Or to put it another way, if I can't figure out how to make facebook show me stuff that isn't shite, how are ordinary people going to figure it out?

edit: Also I've figured out that the reason I no longer hear from an awful lot of my facebook friends is that I've probably set at least half of 'em to "ignore" due to 'em posting too much garbage.

The reason sometimes we put too much emphasis on the basic-thermodynamics side of things is that we're busy fighting a war against dumb fad diets.

But once you acknowledge the basic calories in vs calories out principle, you can start thinking about what foods make it easiest to maintain a caloric deficit. Even the most 'traditional' of health authorities acknowledge that this is a factor, which is why they won't say "Hey, whatever, eat three slices of chocolate cake a day and nothing else". The first factor is making sure you get sufficient nutrition along with your calories, the second is making sure you feel full while maintaining a caloric deficit. There's a growing acknowledgement that low-carb diets can help with both of these.

This study suggests a third factor: that eating a low-carb diet can actually boost your base metabolic rate. How? Not sure. It would be interesting to see whether it gets replicated in a larger scale study.

"Card" isn't intuitive because this isn't the way people use cards in real life. The only analogy for using cards as a notification I can think of is in an old novel where a visitor comes to your door, your butler shows them into the parlour, and brings you their calling card so you can decide whether you want to see 'em. This nowadays lies outside most folks' field of experience.

To the other person calling them "atomic" bits of information, neither the information on "Google Now Cards", business cards, or index cards is "atomic". You can easily split the information and the bits still make sense. You probably meant to say "chunk" or "unit" or perhaps "self-contained"--though external links make them not very self-contained either.

I kind of get the idea they picked the word "card" because it's such a mundane, every-day word. And they want their product to appear like that. It's just a card! Must be easy to use!

Calling it a "message" or "notification" would also make it sound intrusive, like it interrupts your activity whenever it activates. A "card" has a very passive connotation, and that's the idea they want to give: It doesn't interrupt you, only when you look at your phone, it's right there presenting you with the info you need right now.

The problem I think is, we don't really have a every-day metaphor for such a thing. Maybe a "personal assistent", but I don't think they wanted to use a metaphor of something that is "alive", because it brings connotations of inaccuracy and doing all sorts of stuff with it, while they want just this thing that, when you look at it always happens to show exactly what you want to see.

They should've called it "psychic paper" :-) (Dr. Who)

Personally I feel a bit of annoyance at calling it "card" because if this thing really takes off they've claimed a mundane every-day use word with a rather inaccurate extra meaning. And if it doesn't, it's just a program that uses weird words for simple notifications.

I do like how they actually look like cards, rectangular with a subtle drop shadow, it looks good. I wonder what the three vertical dots are for? Some UI element or branding to make it look like a sort of sprocket perforations?

In any case it's likely whether or not it will catch on as a term-of-art will heavily depend on whether people want to use the service.

Google doesn't have a great track record when it comes to designing new products / interfaces so will be interesting to see whether this takes off or not.

Kim Dotcom legally changed his name, for whatever purported reasons (publicity, most likely). He willfully has chosen this as his legal name, and while the name (or his reasons) might be silly or frivolous, I think he is owed the due respect of calling him by his chosen name.

Other noteworthy examples of late have been Ron Artest changing his name to "Metta World Peace" and Chad Johnson to "Chad Ochocinco" (which he may have changed back, I cannot recall at this time).

Their chosen names may too be silly or frivolous, and I have seen media examples where they have called it out and said "forget that, I'm calling him Ron Artest/Chad Johnson, I don't care what his legal name is."

In my belief this is patently disrespectful, in the same way that it was disrespectful for people to call Muhammed Ali "Cassius" after he changed his name, and in the same way it would be disrespectful for me to call you by some name that you did not wish to be called by (legally, for religious purposes, or any other personal reason).

I do fully understand your stance and I wouldn't call it "wrong", I just don't agree with it.

What "attitudes" are jail-worthy? Be precise and justify your choices.

If there were such a thing as a Fields Medal for boxing, Ali would have won it. He wasn't just "good at punching people", he brought in techniques that changed the sport.

It's fine that you are comfortable being as ignorant about boxing as most people are about math. That's your prerogative. That said, dismissing someone's accomplishments based on your ignorance is a shitty thing to do.

  -- Muhammad Ali

It served a purpose. It got him publicity and was good for his career and in bringing attention to boxing. (I'm guessing you don't have anything good to say about Trump either.)

Quell the nerd rage.

They let people store data on their servers and access it over the web from their browser. That's it. You might as well say "Fuck Tim Berners-Lee, if current laws aren't good enough to stamp out things like the Web, then the laws will be changed until they can." Which, frankly, seems to be happening, unfortunately.

These assertions were corroborated by MegaUpload's own email.

Again: there are two sides to complying with copyright law to obtain protection under "safe harbor" rules. The side everyone is familiar with is "complying with takedown notices". But the other side, just as important, spelled out in the law, is not operating your service with foreknowledge of infringement. It isn't enough just to wait for copyright holders to send takedowns.

By actively courting piracy, MegaUpload forfeited safe harbor protections.

This question comes up in almost every thread about MegaUpload. The answer is very simple. Even if (in the back of their minds) the operators of Youtube must have known they were a haven for video piracy, so long as they themselves didn't engage with that piracy (and complied with takedowns) they were safe. MegaUpload's staff engaged.

Tell me about these affiliate programs. Did they really say "Please help us infringe other people's copyright. The more you infringe, the more money you make!"? My understanding was that they encouraged user interaction, no differently than Facebook or any other commercial web site out there.

On or about April 23, 2009, DOTCOM sent an e-mail message to VANDER KOLK, ORTMANN, and BENCKO in which he complained about the deletion of URL links in response to infringement notices from the copyright holders. In the message, DOTCOMstated that “I told you many times not to delete links that are reported in batches of thousands from insignificant sources. I would say that those infringement reports from MEXICO of “14,000” links would fall into that category. And the fact that we lost significant revenue because of it justifies my reaction.”

* "We have a funny business... modern days pirates", said one Mega- employee to another. "We're not pirates", he responded. "We're just providing shipping services to pirates."

* When an outsider complained that MegaVideo's hosting of the Showtime pay-tv series "Dexter" had desynchronized audio/video, instead of taking down "Dexter", Kim Schmitz fired off mail saying that fixing the AV problem was a priority.

* Mega employees themselves uploaded copies of major motion pictures to the service, such as Luc Besson's _Taken_.

* There are Mega emails, on which Kim is apparently CC'd, in which employees enumerate the specific files uploaded to certain high-performing affiliate members, noting (approvingly) that they include copyrighted movies and TV shows. For instance, one line item in an accounting mail: 100 USD [USERNAME DELETED] 10+ Full popular DVD rips (split files), a few small porn movies, some software with keygenerators (warez)

Remember: there are two sides to claiming "safe harbor": complying with takedowns, and not operating your service with actual knowledge of infringing activity on the service. Mega obviously operated with extensive actual knowledge of infringement. The operators of Youtube obviously knew that piracy was rampant on the Internet, and even on their service, but no prosecutor or litigator was ever able to show that Youtube's operators knew of specific, actual infringing activity on the site.

I found it easier to cite my comments from the last big Mega thread here than to go back to the indictment, which you can find easily on Google. The indictment is hilarious. The craziness at Mega just goes on and on. If you can think of something a lawyer would tell you not to do if you were going to run a file sharing service, Mega probably found a creatively terrible way to do it.

Face it: you're a strident defender of Mega, but never took a moment to look past the coverage of this case on sites like "Torrentfreak" to see the actual evidence the DOJ collected.

I'm not picking on you. I can't be: you're exactly like 98% of every defender of Mega on this site.

Happy to help! :)

Sigh....Assets get seized all the time during large raids and there is collateral damage, it is 100% legal. This isn't something new just because the MAFIAA was involved.

This is no different then Apple making a fortune off the ipod. The original iPod did not have a great store attached to it, it was simply a device for playing MP3s.

Wonder where all those MP3s came from?

Holding Mega accountable for the users actions is like saying Apple should pay the record companies for songs that were pirated on the ipods they sold, and continue to sell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0

I'm not in any way defending the actions of MU, its founders or staff, but it had only be established that such devices were legal a year or so before the iPod was released. At the time there was no way to legally purchase MP3- or AAC-encoded music from any of the major recording labels, so the idea that selling those devices (and distributing an MP3 encoder with iTunes for free) was inducement to infringe copyright on a massive scale wasn't so obviously without merit.

> By actively courting piracy, MegaUpload forfeited safe harbor protections.

You are segueing between talking about DMCA "red flag" knowledge and the inducement standard from Grokster in a rather confusing way.

If we're talking about DMCA "red flags", one needs knowledge (not foreknowledge) of specific acts of infringement, not merely knowledge of infringement in general[1]. There may have been an email proving that, as it's been quite some time since I read the indictment, but I don't remember one offhand involving Kim Dotcom himself. Then you talk about something that sounds like inducement. That's something the Supreme Court invented in Grokster and it's a different standard altogether. It's a theory of vicarious liability that relies on "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct" while "mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor to liability." [2]

I should also point out that Viacom had some incriminating emails from YouTube staff, which I believe you can find in some of the old Ars coverage of that case, but which I don't know the proper link to. But YouTube largely won the perception battle because of the obvious non-infringing uses of the site and because they went well above and beyond their DMCA obligations (though Viacom still sued them).

Mega is losing the same battle of perception because almost all of the non-infringing uses of their site were private (people sharing files among friends, rather than with the general public), while all infringing uses of the site were necessarily public. So even if they had a million innocent users and a thousand pirates, you'd only see all the files put up by the pirates and the million users would be largely invisible, because they had no interest in sharing their home movies (or whatever) with the world.

[1] "UMG v. Veoh held that generalized knowledge of infringement, without more, is not enough for red-flag knowledge" -- http://www.ipinbrief.com/dmca-contributory-infringement-vica...

[2] http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/comment...

That's obviously just Dotcom. When you broaden the inquiry to Mega's key employees, you find instances of them directly handling and uploading infringing content to the site.

Most damning from what I can read is the details of the affiliate program. In emails discovered by the DOJ, we have line-by-line accounting of Mega issuing payouts to people in which the actual line items specify that the activity being rewarded is infringing.

All of these, obviously, are cases in which Mega is shown to have actual, specific, actionable knowledge of infringing activity on their site. Rather than acting to retard infringement on the site, they are shown to abet it, groom it, and in many cases incentivize it financially.

All this should be obvious to anyone involved trying to run a content company on the Internet, of which there are many on HN. Does money fall out of the sky the moment you open a content site? No it does not. Most content companies fail, and portfolios are littered with the bones of companies that tried to make a go of file hosting.

What made Mega so profitable? Come on. We know what made Mega profitable. I don't understand why spend so much time vigorously kidding ourselves about this.

We've talked about this before; we both know that we've both read the indictment. To my mind: Mega is losing whatever "public perception" battle that they're losing because they're obviously a bunch of crooks. I'll happily soak up some downvotes in exchange for the ability to speak plainly. :)

Incidentally: my reading of the law doesn't come from Grokster; it comes from a plain reading of the DMCA, where the steps required to obtain safe harbor status are literally laid out in bullet points.

Of course, we're both focusing on US law and ignoring NZ law, which is more relevant, but less familiar to us all, and that's probably what this case will turn on in the end. Then again, knowing how these things get enforced in practice, the US authorities may find some way of making NZ law irrelevant.

I don't doubt that Kim could end up shipped off to America for trial, no matter what NZ law says about the subject.

Admittedly these issues are for the courts to decide, not message boards, but come on: by all the evidence available to us message board peons, these guys were a bunch of crooks.

This is not a fair example. A single staff member's personal use of the service has no bearing over the legitimacy of the service or whether the service has copyright liability. That's not the red-flag knowledge we're looking for.

Businesses that violate copyright -- even on massive scales -- usually resolve it through civil claims. I have little doubt Megaupload was a giant infringement scam, but if we let any vague or inconclusive evidence set a precedent for secondary copyright liability on a _criminal_ level, things could get out of hand.

My post was not intended as a defense of them per se. I care more about the generalities of the law, rather than about MegaUpload specifically. You made it sound like knowledge of infringement in general was enough when it's not, per Veoh, prompting my post. If they had knowledge of specific acts of infringement, they may well be in trouble, but that wasn't my point.

And I should probably disclaim that, as always, anyone with more than an academic interest in this should consult a lawyer.

I think in some of your responses you are mistaking a condemnation of the US law enforcement approach with a defense of MegaUpload's practices.

Let's say that investor G, a citizen of country U, owns part of a website S that profits by republishing PDF files without explicit permission of the rights' holders. Let's posit that somewhere there exists email showing that G knows that some of these files not always legal.

G also operates another website Y that allows members to submit links to content. G encourages frequent submitters by establishing a point system to reward submissions with increased status within the community. Graham then adds code to his website that automatically resubmits some of these links to S, causing it to be (on occasion) illegally hosted.

The government of a small Southern Hemisphere Z is then lobbied by it's constituent corporations to take action to prevent this crime, which is without doubt clearly probably illegal under Z's laws, and almost as certainly illegal in U. Would country U be justified in seizing G's assets, shutting down his companies, and imprisoning him while while Z is preparing it's case against him?

--

Personally, I don't really fault the US government for acting as it did. It took action that benefited its benefactors. You've got power, you use it. It's also hard to fault New Zealand, as it was probably offered as a "bargain you can't refuse". I don't dispute that Megaupload was only a viable company to the extent that it engaged in currently illegal activity, although I don't think this is different than the way many other now legitimate companies got started.[x]

But I certainly hold to task anyone who argues that the behaviour of the US goverment was legal, moral, or tolerable. I find it no more defensible than assassinating him with an unmanned drone operating within a sovereign country. At least if they'd done that they might have fewer defenders.

[x] Such as Google. In addition to my example here, and well before Youtube came into the picture, I'd suggest that from the beginning Google was based on what at the time was "clearly" illegal behaviour to many.

Scanning the web to index all the content one can reach, ignoring the clearly stated Terms of Service printed on these pages? Storing the full text on their own servers? Serving excerpts to users? Serving complete copies of these pages? All of this was in doubt, and I'm glad that no foreign superpower with an entrenched interest stepped in to quash it before it could develop further.

My belief is that there is no clear legal difference between Megaupload and many other sites on the internet, just differences in selective enforcement. Text search is fully legal, image search is largely tolerated but still formally debated (see recent German supreme court decision), and music and video remain the Wild West. It's not that there is no law, but the law as enforced not necessarily consistent with the law on the books. There is a moral and ethical landgrab going on, and I'd bet that some online activities that are "clearly illegal" today will be fully accepted as legal in only a few years.

Google, Dropbox, and so on were not founded by people who had been convicted of fraud, insider trading, and embezzlement, and in their entire adult lives only seemed to not be involved in criminal activity when they were still on parole from their previous conviction and so HAD to keep clean to avoid having parole revoked.

That tends to make people, including law enforcement, give Google and the others the benefit of the doubt when they say that any misuse of their service is not intended on their part and they will try to stop it.

In the MU case, setting aside the unsavory aspects of Kim Dotcom, they were well on the other, illegal, side of the letter of the law.

But in both cases, the defense of the behavior comes down to legal technicalities, as opposed to broader concepts of "fairness" or "ethicalness."

Really, it seems the same with Google, as long as they comply with the DMCA they are safe, but I doubt they care to much about the wellbeing of content owners whose content is being infringed and accessed through Google. That's money in the bank to them.

I'm not trolling, just curious as to your thoughts on this.

FWIW, I do support the concept of intellectual property. But I think it should be enforced against for profit entities, and take a live and let live when it comes to individuals copying for their own use. It's messy obviously, such a distinction might not be able to be enforced.

But I don't think it's as much a case of ethical behavior as other laws address (laws against violent crime for example).

As I keep saying, people need to wake up and take some responsibility for allowing our democratically elected governments to treat us the people like their business pawns. Problem is most people dont care because it does not effect them. Never forget the selfish serf serving nature of humans.

Sorry to be biter and negative, but history has left me no option. Government will prioritise business over the rest of us. I mean, banks?

FTFY

Edit: I could be wrong about the majority of HN but pg clearly feels that way.

Most also make their living off producing intellectual property, which is... interesting at the very least.

Also most will totally get onboard the intellectual property train as soon as it's the IP of a sympathetic target (e.g. The Oatmeal) that's being threatened.

Basically the average HNer believes that copyright law should be "I can have whatever I want for free", hasn't thought it through too carefully beyond that.

That's not the average HNer, that's the average human. HNers are willing to go to great lengths to justify and rationalize their self-serving positions.

Y'know that book "Fifty Shades Of Grey"? Well that's what your comment's gonna go through in the next hour if you disagree with (I can't believe I'm saying this) the hivemind.

edit: Also, what's with this new "You're submitting too fast. Please slow down" message you get if people start downvoting your posts? I've had it swallow a bunch of (intelligent) posts this morning due to the fact that I expressed an unpopular opinion on a copyright thread.

That fucking does it.

Nowadays, if you "Like" something, then that something can pay for the privilege to insert whatever stories it likes into your friends' facebook feeds, under the heading "so-and-so likes such-and-such" followed by your own message. Interestingly the person whose name is being used for the advertisement has no idea what ads are going out under their name.

Two of these in particular show up in my facebook feed several times a week and raise my blood pressure every time they do. One is a particularly annoying evangelical preacher slash motivational speaker who fills up my newsfeed with god-stuff due to the fact that a vague acquaintance I've met a couple of times happens to "like" him. Another is a political thing which fills up my newsfeed with posts I find highly disagreeable under the name of another friend of mine.

What were they thinking? Facebook has designed a feature which makes me hate my friends.

I find myself wanting to set up a Facebook account just to start screwing with that. Is it something that can be screwed with? ("jerf liked Crest brand toothpaste! He said: 'When you get home from a long day of work and just really need the unctuous feel of something smeared on your feet, there's nothing like Crest Toothpaste. Mmmm.... yeah.... oh my.... pics soon.'") Getting someone else to pay for that would almost be worth it.

Jerf likes Crelm Toothpaste [blah blah blah a big picture depicting how wonderful Crelm toothpaste is]

Of course, it could be no other way, since I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

As my message implies, I'm not actually on Facebook, but my wife yesterday registered a complaint about a cousin I have that "likes" a couple dozen things a day. (And again, disclaimer, I don't actually take the HN discussions to her, as a non-tech person she ends up bringing them to me. These are not uncommon feelings.) Of course Facebook is just selling eyeballs, but there's a delicate dance of deception they must do with their users to not let it become blatent. If it becomes blindingly obvious that the users are taking second priority to the real customers, the users will eventually leave, and then where will the real customers be?

It's almost enough that I want to email my family and tell them to unlike all the crap they liked... Even trying to get FB not to display "likes" from that person fails to hide them.

I just defriended someone who works for a social game company because they were pushing waaaay too many ads through to my feed. I felt bad about doing it because I don't mind the guy on a personal level, but shit it was annoying. Anyway, having defriended him I reloaded my news feed only to find that the ad was still there!

Now, maybe that's a one-off and the servers hadn't quite synchronized yet, but damn. Facebook makes me dump my friends to avoid ads and still gives me the ads!

It's like maintaining your inbox unfortunately.

Even if you put a person on "ignore" the ads will still show up.

That's funny. It's a little like chalk and cheese. I had a friend on Facebook who posted political links religiously, he swamped my news feed and it was pretty depressing. In the end - I somehow muted him. He's more recently moved over to a blog (I think he was annoying others too.) Can't say that I've bothered to tune in though. I miss it in a way.

My stream is even more flooded on G+. I'd rather a page full of teasers with click down stories. G+ is just overwhelming even if you do create circles.

For school teachers, perhaps the reason might be principal.

Also, he sure is good at chess.

And yes, he's amazing at chess. However that is not necessarily an endorsement of his abilities at anything else. Paranoid delusions seem to be a significant occupational hazard at top levels of play. (See Bobby Fischer for a significant example.)

Any theories on why that is?

Maybe having super-charged pattern-making ability makes for great chess AND great paranoia.