htsh

Its still going to use the Linux kernel, and that makes it Linux I think, though we're messing with semantics.

Regardless, I agree with your view that the blowback is ridiculous. The more people that are using free software, the better for all of us. I think people are irrationally tied to the Microsoft brand and any comfortable step away from that is nothing but a good thing.

I am excited that a big-name like google is doing something like this. It means I likely have to worry less and less about good drivers for more hardware.

My view is that Ubuntu has a long way to go in terms of brand recognition before non-tech folks will jump in. But I agree with your positive view of this news. I think more people would be likely to jump into a Linux-based os with the Google brand behind it. People have heard of Windows & Mac and they are still mostly afraid of the unfamiliar Ubuntu, but selling people on "google" is easy, if not already done.

still doesn't work for me. I get the first paragraph and that's it.

Is there a way to read this article without subscribing? It sounds fascinating and I would love to read it. I'd even pay to read the individual article, but that doesn't appear to be an option.

Agreed, I had to stop reading when the drawing of the pyramid scheme came up, as its complete speculation based on a move Ning made to email all users of the site, even those who are members of paid sites (who pay specifically to avoid adverts). That move is newsworthy in itself but this is highly speculative and sensationalized.

well said, exactly the same experience here. I looked all over that first page for an idea of what it did before clicking on "About." In general, leaving a page to figure out what it does is simply not what I expect to do anymore.

a couple of questions out of curiosity:

first, why would facebook do this? Is it anything more than negligence?

Second, what are the consequences besides some facebook messages ending up truncated? Do excessive messages of this type choke up mailservers or anything else of the sort?

Agreed. I posted that hastily. I think your posts shed some light on the situation even further, in that usually when you don't need mens rea we're talking of minor or petty crimes.

Wow. Unduly lenient for disagreeing with $80,000 per track? As you can see from the above conversation, I'm fine with something like $10 and then perhaps a $100 administrative fee.

Again, if we're talking crime, you have to have an intent to commit that crime. If she wanted to listen, she gets punished for it. If she shares unintentionally (which is likely the case as most p2p applications share everything you download), then punish her a little more on top of it but don't treat her like she's some organized bootlegging ring.

Well its about the fact that there's no cap on statutory damages, and that when you string together multiple infringements, how out of hand things can get. I don't think her poor defense changes this concurrent conversation.

Regardless of how poorly she lied or tried to cover up the fact that she downloaded these tracks, we should not ignore the pettiness of the underlying crime relative to the fine.

Again, doesn't every p2p application share by default? Is there any evidence that she wanted to share? And unless there's another motive here besides her wanting to listen to the music, I still don't think we shoult treat her like some bootlegging operation that sells thousands of cd's in downtown manhattan (to customers that are more likely to buy the cd).

Also -- she likely would have gotten less of a penalty if she had indeed shoplifted these cd's and then sold thousands of copies on a chinatown corner. I'm just sayin'...

Again, crimes usually have to have some sort of intent component. She wanted to download and listen, not share, this music.

Isn't this the issue everytime someone downloads a song since every p2p & torrent client automatically shares the stuff you download? It seems silly to punish her for a systematic feature of the software she used to download the tracks.

I dunno - it seems that if we're going to punish her for sharing as well, do we then not go after those 7-8 people that downloaded from her? Seems like there's a bit of double-dipping that's possible here (which again would lead to an Infinite amount of damages).

But i'll give you that. We're now at $8-$10 a track. Which makes her fine somewhere between $200 and $17,000, still orders of magnitude less than the actual outcome.

24 tracks, how about $24 dollars? I'd even give them double, or $48. For the 1700 tracks (that she allegedly downloaded but was not tried for), $3400. The extra dollar for each song goes towards the administrative costs of tracking them down.

It seems pretty gutless of the "artists" on this list, like Gwen Stefani, to sit by and watch someone's life get ruined for downloading their music. I would love to hear their take on this. We can blame the extortionist middlemen all we want, but this is not going to change unless the artists say something.

In my mind, to stand by while folks' lives are ruined for downloading your over-marketed/overpriced music is far worse than what Lars did when he simply said he didn't like Napster.

1. You might be right that its too easy to get, but that's changing, and Adderall is a class 2 controlled substance. By the books, it should not be easy to get.

2. Completely agreed -- if you take a lot of Adderall, it can be bad regardless of whether or not you have ADD. One of the common bad outcomes results from a lack of sleep after prolonged use, and that happens across the board.

3. I meant to say that if you're an alcoholic / smoke weed / depressed / addictive personality -- you should be screened from taking Adderall, not that you can't have ADHD. In fact, many folks self-medicate their ADD by smoking weed.

You might be scientifically right in questioning the veracity of that specific statement but at the same time its generally true and good advice. In other words, Adderall is a powerful drug with some potentially serious side effects. If you haven't been prescribed it, chances are it'll end up bad.

For example, its got a high chance of ending up poorly if you have any sleep issues, if you have depression, if you have an addictive personality, if you're an alcoholic, or if you smoke weed (generally the paranoia one experiences from weed can make amphetamines even more dangerous).

I think that's why folks are downvoting you. You might have a small point here, but its rather nitpicky. If you don't have ADD and you're using Adderall all the time, I'd bet money its going to hurt someone, which is all the OP said.

Agree completely. The catch-22 here is that if you're not getting good sleep as it is, Adderall is most certainly not going to help. And not sleeping over time has some pretty hefty consequences.

That's the exception more than the rule.

And frankly, what you say happened is illegal in America. Adderall is a schedule 2 controlled substance, which means no refills at all, much less for a year.

edit: I can't reply below so I'll do it here. Agreed -- there's a scary underside to this story and its that at most universities (especially the top-tier), its much too easy to walk in and get a prescription. Also, at both universities I've attended it was known that you could buy it in certain areas in the library.

Here you go:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/16/cyberwar-guide-for-i.ht...

Be careful. I had a nightmare of a time with Adderall, which led to a manic episode and a year of my life lost to recovery. Whatever you do, don't ask us, ask your doctor.

Its a rare side effect but it happens for folks who are susceptible to depression or bipolar stuff..

I'll doublecheck my IM logs. I know the slashdot thing was on the frontpage yesterday, but the other info I've been getting via IM from several friends with family over there..

This is kinda cool: http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/15/how-to-setup-a-proxy-f...

I've heard that proxies are being passed around already. Also, saw some assistance in that area going on over at slashdot..

no monetization? how about selling concert tickets to all of the new people that like your music? or t-shirts?

A slightly better writeup: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8097324.stm

I don't think that's their primary argument or that he's trying to make an argument at all; its more an an observation that piracy helped him obtain some of the music he loved most growing up, especially the obscure stuff. Again, I agree with you, its just you're framing his thoughts as an argument that's trying to win people over when I think that is a bit unfair.

Well said. As an example, their latest headline is complaining that the one of the Pre development wikis that was about tethering the Pre was forced to shut down. They are trashing the dev's for not getting involved in a big, ugly legal battle which they will eventually lose.

This has been a standard cat-and-mouse game in the industry for many years. Apple shuts down sites that deal with hackintoshes, MSFT shuts down sites that talk about modding the 360. Nobody likes that kind of crippling of hardware, but its not news. Usually, that development happens anyway, its just moved underground somewhere.

Anyway, the TC folks see some sort of value in reporting that the devs are weak in some way for caving in to big, expensive lawyers. It seems like when its anything involving the Pre, they trash it and the people around it like Hannity does to Obama.

My point on why it was a poorly written story was that he implied it was some sort of "secret" which he was breaking. Sure, most people missed the google voice FAQ which talked about this, but don't call it something it was not. Even if it was good, useful information, calling it a "secret" is a bit self-important.

And completely agreed with your point on HN comments for TC stories. That is a nice side-effect.

Yeah its the only bad thing I see about HN; it seems like everything t/c says makes it to the front page for some reason. You click on the headline, read the sometimes inflammatory/trollish story, scroll down and see that the author and commenters are usually fighting about something silly. t/c is by no means a site for "hackers" to read..

A good example -- google voice announced months ago (when the site launched) that portability would be coming soon. Somehow Arrington figured it out yesterday and posted a really poor story implying it was some sort of "secret" weapon for Google (and got into the requisite argument with a commenter). That story somehow ends up on the HN front page.

I don't get the HN obsession with TC -- slashdot / reddit / digg and the other nerdy sites seem to ignore it and I wish this site would treat it like what it is as well.