I couldn't figure out what this part of the summary meant:

Then I watched the video in the article, where they actually say:

i.e.: 56% is pretty close to the 50% you'd expect from just guessing. That one letter makes a big difference.

Did you read to the end? I saw this quote:

Where he said "we" (his group) sent it. Then I read the very next bit:

Where he said that "Person A was instructed to send the device" and "he heard through the group [xbox enthusiasts who paid for it] that the package never arrived." So the story says that a group paid for it, he gave it to someone with instructions to send it to that group, then the group said it never arrived. The article continues with:

So the guy was supposed to send it to the purchasers (who you'll recall complained that it never arrived), but he gave it to the FBI instead. There's a follow-on quote where Wheeler says the FBI bought the device, but that seems to contradicts his earlier statement that his first warning about being caught was that the purchasers complained the shipment never arrived.

I'm assuming you're talking about someone else (e.g.: an adult) looking at the picture a child took of herself. Which would show that person's intent to use as child porn, right? But it wouldn't by itself show the child's intent to create or distribute the image as child port. The OP's point was about "[t]aking pictures of yourself", not looking at pictures. I think the OP was saying that if the person taking the selfie didn't intend for it to be shared, then the act of taking that pic wouldn't be considered as creating child porn.

The point makes sense to me, but I'm not a lawyer (and I live in Canada), so I can't comment on whether American law works like that.

From the way the article describes it, the FBI actually stole the group's home-made XBox-like computer. The group used stolen login credentials to get the XBox specs and built a rig to spec with parts bought from NewEgg. Apparently a group of XBox enthusiasts paid $5000 for it (they knew it was a home-made rig), but then the guy who was supposed to send it to them handed it to the FBI instead.

To summarize: Group builds a computer with same specs as XBox. Group agrees to sell it to another group, and is paid $5000. During delivery it instead ends up in the hands of the FBI.

I'm in Canada, and we've been using chip cards for a few years now. I just called my bank 45 minutes ago after noticing a fraudulent charge on my credit card from August 30th. Since I bought a bunch of stuff at Home Depot in May/June, I'm assuming they managed to clone my card from the stolen data. The charge was only $4.56, at a gas station halfway across the country, so I would guess that someone was testing the clone to see if it was a valid card number (maybe testing one number from a batch of 100s or 1000s, to see if the numbers were legit.)

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying the fraudulent purchase itself was made using the chip. I only ever use chip + pin when making purchases, but I suppose a cloned card could use NFC (eg: PayWay) for a purchase that small, or even just the magstripe, neither of which requires them to have compromised my pin. My point is that I thought I was being safe using chip + pin, but still got hit regardless. Fortunately, banks seem to be good about this sort of thing, and my new card is on its way.

Goddamn it - Funny and Overrated shouldn't be next to each other in the moderation drop-down. Now I have to post here just to undo my mistake. Is there a way I could suggest to Slashdot devs that Overrated be moved up to be with all the other downmods at the top of the drop-down list, rather than tucked in between Funny and Underrated, so I don't hit it by mistake?