troll24601's comments

Arrests for large-scale commercial copyright infringement and money laundering schemes aren't new. This simply isn't an example freedom getting more and more restricted.

> however I unaware evidence in support of this

Read the indictment. It contains evidence of this (amongst other issues).

Thank you. It's nice that at least ONE person recognized that maybe their uninformed reaction to a short article might not be 100% correct, and was willing to go read the indictment and learn a bit more.

> I think you don't realize that my comment was a response to noonespecial: First they come for the sites that are 90/10 pirate to legit. ... When will it be too much? When does it become unreasonable?

If you'd read the indictment you'd know that the problem wasn't the percentages. We aren't standing on a slippery slope. Well, we are... but this case is not part of it at all. This case is a distraction from that problem.

This is, at it's heart, a completely traditional bust of a large-scale for-profit copyright infringement regime. Nothing particularly new about it at all, except that instead of finding a warehouse filled with tapes or discs, it's all on spinning metal disks.

You are grossly misconstruing the nature of the emails whilst avoiding the other points entirely.

Read the indictment.

If you'd read the indictment you'd know this has nothing to do with the government monitoring the Internet.

Sadly you were too busy comparing the enforcement of long existing laws to creeping genocide to read the actual case.

Nothing about this case makes me fear your future.

I read the indictment. The cause for fear simply isn't there.

It's useless to pretend you're keeping an eye on the government when all you're really doing is getting a tiny shred of information and then getting hysterical because of it.

Please don't pat yourselves on the back simply because you're able to get hysterical with your willfully ignorant, less-than-half-baked ideas about what happened. You aren't doing something noble, you're doing the opposite. You're making it hard to fight REAL fights because you're using energy on bullshit.

KIM DOTCOM is a convicted criminal. (securities fraud, embezzling, and some other crap)

He's about to be tried again, for another crime. But he's already a criminal.

The person I responded to was comparing mass genocide to the orderly trial of a criminal who is suspected of committing more crimes. That disgusts me. It casually trivializes massive horrors.

Your first two numbered points are not even close to true. If you bothered to read the indictment, you'd know this.

Sadly, you (like most of HN) are raging without bothering to get any real information first.

If you bothered to read the indictment, you'd see they weren't complying and that they were actively facilitating.

I'm pretty sure that the Feds didn't get copies of emails from Eric Schmidt saying that they need to fix the audio/video synchronization on the Sopranos... or that they need to rate-limit DMCA takedowns so they don't interfere with growth... or that they should ensure that when they do takedowns that they don't take EVERY copy down.

It's a specious comparison, made possible only because almost nobody on HN bothered to read the indictment before they got mad.

It's disgusting that you chose to reappropriate that quote in this context.

If you read the indictment, it's clear that this was the purposeful monetization of pirated material. It wasn't a few users who uploaded some things. It was a criminal site, operating in bad faith, committing a multitude of crimes.

You should seriously be ashamed of yourself for comparing those famous words to seven criminals (who have strong evidence against them) who are about to get a jury trial.

I'm not an investor, but I've had a parallel experience having been involved with roughly 150 tech contracts in my career.

A strong predictor for mediocrity is when communication is troubled. If we're unable to have two-way conversations with all project stakeholders, it's almost a guarantee that we'll end up delivering something that has less value than it could, at a higher cost than was possible, and that nobody is thrilled with.

So to clarify: if you do work with the intent of selling it to one buyer it should be protected, but if you do work with the intent of selling it to two or more buyers it should not?

I assume that once you pitch designs to one of your clients, it's fine with you if they photograph it, copy it, and never pay you a dime?

People love design, and do great design without making a single dime on it. The rich designers are rich because professional networking, big companies and IP laws make them big. Not because they were the best of the crop.

Boo Freaking Hoo. Real designers do it for love. Only phonies want to get paid.

The bill did pass. The ACLU and the Supreme Court got rid of it.

This is typical for how Postgres adds features and functionalities. They tend to add a new core feature in one release, then add adjacent functionality and performance improvements in later releases.

I'm not on their core developer mailing lists, but I presume this is because of a prioritization of stability over most everything else.

I apologize if my question was unclear; that's almost certainly because of a lack of expertise on my side.

On one end of the spectrum, I envision the same salt used for every user, allowing for the easy and effective creation of rainbow tables. On the other end, I envision unique salts with many bits of entropy for each user, making rainbow tables technologically infeasible.

Do you know what hash was used, if the passwords were salted and if so, if the salt is secure?

Approximately 1/4 of Americans have no way to come up with $2,000 in 30 days. An additional 19% would need to pawn/sell possessions and/or take payday loans to raise $2,000 in 30 days.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/2011...

(edited to use a freely available copy of the paper)