Well, lets see, from the affidavit...

RapGodFathers.com and RMX4U.com both had forum sections labeled "Bootlegs" and "Appz" with admin written descriptions stating they were for the posting of links to illegally shared content. So they were encouraging copy right violations.

Torrent-Finder.com appears to be entirely clear of any wrong doing based on what is in the affidavit. Every piece of "evidence" came from some other website and Torrent-Finder presented it as news without any editorial comment being noted.

Dajaz1.com and Onsmash.com are both run by idiots apparently. They (and the artists that leaked to them) forgot that when the RIAA handed those huge ass checks to the rappers the RIAA got the copyrights. Doesn't matter that Kayne West told them they could leak his stuff... he doesn't own the distribution rights to it any more.

I doubt DHS and ICE are going to get their asses handed to them for busting 2 sites that skirted the rules so closely they fell over the edge, and 2 sites that found out the hard way that artists who sign with RIAA members don't own their distribution rights anymore.

The Torrent-Finder.com situation seems to be the only one that has no basis.

That would let you verify that you cast a ballot and it was indeed counted. How do you verify that the selections you made were the ones actually recorded on the ballot?

But the words themselves don't have any actual meaning. Of course they've been carefully crafted as you pointed out to invoke "my space" and "a book of faces", but even then there is no actual meaning is there? There is enough wiggle room that the developer gets to define what it means.

Diaspora already has a well defined meaning. And to some people it means something quite ugly indeed.

I understand the developers wanted to invoke "the movement or migration of a group of people away from an established or ancestral homeland", but they seem to have ignored the fact that when something is referred to as a diaspora it wasn't all that fun, or social, or enjoyable as far as the people it affected were concerned.

They should have invented a word. A nice, short, easy to type, easy to say, and easy to remember word. Then they could give it what ever meaning they wanted to.

It is insightful because it points out one good reason why the previous social networking giants, "Myspace" and "Facebook" picked made up words for their names instead of using a real word that conjures up a lot of different meanings.

Not to mention the people who aren't going to use it because they don't know what the word means
Or the people who won't use it because they don't know how to pronounce it
Or the people who won't use it because they don't know how to spell it
Some of my hickiest relatives tell me to go check out their "myspace" page, or their "facebook" page. I can't ever imagine any of them telling me to go check out their "Die-Ass-Pour-A" page
Great concept, lousy name

Well the argument now isn't about allowing Flash, it's about allowing C/C++/Objective C applications that Adobe Flash CS5 exported from an application that was originally built with Flash. Apple had a case when they wanted to keep Flash off and keep everything C/C++/Objective C based, but if Adobe has managed to build a compiler that turns Flash into Objective C then Apple has no business rejecting apps simply because they were developed on software from a company they don't like.

I am curious... do these trips often start with putting a small piece of paper that have a picture of Spongebob on them on your tongue first?

I find it hard to believe that we've come up with a completely silent turbo-prop and that they fly so high above the earth that they can't be seen.

Haven't seen anywhere in an article what they've been able to look at. All I can see is 'video' so not sure if that includes the infra-red stuff or not. Oops, sorry, don't wanna tip off the enemy. I mean the super-spooky, vodoo video.

The enemy knows exactly how those things work. You know how they found out? When the war started our side couldn't get enough video out to the news outlets to show how awesome we are.

Rule of thumb for insurgents: If you get buzzed by a drone they probably spotted you

Rule of thumb for US Military: If you buzz someone and they are holding a laptop and a satellite dish they spotted you

In all seriousness has it given them any advantage at all? Even with them seeing the images they haven't really countered them have they?

Well that would probably work too.

You are a young military go getter assigned to sit around all day watching video of sand.

Suddenly a vision of a BLT races by.

Do you head to your superior? Or do you head to the cafeteria for a snack?

The drone is flying over your head. It circled around and came back. Guess what? What ever you were doing drew a US operator. See how easy it is? And I didn't even *need* to see the video.

Figuring out better cover is easy too. Put a sandish colored tarp over what you're doing. Did the drone that just flew over come back? Bingo! You're probably golden. Has it come back 47 times in the last two days? I'd say you need a new tarp.

Honestly, what is the big deal?

FTA: '... the intercepts could give America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under US surveillance.'"

An advantage? How? You know how the insurgents can figure out what roads and building are under US surveillance? It's the ones we keep flying drones over! I mean they can see the drones, they can hear the drones, they know what they're doing when the drones fly over them, they know the drones are taking video and pictures, and they should already have a pretty good idea what is in the video and pictures already.

Now if they somehow figured out how to tap into the cameras and have the drones relay video and pictures when they were flying back into base then I would say they've got an advantage, or if they tapped into actual satellite and spy plane footage.

Sure it's a bit stupid they didn't encrypt the actual feed but is the enemy getting any information they didn't know about already?

The Constitution of the United States applies to the Federal Governement

The Bill of Rights applies to everyone citizen or not.

The Bush Administration was able to detain and torture people because they ignored both and we let them get away with it.

Just curious but did he have anything to say about Peter Cooper's assertion that a freely available e-book would promote hard copy sales? I've pirated a few e-books in my time and almost every single one of the ones that actually turned out to be useful resulted in the actual book sitting on my bookshelf.

I read the first couple of chapters of that Stephen King crapfest. The only idea he had for that was to see how little actual content he could string together in an incoherent jumble and sell as a "Chapter" to get people to pay way more then they would have for an actual book.

The big problem I see with Valve's idea is you would need a community that actually trusts you to deliver on your promise. Pre-Left 4 Dead 2 announcement Valve probably had that kind of community. They don't any more and apparently haven't begun to realize it yet. Valve had a great community that would plunk down money for a promise. Why will that community keep plunking down money when Valve has shown that they'll walk away from their end whenever they think it serves them better?

Besides this idea isn't that far off from what is already happening in the game market. Heck, how many games come out now that aren't really any where close to being a finished product with the idea that if they are successful enough the company might (or might not) bother to fix them? All he's really proposing is that instead of paying to beta test the games like we do way to often now, we start paying at the barely an idea phase. How many times will the community invest in game ideas that go no where before they stop throwing good money after bad?

Another thing, what would stop Valve (or anyone who tried this approach) from taking the money, creating some barely working mishmash of ideas that show some promise, release a barely working version as the "finished product', and then promptly turning around and releasing the a more polished, "completely different", even though it's almost exactly the same game, as a separate property?

The answer? Not a damn thing.

I'm not saying this idea wouldn't work. But it would depend a large part on the level of trust your audience had that you would actually deliver a final product.

I imagine you're on to something.

If I'd have been on that jury when they flipped over the harddrive and said "Hey... this thing couldn't be the right one it wasn't even made yet according to the date stamped ont it"

I would have turned to the person sitting next to me in the jury box and said "This person just wasted a week of our lives. I no longer feel sorry for her at all."

(well... ok... I'd have used more colorful language I'm sure)