Comment Re:Why? (Score 2) 474
Yes, even ubuntu.
Are you kidding? What is so challenging about booting to a cd, and then clicking "install"?????
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices.
×
Comment Re:Woohoo piracy returns! (Score 1) 203
And Santa Claus is real.
Do your research....
Comment Re:entrapment? (Score 1) 246
So, in actuality, they didn't "receive note" if the DOJ asked them to keep the files....
Submission + - U.S. Attorney Chided Swartz on Day of Suicide 1
theodp writes: 'The e-mail that Defendant Swartz’s supplemental memorandum cites as paramount to his fifth motion to suppress [evidence against him] is relevant, but not nearly as important as he tries to make it out to be,' quipped United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz in a court filing made on the same day Aaron Swartz committed suicide. In the 1-7-2011 e-mail Ortiz refers to, which was not produced for Swartz until Dec. 14th — almost two years after his 1-6-2011 arrest — a Secret Service agent reported to the Assistant U.S. Attorney that he was 'prepared to take custody anytime' of Swartz's laptop, although no one had yet sought a warrant to search the computer. In Prosecutor as Bully, Larry Lessig laments, 'They [JSTOR] declined to pursue their own action against Aaron, and they asked the government to drop its. MIT, to its great shame, was not as clear, and so the prosecutor had the excuse he needed to continue his war against the “criminal” who we who loved him knew as Aaron.' Swartz's family also had harsh words for MIT and prosecutors: 'Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney's office and at MIT contributed to his death. The US Attorney's office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims. Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for Aaron.' With MIT President Emeritus Charles M. Vest currently serving as a Trustee of JSTOR parent Ithaka as well as a Trustee of The MIT Corporation, one might have expected MIT to issue a statement similar to the let's-put-this-behind-us one JSTOR made on the Swartz case back in 2011.
