Piracy".
Combined with the email trail that the feds apparently got (eg, emails concerning scraping of Youtube for the creation of MegaVideo, emails about reward payments including clear descriptions of the types of uploads), and the RICO indictments etc are not a surprise. (the indictment)
Scraping of youtube is violation of the terms of service, but again is not criminal act. I would be happy to see Megaupload sued by Google. Calling the description, clear, is a stretch. It includes file type and the description provided by the uploader. I would be surprised if any of these can be considered the real description.
For example, if its true that their takedown is by URL, but they duplicate based on hash (so one can have multiple URLs for the same file), thats clearly attempting to game the system, as any legitimate takedown system would take down all separate URLs which point to the same file. (Paragraph 23 on the indictment).
Again not a requirement of DMCA. In fact, apart from Youtube, I dont think anybody looks for similar files are removes them. Say you have two files in your server containing BluRay keys, and receive a takedown for one of them, would you also volunteer to take down the other?
Especially if this is related to the creation of a "dummy lifetime premium user" to "to prevent the loss of source files due to expiration or abuse reports" (from a Megaupload email).
Also, at least according to the indictment, there really should be very few legitimate files lost in this: Anonymous uploads needed to be downloaded every 21 days or they were deleted, and even free named accounts required 90-day downloads, which is very different from Dropbox and other systems, where persistence, rather than popularity-of-download, is the goal.
You should read their terms again. They dont "need" to be deleted in 21 days. They simply guarantee to retain your file for 21 days without any downloads in the period. Depending on their resource availability they could retain files they believe would bring them revenue, for as long as they like and in any structure they like. And why shouldnt popularity-of-download be a goal?
You are missing the most important (and most complex) point.
How can anyone know that account which uploaded the video does not actually hold copyright on it?
I dont believe one can either. But in this case they were pretty much caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The emails and communication prove that they knew a particular file was pirated and was being shared (hell, they even shared some of those themselves), and took no action.
Biggest question of all is - are service providers expected to look at every single file in order to determine whether it is pirated or not (answer is 'no', just in case you wondered)? Yes, of course they were aware about piracy on the site, but what can you realistically do about that except taking down files when they appear in DMCA notice?
No they are not. But when they come across one, that they know and acknowledge to be pirated, they better delete it. Its as simple as that.
There are so many things that need to be properly tested in court, this will certainly be a massive one.
I afraid megaupload is screwed either ways. There are plenty of other easy to prove charges like money laundering and tax evasion tagged on.
I believe even rapidshare pays you for popular downloads (I believe most websites do it). The difference is the intent and the wording. Emails between megaupload staff/executives state that they were paying for most popular movies at that time. It means they acknowledge and explicitly supporting piracy, and failed to remove content that they knew were pirated. If they had worded it as most popular files, they would have been safe.
Sorry for the self reply, but missed an import piece: They also have comply with DMCA request, apart from treating all files equally; and they are good.
I agree. Evidence collected for megaupload include emails that specifically mentioned paying users that uploaded the most popular movie. Note it was not a "file", but specifically a "movie". Rapidshare and dropbox are safe as long as they dont explicitly support piracy (unlike megaupload). If all they care about are files and even if they pay users for uploading most popular files, the would get a free pass. Atleast under current laws.
From the wiki (the one you linked) : The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. The result is a structure that is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used.[12]
Also from the wiki "According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government". Just because the board of governors consider themselves to be part of the govt, doesnt mean they are part of the govt. Its like IBM saying it wants to make peoples life better.
The Board of Governors are appointed by the President and their salaries are set by the govt, but the input with which the Fed takes decisions is largely from the member banks. Its one of those strange public-private partnerships, that I would consider mostly private.
And It goes without saying that the board of governors are usually former Wallstreet barons.
Why settle for less? With todays processors and their temperature sensors, that can throttle the clock if necessary, you cannot ruin your hardware.
About the benefits, I do like the tiny bit of snappiness when I use slashdot (and some of the JS heavy websites). You would see significant benefits for any single threaded task you perform. For encoding you might want to try overclocking your GPU and see the difference. I can guarantee it would be significant percentage increase, and not seconds.
Blocking access to your service, in my opinion, is not the point. The point is to bring attention to SOPA/PIPA, inform them how serious this is. Not to deny service.
And I had contacted my rep months ago. And I did not have to find an alternative as I knew it has to be done using a script and used noscript to block all scripts. I was just mentioned one of the possible ways someone can use wiki if they needed it (giving people this info, does not mean they will not contact their reps, neither does, not giving this info, mean people will contact their rep. Both are independent actions).
I used NoScript to block the JS too, but only a few can use these workarounds. Some opt to use mirrors like thefreedictionary. For the masses though, they cannot use wikipedia for 24 hours, and they cannot work around it. It is a major disruption of operations, as far as they are concerned.
Yeah the only option is Wikipedia style protest, slashdot can never protest like google.com, in a manner which brings attention to the issue, but does not disrupt normal operations. I am not which google trends you have been looking at, but in USA trends, I see "wikipedia blackout", "pipa", "sopa" and a bunch of unrelated things. "Wikipedia alternative"is not one of them.
Whats not to like about NTFS? All my portable harddisks and my primary data partition uses NTFS. It is supported well by Windows, Linux and Mac, and can support most commonly used partition sizes.
IP addressed do give out their identity, just not, usually, enough to narrow down to a person that actually performed the action. If it is part of a static block owned by someone, you know it is was used somewhere within their network (unless you suspect the IP was faked at the BGP level, and the attacker is skilled enough to perform it, and what was gained is significant enough). To narrow it down to the person that actually performed it, you would need the logs of all network activity, which associates network access with some sort of person identifying authentication. I dont think any one really does this, so there you go, you cannot identify the person, but you can identify the network.
Slashdot Mirror
Name 1 thing bit of data that you've given to Google that they don't allow you to download them other than your ANONYMOUS search history.
Just so that you know, google does not allow you download non-anonymous search history either. I am usually logged in, when I perform a seach on google. Neither does google allow you download the search results you have visited (it does not even allow you view them I believe). Google does not allow me to download the list of websites I have visited and Google had noticed that I had visited it. It does not allow me to download the timestamps and IPs of my logins. I can go on and on, but you get my point. Google collect tons of information about me, which I dont get access to.
Okay, say I have been using this feature on chrome for a while, and say the password is saved by chrome and it allows me to look it up. Now I want to switch to IE (for whatever reasons). Now for each of the websites I have to open chrome password manager and locate the right password, copy it and paste it in IE. This is labour intensive enough that, nobody would ever want to do it. That sounds like a lock-in to me (my definition of lock-in is the inability to easily switch to a competing service).
And about the childish torts (what are you, 13?), its you who needs a clue.
there's nothing to stop ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE from parking a car out front of either of these places with cameras in them pointed at the front doors of these businesses
The property owner can ask them to leave and if they refuse to, stick them with a trespassing charge. If it is sort of robotic camera, they have the right to confiscate it. With the drone, they cannot do anything.
Pressure Cooker. It has been available for over 3 centuries now, and is pretty cheap and commonly available in any third world country.
8*6/(1+1) = 24. Am I playing it right?
Include non-adults, and the average becomes 1100 gms ~ 2.4 pounds.
Tire, engine and heater noise are easier to filter out. Try it with the radio on, or while someone else is speaking at the same time.
Indian law requires the government to negotiate a contract with the lowest bidder, that satisfies the requirements. If they wanted the capabilities of F-35, I am pretty sure the cheapest would have been the F-35.
Just playing the devils advocate.
I reviewed an academic paper (which unfortunately the others on the PC didn't like, so it wasn't accepted) which examined the economic model of Megaupload, related services, third-party links to Megaupload, and the popular files, especially the "Uploader Rewards", and concluded that the company's business model really was about "Profit from Piracy".
I agree with you on this, but it is not yet illegal to "Profit from Piracy".
Combined with the email trail that the feds apparently got (eg, emails concerning scraping of Youtube for the creation of MegaVideo, emails about reward payments including clear descriptions of the types of uploads), and the RICO indictments etc are not a surprise. (the indictment)
Scraping of youtube is violation of the terms of service, but again is not criminal act. I would be happy to see Megaupload sued by Google. Calling the description, clear, is a stretch. It includes file type and the description provided by the uploader. I would be surprised if any of these can be considered the real description.
For example, if its true that their takedown is by URL, but they duplicate based on hash (so one can have multiple URLs for the same file), thats clearly attempting to game the system, as any legitimate takedown system would take down all separate URLs which point to the same file. (Paragraph 23 on the indictment).
Again not a requirement of DMCA. In fact, apart from Youtube, I dont think anybody looks for similar files are removes them. Say you have two files in your server containing BluRay keys, and receive a takedown for one of them, would you also volunteer to take down the other?
Especially if this is related to the creation of a "dummy lifetime premium user" to "to prevent the loss of source files due to expiration or abuse reports" (from a Megaupload email).
Also, at least according to the indictment, there really should be very few legitimate files lost in this: Anonymous uploads needed to be downloaded every 21 days or they were deleted, and even free named accounts required 90-day downloads, which is very different from Dropbox and other systems, where persistence, rather than popularity-of-download, is the goal.
You should read their terms again. They dont "need" to be deleted in 21 days. They simply guarantee to retain your file for 21 days without any downloads in the period. Depending on their resource availability they could retain files they believe would bring them revenue, for as long as they like and in any structure they like. And why shouldnt popularity-of-download be a goal?
You are missing the most important (and most complex) point.
How can anyone know that account which uploaded the video does not actually hold copyright on it?
I dont believe one can either. But in this case they were pretty much caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The emails and communication prove that they knew a particular file was pirated and was being shared (hell, they even shared some of those themselves), and took no action.
Biggest question of all is - are service providers expected to look at every single file in order to determine whether it is pirated or not (answer is 'no', just in case you wondered)? Yes, of course they were aware about piracy on the site, but what can you realistically do about that except taking down files when they appear in DMCA notice?
No they are not. But when they come across one, that they know and acknowledge to be pirated, they better delete it. Its as simple as that.
There are so many things that need to be properly tested in court, this will certainly be a massive one.
I afraid megaupload is screwed either ways. There are plenty of other easy to prove charges like money laundering and tax evasion tagged on.
I believe even rapidshare pays you for popular downloads (I believe most websites do it). The difference is the intent and the wording. Emails between megaupload staff/executives state that they were paying for most popular movies at that time. It means they acknowledge and explicitly supporting piracy, and failed to remove content that they knew were pirated. If they had worded it as most popular files, they would have been safe.
Sorry for the self reply, but missed an import piece: They also have comply with DMCA request, apart from treating all files equally; and they are good.
I agree. Evidence collected for megaupload include emails that specifically mentioned paying users that uploaded the most popular movie. Note it was not a "file", but specifically a "movie". Rapidshare and dropbox are safe as long as they dont explicitly support piracy (unlike megaupload). If all they care about are files and even if they pay users for uploading most popular files, the would get a free pass. Atleast under current laws.
It could also be Negro, given that there are four dashes, it seems more appropriate.
From the wiki (the one you linked) : The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. The result is a structure that is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used.[12]
Also from the wiki "According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government". Just because the board of governors consider themselves to be part of the govt, doesnt mean they are part of the govt. Its like IBM saying it wants to make peoples life better.
The Board of Governors are appointed by the President and their salaries are set by the govt, but the input with which the Fed takes decisions is largely from the member banks. Its one of those strange public-private partnerships, that I would consider mostly private.
And It goes without saying that the board of governors are usually former Wallstreet barons.
Fed is not part of the government. Its a private entity controlled by the members.
Why settle for less? With todays processors and their temperature sensors, that can throttle the clock if necessary, you cannot ruin your hardware.
About the benefits, I do like the tiny bit of snappiness when I use slashdot (and some of the JS heavy websites). You would see significant benefits for any single threaded task you perform. For encoding you might want to try overclocking your GPU and see the difference. I can guarantee it would be significant percentage increase, and not seconds.
Blocking access to your service, in my opinion, is not the point. The point is to bring attention to SOPA/PIPA, inform them how serious this is. Not to deny service.
And I had contacted my rep months ago. And I did not have to find an alternative as I knew it has to be done using a script and used noscript to block all scripts. I was just mentioned one of the possible ways someone can use wiki if they needed it (giving people this info, does not mean they will not contact their reps, neither does, not giving this info, mean people will contact their rep. Both are independent actions).
I used NoScript to block the JS too, but only a few can use these workarounds. Some opt to use mirrors like thefreedictionary. For the masses though, they cannot use wikipedia for 24 hours, and they cannot work around it. It is a major disruption of operations, as far as they are concerned.
Yeah the only option is Wikipedia style protest, slashdot can never protest like google.com, in a manner which brings attention to the issue, but does not disrupt normal operations. I am not which google trends you have been looking at, but in USA trends, I see "wikipedia blackout", "pipa", "sopa" and a bunch of unrelated things. "Wikipedia alternative"is not one of them.
Many countries use the $ sign you insensitive clod.
Actually adblock is theft. By using adblock, you support grand theft, burglars and, er, arsonist.
Whats not to like about NTFS? All my portable harddisks and my primary data partition uses NTFS. It is supported well by Windows, Linux and Mac, and can support most commonly used partition sizes.
IP addressed do give out their identity, just not, usually, enough to narrow down to a person that actually performed the action. If it is part of a static block owned by someone, you know it is was used somewhere within their network (unless you suspect the IP was faked at the BGP level, and the attacker is skilled enough to perform it, and what was gained is significant enough). To narrow it down to the person that actually performed it, you would need the logs of all network activity, which associates network access with some sort of person identifying authentication. I dont think any one really does this, so there you go, you cannot identify the person, but you can identify the network.