Anybody who actually knows Amir would find that hilarious.

He isn't in this for the money, he has given away all of his bitcoins (and I mean ALL).

You're talking about a country that has to import refined oil because they lack the technical ability to refine crude oil.

There is no way in hell they're going to clone a stealth drone.

This would effectively make unions the only options for such workers.

Fucking scam artists.

eGold failed because they were engaged in fraud and straight up money laundering

I can get dedicated 100mbit server with unlimited bandwidth for around 60-70 dollars a month

No actually you cant.

The reason the federal student loan program exists is because it ISN'T profitable to make that loan. Most kids are going to default, and the banks will be left holding the bag.

you can default on student loans, but you can never be absolved of them.

The only risk in making a student loan is that the beneficiary dies before they can pay it back, which is generally speaking a sound bet.

The movie played at various film festivals and was released in italy, then they soft launched in the US. At this point there was huge demand to watch the movie but absolutely no legal way for 99% of the people to watch it.

I would guess that it's probably one of the most pirated movies of all time.

They actually made an excellent movie.

However it was not available for purchase for 99% of the people who wanted to watch it, so people pirated it.

Shocking right?

The questions they ask and the available answers are fucking bullshit.

When you think about America’s energy needs, which of the following solutions come closest to your opinion?

• Strong investment in renewable energy like wind and solar
• More drilling than investment in renewables (mix of both solutions)
• More investment in renewable than drilling (mix of both solutions)
• Strong focus on offshore drilling and allowing drilling in federal lands including wildlife reserves
• Unsure

So they went after the LulzSec mouthpiece instead of after someone involved with their illicit activities. Certainly the weakest link in the chain, but I wonder realistically how much this will limit LulzSec.

I think using intent as a basis for this judgment is a slippery slope, though. My counterargument is, for instance, having a website which links to videos of people committing vandalism. Regardless of whether it's a site by some graffiti artist who admires the content they're linking to, or some "get off my lawn type" documenting crimes being committed, it should be allowed either way, even if it could be construed as supporting something illegal.

What if the site name was different, say, "scumbagcopyrightinfringingwebsites.net", from someone who works in the movie industry and wants to generate a public list of sites of copyright infringers for his employer to take down (unlikely, I know, but an example nonetheless)? The intent is wildly different, but the end is the same--someone could use it to find streams or what have you of shows they want to watch or songs they want to listen to.

What if the site just blindly compiles video results from the Google Custom Search API allowing people unfamiliar with Google hacks to find TV shows? Different intent, but no attempt to limit those who obviously intend to use it for copyright infringement. Should a site like this have to take into consideration the copyright holders?

I like using rlslog.net to conveniently find torrents. They host no copyrighted content whatsoever, only link to sites which link to torrents which in a sense link to a swarm of people who have parts of the file of interest.

I imagine that, just following random links on the internet from nearly any given site, I could eventually get to the site I mentioned above. How many links is enough degrees of separation? Surely if liability is introduced simply by linking to a website, you are liable for anything sites you link to also link to. I wonder how many government sites link to Google as their site search provider? Google can get you anywhere, so surely the government would in those cases be liable for linking to Google which links to torrent sites. And that's why this idea is completely absurd.

And how the hell is what this kid did worthy of extradition, or even a felony in the US? Our copyright policy is so ridiculous.

That is highly inaccurate, the price has dropped by order of magnitude more in the past relative to it's price at the time.

The cause of this is actually extremely simple, dwolla withdrawals from mtgox were down on mtgox for a few days, so nobody had any reason to sell BTC.

As soon as it came back up the volume of asks exploded.