VUDU office break in - <AUTHOR> http://www.vudu.com/pressroom.html <comment><AUTHOR> Got an email from VUDU about this, several things were stolen form their offices, includes hard drives:

"Our investigation thus far indicates that these hard drives contained customer information, including names, email addresses, postal addresses, phone numbers, account activity, dates of birth and the last four digits of some credit card numbers. It's important to note that the drives did NOT contain full credit card numbers, as we do not store that information. Additionally, please note if you have never set a password on the VUDU site and have only logged in through another site, your password was not on the hard drives.

While the stolen hard drives included VUDU account passwords, those passwords were encrypted. We believe it would be difficult to break the password encryption, but we can't rule out that possibility given the circumstances of this theft. So we think it's best to be proactive and ask that you be proactive as well."

As is the case in almost every password breach, it would be nice to know exactly how they "ecnrypted" the passwords.</comment>


I'm in my 20′s, and nowhere near my prime - <AUTHOR> http://antjanus.com/blog/thoughts-and-opinions/im-20s-nowhere-near-prime/

<comment><USER2> I am in my 40's and past my prime for working long hours, but just coming into my prime for managing a company and staff, and getting better at planning and managing multiyear projects. Life also tends to be less complex when you are in your 20's, before having kids, dog and mortgage(s).

There is not much point worrying about it, until someone invents a time machine or age-reducer machine. I am sure we will read about that on HN first.</comment>


Unwebbable - Not all documents can be a web page - <AUTHOR> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/unwebbable/

<comment><USER2> "Nobody seriously intends screenplays on the web to have the same function they do in real life: getting read, getting optioned or bought, and getting shot. All of that happens on paper, not on Firefox."

Why not? It's pretty straightforward to paginate something or divide it like a physical page. In the case of screenplays, the 'page' was engineered around because it was a physical limitation. The author's example of Final draft and it's default format of XML is exactly what I am talking about - scripting that to be presented in HTML is not difficult.

I feel like this entire article is complaining about HTML and HTML5, while reaching for tenuous examples and not really accomplishing much.

<comment><USER3> Interestingly, Celtx (<http://celtx.com/>) is a screenplay editor built out of Firefox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I might be an ill-trained author, but I don't mind writing

instead of

        <stagedirection>

I think (X)HTML + CSS is extensible enough for me. The former is only slightly less readable than the latter for maintainers of my code, and my paramount goal for the rendered document can be achieved equally well with both.

<comment><USER5> Well I'm _certainly_ an ill-trained author and it seems to me that the details of the markup are wholly irrelevant to the people actually writing and making movies.

The screenwriter should be chugging along with (e.g.) a dialect of markdown that keeps the details the hell out of his way. Whether the markup that comes out the other side looks like XML or HTML just doesn't matter.

And "1 page = 1 minute" is a dodgy heuristic* that could easily be supplanted by software that could process the source and _know_ what's set direction, scene changes, dialogue, etc.

* "1 page = 1 minute" has long since gone from handy heuristic to self-reinforcing delusion.

Today, if a screenwriter is selling an average (hundred minutes, more or less) movie, he will _ensure_ that his script is a hundred pages (more or less). He'll tweak margins, font sizes, spacing, descriptions and more. He doesn't want his masterpiece stigmatized when it makes the studio rounds just because it showed up thirty pages either side of proper.

And so it goes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Of course all documents can be a web page. Sumerian clay tablets can be a web page. Does it make sense to introduce hyperlinks and other markup to Sumerian clay tablets? Not to me, but that's something I don't feel the need to worry about.

</comment><comment><USER7> Wow, alistapart has jumped the shark, I fear.

This article is just complaining about a whole host of non-problems. He's just made the case that there should be a microformat for screenplays, and a tool to convert the Final Draft XML format into said microformat, and some CSS to style it nicely. The
 tag is pretty much a perfect analog to the screenplay page break.

As for MathML, there are authoring tools that a) convert handwritten math equations to mathml and b) convert mathml to images in web pages. People are actually using these.

This article just made me angry. _OH NO_ , I thought as loudly as possible. _PEOPLE ARE WRONG ON THE INTERNET!_

While people like Joe Clark decry the shortcomings of our tools, the rest of us are using these tools to get real world things done.

Also, the picture looks like a penis. Srsly.

</comment><comment><USER8> Internal representation is different from display representation. So long as it looks good on a screen, I don't really care what the markup looks like.

You can then represent it internally in any format that you want. XML sounds good, because it is completely general, but that generality can also be a curse (due to its self descriptiveness, it is pretty much never the most compact way to represent structured data).

Screenwriters are old fashioned, but will definitely come around over time (just like filmmakers are slowly switching to digital). There are already web apps that allow you to write screenplays online - <http://www.scripped.com> is one. I'm sure that, in the long-term, the collaborative aspects of the web will trump any technical difficulties.

</comment><comment><USER9> This example seems almost unbelievably bad.

Screenplays have well defined rules of organization and formatting that actually lend themselves nicely to being represented in HTML.

</comment><comment><USER10> Actually this is in interesting point. One that, I suppose, XHTML was supposed to fix (but never did).

Developers are getting more and more into (it seems) semantic content. I like that - but I never really bother because, as this article points out, Html is too locked in anyway there is little point.

(incidentally it took me a while to take the article seriously... the image they used looks, well, like a penis...)

</comment><comment><USER11> Although the title has link-bait value, if taken seriously I would say that it basically reveals an author with limited vision.

In my experience there are nearly _no_ documents (that have any significant value to me) that I _would not_ want to see "webified". I love the options provided - to excerpt, cut/paste, add links, etc. Needless to say... no big scribd fan here.

</comment><comment><USER12> Don't know much about the author and don't really understand his points .. I've always wondered who are writing and reading the List Apart .. For me looks like literature about web design and web frontend technology which is _weird_</comment>


Social Network for Meditators - <AUTHOR> http://www.joinsphere.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> We started Sphere with the vision of creating a global movement around health, happiness and connection. All of us have experienced first-hand the impact that meditation has on our lives and are excited to share a new approach to teaching it with all of you!

We have found that features like calendar integration, a flexible timer and meditations for specific uses (relax, sleep, nerves) are indispensable for a complete meditation experience.

Today we're proud to announce that we Sphere combines all these features into a beautifully simple interface. We've chosen the iPhone as our first home and we are already working on Android and web apps!</comment>


Bitcoin and cryptocurrency prices have fallen sharply over the last few days - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/03/12/the-real-reason-behind-bitcoin-ethereum-ripples-xrp-and-litecoins-50-billion-crash/ <comment><USER2> It's a common misconception that Bitcoin is a safe haven. It's not. Not even Gold is a safe haven during a liquidity crisis. In sharp downturns, cash is king.

Think of Bitcoin and Gold as call options on the entire global monetary system. If Govs become insolvent, Bitcoin and Gold is there. If the masses lose faith in central banks, Bitcoin and Gold is there. If central banks debase currencies too quickly, Bitcoin and Gold is there. That is the staying power of scarcity via well known stock to flow ratios.

I'm glad Bitcoin is not inversely correlated to equities, because that would mean Bitcoin went _down_ in an equities uptrend. Being non-correlated is superior: Bitcoin marches to it's own drum.

All this being said: cash is king in times of uncertainty. Bitcoin is a speculative bet that "money without masters" will become an essential part of the future monetary system. We're a long way from that still.

Advice in good times and bad: maintain a deep safety net and don't get too nuts with debt or leverage.

<comment><USER3> bitcoin is not really "there" the same way as gold is.

The whole point of gold is that it is a tangible asset. You can hold gold in your pocket or under your mattress and it costs nothing to store it. You can't prove you have bitcoin if you don't have internet access for example. You can't have bitcoin if miners don't run their nodes. Basically, you are depending on a resource in faraway lands to let you "own" what you have. What kind of asset is that?

<comment><USER2> This is another misconception.

Gold can be held, yes. It also is expensive to verify, transport, and protect. This has proved problematic for holders of the past. A paper system had to be built on top of Gold, which severely diluted the value proposition as gold was confiscated and stockpiled centrally. Practically speaking, very few individuals hold gold and the utility of doing so is limited when you consider how liquidity in the gold market functions.

Bitcoin is a different beast. You hold the cryptographic keys (like a password) which let you move Bitcoin to someone else's address (under their password). You don't trust anyone: Bitcoin is verified by math, not humans. It is tangible in the same way that owning google.com is tangible (and unarguably valuable). Bits and bytes exist on a global network and only you can move them.

When compared to Gold, Bitcoin is interesting because it is highly transportable, easily divisible, and censorship resistant. Consider this: Bitcoin let's you store $1T USD of dollars in your head, transport it anywhere in the world, and there's not a single thing anyone else can do about it.

<comment><USER4> You don't have to transport a heavy metal, instead all you have to do is ensure an electrical grid, fully functional internet access, and a distributed network of other people! I'm not sure that's any easier than carry around metal :P

<comment><USER2> I see: you're concerned with a future where the concept of an internet ceases to exist? I'm afraid money will be the least of our problems then.

<comment><USER3> for me, it not so unthinkable that you could have intermittent access to the internet (out days at a time), or that some parts of the internet would not be accessible for extended periods of time

for you it seems that must equate the end of the world where it doesn't matter anyway.

<comment><USER2> This is an interesting scenario worth thinking through.

If Bitcoin is forced to go split-brain temporarily, the network could coordinate to rejoin after the fact. Or, it could stay split in two.

Regardless, infighting over which network was "the real Bitcoin" would ensue. See Bitcoin Cash and friends.

<comment><USER5> A "rejoin" isn't really possible. People who spent money on the "wrong" chain will simply have to live with the fact that their money is lost on the "right" chain, although it will probably not be an overnight thing. The two forks could exist for a long time after the split simultaneously, and many merchants may accept either form of payment. There will even be arbitrage between the two chains as profit can be made.

Ultimately, one chain will come to dominate the other, and the ones who fight hardest for it to be their chain will probably find they're on the wrong one. That's because people on the right chain will not need to fight about it. They'll just be running their software as they've been doing till now, and it will pick the correct chain for them. The ones screaming "you need to download a new client" will proceed in destroying their own reputations.

<comment><USER2> So which is more likely: severe debasement of USD or the devolving of the global internet (ala an increase of firewall-ism by nation states)?

<comment><USER6> In my opinion: the latter.

<comment><USER2> You think the internet is going to be compartmentalized before USD is devalued?

Fed is printing $4T this week!

<comment><USER2> Update: Fed just committed to unlimited liquidity injections through money creation. USD debasement is now a guarantee.

Welcome to the new normal.

[https://twitter.com/apompliano/status/1238463895095869440?s=...](https://twitter.com/apompliano/status/1238463895095869440?s=21)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One of the supposed benefits of holding cryptocurrency that has been peddled is that it is a strong hedge against a down turn in traditional securities. Here we have a new, real data point to the contrary.

<comment><USER8> Since almost nobody is using Bitcoin to pay for things it's just a giant speculative thing. It's not a safe haven.

<comment><USER9> People are using bitcoin to pay for cash, and vice versa. Besides drugs, that's its primary purpose.

<comment><USER10> What's the payment volume ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have to say, the crypto market's strong ties to traditional finance in this crash surprise me. I understand selling off stock because of expected corporate losses, I don't understand mass conversions to FIAT especially when "print more money" seems to be the fed's response to this.

<comment><USER12> My take on the selloff is people looking for liquid cash. Very similar to stockpiling home supplies. People are looking for stuff they can use or trade in the very short term because they don't know how bad it would get. It's a lot harder to do that today with crypto.

I haven't seen anyone with strong reason to believe that companies are gonna be that much worse off a year from now than they were a month ago, or for the four years after that, so I don't see a reason to sell stocks based on expected company performance anymore than to sell crypto - but in the short term, everyone's stockpiling immediate goods.

<comment><USER13> I wouldn't be surprised if there was significant amount of sell off occurring because people are looking to start stockpiling home supplies. I've known more than a few conspiracy minded people that collect crypto currencies due to a belief that it will be a safe haven in the event of a government collapse, and the current Corona virus panic is probably causing a lot of them to realize that all of the bitcoin in the world may not be enough to get you a single roll of toilet paper if that time ever came.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I actively trade crypto. Today's crash was due (from what I'm seeing) to a massive Bitmex contract liquidation (probably in the $100m-300m range). The market, with panic, couldn't get the price in sync across all exchanges. At some point the difference between two exchanges is close to $1000/btc. Very profitable if you know what you are doing. You can AMA.

<comment><USER15> I saw that the large majority today was lost on longs, with shorts being much less active. Do you believe it's likely that the crash was intentional with the large exchanges pushing the price down on various exchanges to make money off the leveraged longs? Obviously panic plays into this as well.

I'm not one to get involved in any type of trading personally, as I don't trust myself, so this is outside of my space. Please excuse and correct me if I misused any terminology or don't understand stuff. Some of my family is heavily invested in crypto, so I like to know what is going on.

Anyway, does my assessment sound accurate to you? I would love to see you expand on this.

<comment><USER14> > I saw that the large majority today was lost on longs, with shorts being > much less active.

Given that Futures now have the most open interest, I'd say the long/short ratio is practically equal these days in Bitcoin land.

> Do you believe it's likely that the crash was intentional with the large > exchanges pushing the price down on various exchanges to make money off the > leveraged longs?

No. Only bad traders will say that! I don't think there is any kind of price meddling from the exchanges themselves. Any exchange that does that will end up burning to the ground eventually (and there were exchanges that did that). The reason is, a single exchange will unlikely be able to move the price to the sought after direction. Given that trading is distributed through multiple exchanges that are in different jurisdiction, I can hardly see them colluding to manipulate the price.

> Some of my family is heavily invested in crypto, so I like to know what is > going on.

God help them.

<comment><USER15> Do you really not see what bitfinex is doing?… it's almost painfully obvious they are manipulating the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I still assume it is possible and likely that something like cryptocurrency will eventually become incredibly valuable, but I see that happening only when technical and social hurdles are overcome to make it as widespread and scalable as the current credit card system for everyday transactions. Unfortunately for current cryptocurrencies, they just don't have what it takes to compete with decades of trust to get everyone to put their daily spending money in them, that is what will make a future system valuable. The current role they play as a speculative investment seems quite silly to me, literally they only thing they are good for is transactions, if you can't do that effectively I don't see value in the tokens at all.

Imagine if someone started a stock exchange and listed a single stock, their own, the stock for the exchange itself, and no one else's. While you can buy some things with bitcoin or ethereum, it's nowhere near widespread, so that really seems to be effectively what it functions as for now, which looks very bizarre on its face. Unfortunately for the people who do want to get rich, if there is an eventual winner in crypto, their rise will probably look something like what we see now, limited buy in from speculators followed by some inflection point, so it's entirely possible buying this dip of ethereum or some other coin might be the right thing, but I'm just not sure any of them are ready yet. Even with SegWit and other stuff happening in bitcoin, it just isn't clear to me that becoming a cash or credit card replacement system is even the goal anymore, which seems like they are just riding on their first mover advantage to prop up the value more than anything at this point.

Note: reposting this from the stock trading halt discussion after its parent appears to have been deleted.

<comment><USER17> > I still assume it is possible and likely that something like cryptocurrency > will eventually become incredibly valuable

Probably, but whatever it is, it won't be Bitcoin and some magic software updates won't make your Bitcoins turn into whatever cryptocurrency-ish thing wins.

The other thing to remember is that cash doesn't appreciate in value. (In the US, we typically have 4% inflation every year.) If a cryptocurrency is going to work for day-to-day commerce, its value needs to be rather steady. (Either low inflation or low deflation.) This means you can't just stick a bunch of cryptocurrency in your wallet and expect it to make you rich overnight.

(Note: We don't have a lot of experience with deflation as "normal" in modern economies, so if crypocurrency comes with low deflation, like we have low inflation, we'll all have to adjust our expectations with money.)

<comment><USER16> Absolutely agree, if you can't represent some of your resources in it and have any idea if you'll be able to spend it somewhere near at the value you put in at, there's just no incentive to use it as a means of exchange. Kinda makes tether seem like a good idea if I wasn't so worried it's a ponzi scheme.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been trying to avoid looking at my bitcoin portfolio lol. I agree the volatility in its price makes it far from ideal as an alternative currency. That being said what keeps me invested (a relatively small portion) is looking at places like Venezuela and a few other pockets of areas where the monetary system has collapsed or undergone hyper-inflation, bitcoin is being used as a means of exchange, albeit still rather limited. That goes to show the proof of concept works. Hence I think there is somewhat of a chance that there could be a more widespread use case for it, especially as the ecb and possibly the fed start flooding the markets with liquidity again.

<comment><USER19> I hold a small amount of it and BSV as a hedge against the Fed flooding the market with liquidity too. Emphasis on small amount.

Crypto usually rallies when the Fed undergoes extensive QE for a long period of time but the current popular crypto's have flaws.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Last Saturday, ahead of the traditional market rout caused by Opec, > PlusToken scammers moved a little over $100 million worth of bitcoin to so- > called mixers, designed to disguise the origin and destination of the coins.

> The fraudsters may have then sold off the bitcoins, causing prices to fall > as supply flooded the market, according to Singhal.

May have? Is this anything more than pure speculation? I mean, I am a very, very big fan of using time to correlate events ("what changed"), so the mixing is certainly a signal, but how good of a signal? Why highlight PlusToken vs bitcoin holders en masse wanting to get cash out thanks to the market downturn?

</comment><comment><USER21> Crypto crashing at a time like this is actually tell me its true colors

<comment><USER15> That the crypto market is largely controlled by the exchanges?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Bitcoin market is like the regular equities market...without the halting capabilities

<comment><USER23> > Bitcoin market is like the regular equities market

No it's not. The Bitcoin market is the exact opposite: it's unnecessary and of little consequential tangible value to the real economy. The regular equity markets have a large share of the productive output of nations behind them, including the employment and taxation that goes with that. Companies that actually produce goods and services. In many cases goods and services that people and other businesses have to purchase or otherwise heavily depend on.

None of that is true about Bitcoin. It could disappear tomorrow and other than the lost capital trapped in it, it wouldn't matter in a meaningful way; and it wouldn't matter at all to the average person. The masses of people do not need it, they do not depend on it. Government revenue does not depend on it. The lives of billions of people do not depend on it.

Now, for comparison, shut down the top five farm tractor manufacturing companies. Shut down Airbus and Boeing. Shut down Walmart, Costco, Target, and Amazon. Shut down every dental office. Shut down every auto manufacturing company and witness the industrial effects including unemployment. Close every power plant. Shut down the telecom companies and every media company. Shut down every publicly traded energy company. Close every publicly traded bank and financial firm. Close every publicly traded agricultural company including the major food producers.

Compare that to Bitcoin vanishing tomorrow. _By comparison_ , it would have zero consequence, it would not matter at all in any grand scheme of things.

<comment><USER17> > It could disappear tomorrow and other than the lost capital trapped in it, > it wouldn't matter in a meaningful way; and it wouldn't matter at all to the > average person.

That's because Bitcoin is a zero-sum game. No value is created or lost, it's basically just a big game of poker.

<comment><USER24> This. Stocks can still generate dividends. The only way you 're making money from Bitcoin investments is if some other sucker buys it off you for more than you spent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d-d It will be interesting seeing how cryptocurrency performs during and after worldwide panic surrounding the coronavirus, the fed printing a trillion USD and so forth.

I was astonished when Bitcoin rose above $30 so calling it a "crash" at $6,000 might be somewhat accurate short-term, but anything over $0.00 for randomized bits on a hard drive will always seem bananas to me.

<comment><USER25> Europeans of old thought the same when they saw the Chinese using paper money as a medium of exchange :) I do understand your point though

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Wait...aren't crypto currencies supposed to be the favored monetary instrument during times of crises?

<comment><USER27> It depends on the nature of the crisis. In a monetary crisis, yes, probably. But this is a bit different than that.

<comment><USER28> If there is any correlation between current events and bitcoin price, then we have both a monetary and an existential crisis happening. What other crises would bitcoin be useful in?

<comment><USER27> Purely as an asset Bitcoin is _probably_ a good hedge against inflation of the dollar. If you expect high inflation, owning Bitcoin is probably a reasonable way to protect against that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I have made a large amount of money trading cryptocurrency over the years. This correlation is spurious at best. These stories are so wrong it is hilarious. The price action of crypto is unlike any other market. What we have seen over the last month is massive legs down caused by whales flooding the market at specific times. These bart patterns are so obvious I can't believe people can't draw these incredibly easy to see conclusions. Crypto is pure manipulation. This coronavirus panic happens to coincide with a period right before the block reward halving where it is in the interest of miners to drop the price as much as possible as to make the mining operations of competitors infeasible leaving them with a larger slice of the mining pool.

<comment><USER5> Ok, this is completely silly. No miners have the luxury of the price dropping, as it could make all of them insolvent. They depend on Bitcoin's exchange rate increasing so that the revenue generated from the block reward exceeds the cost of electricity to run the miners. They're not working large enough profit margins to take such risks.

It's non-workable anyway. If any miner has to drop out of the race, they still have an inventory of mining equipment to auction off. The highest bidder is simply going to put that equipment to reuse immediately, so there will be no meaningful reduction in overall hash rate. Any miner who attempted to cause the price of bitcoin to slump has simply shot themselves in the foot.

If the dollar cost of Bitcoin does not continue to increase sufficiently over time, Bitcoin is dead and _every_ businessman who took out loans to buy mining equipment is going to default.

<comment><USER29> Long term large scale miners with massive reserves of BTC (you could literally get 50BTC for ten minutes of CPU mining on your laptop when BTC started) can crash the price on a whim with a small percentage of their reserves due to the lack of volume in the BTC market in combination with the liquidations from ridiculous amounts of leverage people are using in crypto (binance and bitmex are >100x to unqualified investors) which causes accelerated declines when the price drops even slightly. They can use this as a short term strategy to force miners with less profitable operations (higher electricity costs, worse equipment) to liquidate their coins at a lower price and cease mining temporarily allowing the more profitable miners to enjoy less competition and the ability to buy the coins at a reduced price. Even if the operation starts up again after the market pumps the superior miner has increased their proportion of coins allowing them to swing the market even greater, and sell coins to get better equipment (the newest bitmain miners), and the bagholders who bought the worse equipment or have more expensive electricity naively set themselves up for failure. The entire crypto space relies on long term pumping and dumping as well as short term "barting" to liquidate leveraged traders. I didn't even mention bitmain patent fuckery and the likely collusion of key players with the BTC devs to purposely not scale BTC to increase transaction fees which benefits miners. The whole thing is a disgusting mess and I don't touch it anymore. Do not fuck with cryptocurrency. It is entirely bought and paid for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's amazing that _anybody_ believed these cryptos were any kind of hedge against the market. It was pure speculation. Always was.

<comment><USER31> I believe you mean gambling, not speculation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Hopefully this starts to kill the notion that crypto is some magical thing that people should gamble with.

If it can't go up during a global crisis or EVEN be resilient.. then it's proven it's just a house of cards.

Crypto technology itself has value, but not in most of it's current forms as some magical gambling currency/asset.

</comment><comment><USER33> There is zero value in crypto as a currency with this kind of volatility. It would be equivalent to trying to buy coffee at Starbucks with shares of Boeing stock.

</comment><comment><USER34> The fact that Bitcoin is marketed as the "new gold" is a double-edged sword. Because of the hype, it's too volatile to become gold.

</comment><comment><USER35> Some of this could be you can't spend crypto to buy food in a crisis... cash is still king.

When everything gets locked down cash is what you need

<comment><USER36> Funnily enough, farmer's markets are some of the few places I've seen 'crypto accepted' signs in my city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Bitcoin is so 2009...how do we still have news about it? Are there people still waiting for an "exit"?

</comment><comment><USER38> Where is all this cash going? If stock is down, crypto is down. Where is all cash?

<comment><USER39> It's in cash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> People still talk about Bitcoin as though it's a real market and not completely manipulated by a handful of key players? Ok then.

<comment><USER41> That's true of the stock market and every other market. For stocks, a bunch of market makers of major financial firms set the "market" for these stocks. The same for forex, commodities, you name it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I hope this whole madness will come to an end so that GPU prices will start deflating.

<comment><USER43> (Pick an appropriate meme template)

GPU prices goes down...

As China is shut down and can't make mew GPUs.

Linus Tech Tips has a good video what the shutdown affects: it suppliers of suppliers are slowed down due to quarantine, then they're in trouble too: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPoPwrQwm_g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPoPwrQwm_g)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> All of the crypto fans and hardcore fanatics kept saying it: "Bitcoin is digital gold don't you know? It's what's going to shoot to the moon as all that terrible icky fiat collapses in a major crisis! You just wait and see"..

Well here we are. certified 100% organic Unfolding Global Pandemic and the cute bonus of teetering on the brink of a global recession. And what does Bitcoin do with all the rest of its cousins?...... It simply shits the bed.

This was your shining moment crypto, and so far you've turned out even worse than the stock market.</comment>


Ask HN: What kind of anti-virus/malware software do you use? - <AUTHOR> I'm on a Mac. I'm looking for something that has low system performance impact. <comment><USER2> Malware Bytes is highly regarded. I use it on some of my systems, and compared to BitDefender, it seems to protect my systems equally well, but with much lower operational impact. It's not uncommon for BitDefender to turn my machine into a jet engine for certain periods of the day, while it's doing COU intensive stuff.

I'll be switching all of my machines to Malware Bytes, when it comes time for subscription renewal.

<comment><USER2> Of course, that's just for mainstream anti-malware. For Mac-specific tools, I also use Little Snitch, BlockBlock, and other tools from [https://www.obdev.at/products/index.html](https://www.obdev.at/products/index.html) and [https://www.objective-see.com/products.html](https://www.objective- see.com/products.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> GateKeeper, MRT (Malware Removal Tool), and XProtect are all built-in features of Mac OS designed to prevent malware threats and other nefarious software from being installed or used on a Mac. These security features exist in the background and are updated with regular system software updates to Mac OS, but Apple will also push quiet updates to xprotect or MRT to add new definitions and block newfound threats.</comment>


New York Passes DNA Requirement For Convicted Criminals - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2012/03/15/148692189/n-y-passes-dna-requirement-for-convicted-criminals

<comment><USER2> Doing blind searches of samples on large DNA databases in order to find cold hits gives you a very high probability of a false match. A match that the falsely accused defendant will be quite difficult to challenge since there is a general belief by the public that DNA matches on a few markers are irrefutable proof of identity.

DNA can more strongly connect a suspect who is already known through other information. Doing blind searches isn't science and it isn't justice. Those advocating this are dangerous, not to be trusted, and possibly ignorant of statistics.

Please see: [http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Legally%20Scientific%20...](http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Legally%20Scientific%20\(Cold%20Hits%20vs%20Hard%20Facts\).html)

> For instance, if a DNA test capable of distinguishing between 'unrelated' > people with one million to one confidence was used to create a database of > two million personal profiles from a population of 20 million potential > suspects you could be pretty certain that most crime stain profiles run > against it would produce at least one cold hit.

> You could also be more than 90% certain that it would be the wrong cold hit. > You could further expect that around 80% of the personal profiles on the > database would match at least one other on record from a different person.

> Problems like these had led the 1996 National Research Council publication > "The Evaluation of Forensic Evidence" (NRC-II) to recommend that "When the > suspect is found by a search of a DNA database, the random match probability > should be multiplied by N, the number of persons in the database".</comment>


Go and Rust — objects without class - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/548560/26d15e832d21a483/

<comment><USER2> I really like Haskell, but I'd settle for Rust.</comment>


Programming Mess Detector - <AUTHOR> http://pmd.sourceforge.net/

<comment><AUTHOR> When a programmer says "this code is crap" its not simply because all programmers think everyone else's code sucks. Tools like PMD, PHP Mess Detector, and Findbugs can measure code quality (against a number of useful metrics). They're not a magic bullet but they often reveal that "this code is crap" is a highly justifiable sentiment.</comment>


A 16-year-old's Plea to be Taken Seriously as a Developer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/d1f08c8ab9eb

<comment><USER2> Best lesson I learned is don't worry about what others think, prove yourself by doing, doing that will make people take you seriously. People will always discount you, or dismiss you in life, it's normal. The smartest people on the planet get dismissed or discounted from time to time. The lesson isn't to work for their approval but to work at your passion and in the end people will respect you more for that than for trying to gain their approval. This is the same way your make them take you seriously, you execute.

I recently told my 15 (almost 16) year old son that failure is something not to be feared nor celebrated, but something to expect at times in life. You are not defined by a failure unless you don't get back up and move forward. Failure is but a train stop in life if you are trying enough things that are challenging and fun. Whether you are writing code or trying to be an actor, failure it just part of the journey, if you keep getting back up. Same thing with being taken seriously, many people will discount you, ignore them and execute and make stuff happen. The rest will work itself out, not always without conflict but it will work out.

So if you figure out nothing else, just don't seek others approval as your end goal. Find what you love and do something with it. We all want others approval at points in our life, but get it by providing people with something of value, rather than just to get them to say good job etc.

Just my ramblings and 2 cents.

</comment><comment><USER3> The only person pointing out that he's sixteen years old is himself. Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be a description of hardship related to being 16 years of age.

</comment><comment><USER4> In my experience being taken seriously is as much about confidence and attitude as it is about ability. For some people even more so.

One of the footnotes at the bottom is a big giveaway. "Yes, I did start my footnotes from a zero-index. I like zero-based arrays over one-based arrays." Drawing attention to how programmer-like you are doesn't convey that confidence.

Fortunately for this kid confidence is something that usually comes with age. I know it did for me.</comment>


iPhone App Development Notes from Bill Clementson - <AUTHOR> http://bc.tech.coop/blog/090429.html

<comment><USER2> I didn't expect any surprises here but a few of the items referenced (clang, cool!) were particularly useful for some problems I'm currently working on.

Very nice to find these all in the same place, and succinct as well, excellent post.</comment>


Some gun control stats - <AUTHOR>

A lot of people are posting about gun control given the recent events in the US. I thought some stats would be interesting. When considering whether gun control is the right approach to curb these atrocities we would benefit from examining these numbers (and others) to help aid (or disprove) our arguments.
A 2007 survey has the US gun ownership rates at 88.8 per 100 residents. They rank #1 in the world, with Serbia ranking #2 (58.2 guns). Canada has 30.8 guns / 100 residents.
The US also ranks quite high in firearm-related death rates. On average 9 per 100,000 citizens per year, 3 of which are homicides. Canada is about half of that at 4.8 (of which only 0.76 are homicides). FYI, the highest in this category is El Salvador with 50 and a few other central american countries (jamaica, honduras, guatemala) not far behind.
In terms of school shootings, the statistics are quite well documented. The US actually has its own "school shootings" wikipedia page if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States - European, Canadian, etc are referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
5 of the top 10 deadliest school massacres were in the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres <comment><USER2> Same survey (maybe?) shows that U.S. gun owners on average own 4.4(ish) guns per owner. A quick search of the number of guns in the whole world gives me a wiki.answers.com reply of some 12 billion guns in the whole world (excluding .50 cal and above weapons) and wikipedia says the population of the world is around 7 billion. There are also surveys that show how gun ownership is at pre-1970s levels (at around 70ish/100 residents)

</comment><comment><USER3> All deaths in the 1927 Kehoe Massacre were attributed to dynamite. Charles Whitman would have killed more in 1966 if he weren't hampered by return fire from armed civilians as well as police. I'm sure we're seeing some sample bias toward more recent events here as well.

Firearm possession in elementary and secondary schools by anyone other than LEOs is prohibited by federal law.

It's also true that violent crime in the USA has been falling for decades.</comment>


Facebook Everywhere - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/facebook-everywhere/index.html

<comment><AUTHOR> After I read the details of Facebook's social ads I wasn't too impressed... Although I believe in social ads, and I think this is the future of the advertising industry, I thought Facebook's attempt was weak... I have already seen what they launched (with all the hype), on other existing networks such as Myspace and Sugar Network (although Sugar is not using it as advertising but have the very same thing as pages and the procedure of members adding the brands to their profiles)

What I was waiting for was an announcement that FB will use its power of information to target ads to its members, all over the web

This article mentions this, and if its true then I am excited

also here is a quote from Dave Winer that I love "Advertising will get more and more targeted until it disappears, because perfectly targeted advertising is just information."</comment>


Realtime Reykjavik Traffic (speed & heading) using D3, Leaflet and socket.io - <AUTHOR> http://traffix.jitsu.com/

<comment><USER2> What data source are you using?

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a link to the source at the bottom of the page ([http://www.straeto.is/rauntimakort/](http://www.straeto.is/rauntimakort/)). I parse the JSON input, associate the records with previous ones (i.e. which bus is uniquely which) and stream output via websockets.</comment></comment>


Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Trusty Tahr) Final Beta released - <AUTHOR> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2014-March/000181.html <comment><USER2> Most of the articles and chatter I can find talks about the changes in 14.04 from a desktop perspective. I only run ubuntu on servers and vms. Does anyone know where I can find a good changelog as to what's changed between 12.04 LTS server and 14.04 LTS server?

<comment><USER3> most of the reasons for running ubuntu are dekstop oriented. Centos is probably a better bet for servers.

<comment><USER4> I will not voluntarily use "yum" on a server in a million years.

Debian has always been my favorite, and currently we use Ubuntu on servers as the OS-packages-as-shipped are more up-to-date; which turns out to be quite important in web-dev-land.

Frankly I dont know what CentOS/Redhat does better then Ubuntu nowadays, apart from selling enterprise stuff like JBoss :)

<comment><AUTHOR> What's wrong with yum? I never had any issues with it on Fedora and CentOS and actually prefer it over apt* (mainly due to it's speed).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm using 12.04 LTS quite extensively. For folk in a similar situation, how long are you thinking of waiting before switching to 14.04 LTS?

<comment><USER6> Ubuntu's user interface upgrades as of 11.10 (the "unity" interface) sucked so bad that I refuse to use Ubuntu beyond verision 10.04 on desktops/laptops.

11.10 was when I switched over to Mint and never looked back, and it seems that doing so was a wise move, given the Amazon adware/spamware/spyware that Canonical saw fit to include in more recent versions.

[http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182](http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182)

Even though Mint includes proprietary binaries (like Flash and Audio/Video codecs), which may or may not contain opaque questionable material, at least the third party non-open-source software is something that (arguably) improves the distribution and actually serves a purpose for me, as the end user.

Mint has changed over time too, though, and now I'm thinking about moving to a personally customized Debian image, and a hobbyist project. Hopefully it won't prove to be too demanding to pull off.

<comment><USER7> I too was pushed to mint after 11.10 but I'm sick of Mint now too. Not only do upgrades break it frequently, but I find small 'glitches' that end up taking up too much time tracking down. Stuff like Wifi dropping, and icons in my taskbar dissapearing, random browser crashes etc.

What I did was decide to sit down and do an Arch install. Yes it takes time, and yes you have to know what you're doing. But I invested the time up front, and now it runs very reliably, and faster on the same machine.

I say if you want to GSD the best thing to do is set up something like Debian, Arch or Gentoo and invest the time setting it up so you can use it without problems later. I don't know about you but I have better things to do than screw with an OS all time, I have real work to do. These "harder" distros are great for that.

<comment><USER8> I am using Mint 16 now; first time using it. Previously I was using Ubuntu. I had to switch to Mint because we got W540's at work which has a lot of new hardware that is not currently supported (well). I wasn't able to get Ubuntu working on it properly, but I have been impressed with Mint so far. The only issue right now is that it doesn't see my nvidia card and so I have to use the integrated chip instead of the discrete one. I'm hoping that Mint 17 fixes the issue.

How hard is it to get a custom system up and running from Arch? I haven't done anything like that in a few years although I've had a lot of experience with setting up custom FreeBSD systems. Is it more or less like that?

What I'm reaching for is something that "just works" and that I can work on reliably instead of having to fix obscure problems all the time. I figure once I set something up that works, I can simply create an image of it to use later.

<comment><USER7> Arch isn't that hard to set up, it's still easier than Gentoo. You just have to set it up from an explicit point of view. You must know every detail of what you want, and each item up, rather than a "10 clicks and I have an OS now" type of setup.

It helps to have a good knowledge of Linux to do it, because you know where things should go and where to look if there is a problem, but it doesnt' require you to become a kernel hacker just to get it to a prompt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would use this magnificent milestone to raise my hand and ask...

Nvidia, where are my native Linux Optimus drivers?

<comment><USER10> I dunno, but as someone on a laptop with an intel HD 4000... who can I thank for this _ridiculous_ increase in performance? Default Ubuntu has gone from laggy to rivalling Lubuntu in responsiveness.

<comment><USER9> For me Unity stopped working somewhere between 13.04 and 13.10... (Asus UX32VD).

I am going to upgrade to 14.04 in a couple of months and see what happens.

<comment><USER11> FYI, I'm currently running 14.04 on an UX32VD. I was previously running 13.10, and that worked great too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What improvements in touch device and HiDPI support have made it to 14.04?

I'm going to use Ubuntu on Microsoft Surface Pro 2, because even though full convergence for Ubuntu is delayed, I think of all Linux distros it is in the best position to run on such devices. Some enthusiasts have made 13.10 work on Surface Pro 2, surely it can only get better from there? [http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2183946](http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2183946)

<comment><USER13> I'm also eagerly awaiting HiDPI support (I have one of those QHD screens on a 15" display, 3200x1800!). There is apparently some support for it in the GNOME version (I've read it was not perfect though). Don't recall where I read this but it was rumored HiDPI may come to 14.10. Probably no more than a rumor... But at least a version number to look at helps me cope :)

<comment><USER14> 14.04 has very good HiDPI support per monitor unlike Gnome. I've been using 14.04 for months and am loving it on a retina display for the last few weeks.

The shell scales perfectly, GTK3 apps scale as well. Firefox has the `layout.css.devPixelsPerPx` setting in about:config that you can change to 2 or 4 to make it scale properly.

Chrome doesn't yet support HiDPI screen but setting the default zoom level to 200% does the trick.

<comment><USER13> Upgrading now just to try this! (Now to get past "symbol 'grub_term_highlight_color' not found" on boot... I should have waited for the weekend to update to a beta release!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is there a short summary of changes since 13.04? The blueprints list is quite extensive.

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/03/ubuntu-14-04-beta- release...](http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/03/ubuntu-14-04-beta-released)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I already moved all my servers to Debian, have not decided when I should do the same on the Desktop side yet, I don't really care about games/MIR/smart- UI-decision-made-for-me/one-GUI-does-all-screens etc, all I need is vim and a browser, with newer tested packages installed underneath for development.

<comment><USER17> I was using Arch as my laptop OS for a couple years until just recently switching to Ubuntu Server 14.04. Since I use i3 it still seems like the same environment. The reason I switched is because I'm developing solely on Ubuntu Server 12.04, and it's less work to get things working once instead of twice.

Is there any advantage to using Debian over Ubuntu for servers and/or development?

<comment><USER16> I feel Ubuntu is moving towards more to the mobile arena which _could_ impact the desktop/server quality especially for the long run. It could also be fighting a battle that is too big with its limited resource(i.e. stretched too thin). I switched to Debian as a precaution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Just installed it into a VM. No issues, very slick. The UI scaling stuff is a neat addition. Haven't tried the Server edition yet, but I imagine I'll start deploying that in six months or so. Precise Pangolin has been my bread and butter for servers.

But why does it still have a "Floppy Disk" icon in the launcher? This is 2014 right? I feel like that is even more absurd than using a floppy disk icon for save buttons in documents. My desktops and laptops don't even have optical drives anymore, much less floppies.

<comment><USER19> > But why does it still have a "Floppy Disk" icon in the launcher?

Because the BIOS of the VM reports a Floppy Disk even if you add no Floppy Disk to the list of hardware installed.

That's a bug for the VM BIOS, and a feature for Ubuntu.

You can disable it if you want: [http://imgur.com/anGmzpj](http://imgur.com/anGmzpj)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Very excited to see Ubuntu Studio getting LTS support.

</comment><comment><USER21> Desktop oriented end user here: Does anyone else use the mnemonic shortcuts, e.g. ALT-F-A for Save As... and in LibreOffice Alt-I-O-F to pop a mathematical formula into a document?

Broken completely in 13.04 and 13.10 and somewhat broken in 14.04 (Alt-F opens File menu but any attempt at a second note in the chord opens a different top level menu).

Otherwise sensible changes, menus on window bars makes sense on larger monitors and shrinking sidebar very nice on a 1280 by 800 screen. Very snappy from live image on a Core Duo 2 laptop with Intel graphics (Thinkpad X200s). Good for demonstration of Linux!

<comment><USER22> Not exactly, but ALT+F is M-f in Emacs which is by default bound to forward- word, i.e., lets you jump over a word. When you run Emacs inside a terminal window, I find it quite annoying that the Menu bar gets activated when you use that shortcut.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am very happy that Ubuntu GNOME is present. This means no unity for the next 3 years ;-)

<comment><USER24> At the risk of starting a flamewar, is Gnome 3/Shell really any better? I've never felt quite so unproductive as when I use Gnome nowadays.

<comment><USER25> I have never quite understood all these desktop emotions. I run Kubuntu, but almost never interact with any desktop features. What is it in your workflow that requires you to interact with Gnome/Unity? (just curious)

<comment><USER26> alt+tab. Used to work perfectly. Now broken. I've returned to debian stable, which comes with a gnome-2 legacy option that works out of the box just as well as it did a decade ago.

<comment> vertex-four Go to [0], install, configure to either "all windows" or "all windows in current workspace", and alt+tab probably works like you want again. It's not terribly difficult.

[0] [https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/15/alternatetab/](https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/15/alternatetab/)

<comment><USER27> Or, you know... just keep using an old, stable, dependable version. But you can't do that with GNOME since they are such rabid fans of the CADT model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is it to me or this release hasn't switched to systemd from upstart?

<comment><USER29> AFAIK, the systemd decision was finalized too late to make it into 14.04. Last-minute changes are not a good idea for an LTS release that emphasizes stability.

This also means that Canonical gets to keep supporting their darling (Upstart) for another five years ;)

<comment><USER30> It does mean at least that a systemd LTS ubuntu will be completely bulletproof with so many years of work from all other distros in it....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> fyi: "final release expected on April 17th, 2014."

<comment><USER32> Also, upgrading to the final release will happen automatically with your usual `apt-get upgrade`.

Edit: to clarify, I mean upgrading from this release to the final.

<comment><USER33> Are you sure that's true? Normally it requires do release upgrade?

Normal upgrades also require apt-get dist-upgrade to upgrade the kernel as there's a new package.

<comment><USER34> Upgrading from beta to release is apt-get upgrade. Update from 13.10 (or 12.04) to 14.04 is do-release-upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Any idea if it will be possible to keep the menu in the title bar from being hidden? It looks like you have to mouse-over to show it, which could be a pain if I'm trying to access it often. I'd like to see where to take my mouse without guessing.

<comment><USER36> I just watched a video overview of the changes. It seems like you must still mouse over to reveal the menus, even with the new option to put menus in the title bar of the window instead of at the top.

<comment><USER35> That's a bit annoying. Hopefully someone will release a patch or something that keeps it from hiding.

<comment><USER36> I think this is a reminder that different interfaces work for different people. I think that the Unity interface, with its hidden menu bars, application menus, scroll bars, etc. is almost perfect and a clear step in the right direction (with the huge exception that it crashes frequently, hopefully this will be fixed for me in the 14.04 release). The idea that I would ever access a drop down menu by mouse is in some way ridiculous and signifies a failure of the application's user interface. Again, that is what I think and it is obvious that other people think drastically different things.

<comment><USER35> How else would you access it? I often access the toolbar in Sublime Text, for example, so I'd like to keep it visible.

<comment><USER36> Typically via holding alt and pressing short cut keys. That is the old way to do it. Unity introduced a new way to do it where you use the alt key and a text box comes up which allows you to search the options by keyword. It could be done better in Unity, but I still like it better than searching though the hierarchy that mostly never made sense to me.

The real answer is that things like Vim and Emacs long ago came up with interfaces that don't require toolbars/menubars. They were added a long time ago, but I am amongst the people that turn them off and don't use them even though they are available. For many of us, mousing is less efficient than well tuned muscle memory.

<comment><USER35> Perhaps so. I tried Ubuntu with Unity a little while ago and didn't like it much--I'm used to minimizing to the taskbar and seeing the names of the programs. I settled on Linux Mint as it offers a clean and "classical" way of doing things.

I'll consider trying out Ubuntu again when 14.04 LTS comes out this month. Maybe I'll get used to it, who knows.

<comment><USER36> To me Unity just made sense and if not for it crashing entirely too often and incurring a performance hit due to all the eye candy, I wouldn't look further.

To me the nice thing about GNU/Linux on the desktop is that each person can have the interface they want. This has secondary benefits where if you have your interface which is significantly different from my preferred interface, it forces application developers that really care about supporting their users to develop high quality abstraction layers that support both. The same goes for software packaging, driver support, general compatibility of proprietary software, etc. So, by all means, keep using Mint, it is in my best interest if you do (and yours, and everybody elses).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Toshiba Portege R830-13C, Intel HD Graphics 3000. Minecraft, running in Xubuntu 14.04 on openjdk 7.51, is having graphics problems that it didn't in 13.10. (No, I haven't filed a bug yet, yes I should ...)

Anyone else running Minecraft on Intel HD Graphics 3000? In 14.04 or otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER38> Is Python3 now the new default Python?

<comment><USER39> Define "default". Both Python 2 and Python 3 are installed by default (it's a goal to not have Python 2 installed by default, but Python 3 is already there).

If you want /usr/bin/python to be replaced, this is unlikely to ever happen[0], but what difference does that make?

[0] [http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/](http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Based on your experience is it stable enough to upgrade to already? Previously some final betas were.

<comment><USER41> I've found the Ubuntu [Desktop] stability to be in constant decline over the time, even experiencing bugs in the installers in the latest versions.

A few notes: \- the "stability" I refer to is always minor errors \- I remove lots of packages every time I install it, although I've experienced system error notifications even when I didn't uninstall anything

All in all, I'd say that there is a lack of polishing, at the low-level, more than lack of stability.

There is no excuse for having the installation fail, though, and it happened a number of times.

To reply the question directly, I've used betas a few times, and they worked as much as the final version for me. I wouldn't do it now though - in the past, for my usage, some types of changes were very significant; today, I get very little in upgrading.

<comment><USER42> > I've found the Ubuntu [Desktop] stability to be in constant decline over the > time

I wish I never upgraded to 13.10. Sometimes drag-maximizing my window can crash my entire system. And compiz leaks memory like a sieve, sometimes I will wake up to find compiz using ~5.5gb of memory and the system will be unusable. Gotta restart!

When I first upgraded, I thought "oh, it's always like this at the start, they'll fix it." And here we are at the next version and it still hasn't been fixed.

Probably jumping ship (to another Linux distro) once my next work deadline passes.

<comment><USER43> Or maybe dig in and contribute a fix?

<comment><USER42> Is this a serious suggestion? I can't even reliably reproduce it. It just happens randomly. The problem could be unity. It could be in compiz. It could be in the nvidia drivers, which I don't even have the source to. Who knows what in that mess causes my system to lock up.

Regardless, I do not have enough loyalty to Ubuntu to do this kind of work. There are a number of open source projects that I am involved with, and if I spend time on this (likely to be fruitless) endeavor, I end up with less time to spend on projects I care about.

My post is purely to vent, and to serve as a warning for those looking to try Ubuntu Desktop. My personal opinion is to try something else. I am.

<comment><USER44> For anyone who _does_ have the time and inclination to debug this there are some comprehensive docs on the wiki [https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Debugging](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/X/Debugging) \- I've used these steps to get backtraces before so devs can get stuff fixed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I hope they fix the part where Unity is crashy, slow, and has a really sucky user interface.

I mean, seriously, Unity is a piece of garbage. You have to look up some magical key combination to do something as simple as launching multiple instances of an application. It's as bad as the Mac [1] -- designed to cater to users who aren't smart enough to understand the concept of "multiple instances of an application."

In order to launch something, you have to search for it -- WTF? I don't want to search for my application, I know what application I want to run! Let me run it dammit!

That whole "no menu you can browse and discover what's installed on your system" is a huge barrier, especially to new users to the Linux ecosystem, because how are you supposed to know the default email client is called Evolution, or your spreadsheet is "LibreOffice Calc"? If there's a comprehensive, categorized menu of all installed applications, you can look through it to, you know, _browse_ what's on your system.

Unity is supposed to be good for noobs. I probably have way more understanding of computer fundamentals than anyone who fits in the "noob" category so I probably have a better chance of figuring out what the UI's _trying_ to do, I probably have way more tolerance for crappy, clunky UI's than most noobs [2], and every time I've tried Unity I've usually uninstalled it within a day. If Unity sucks too much for _me_ to handle, the only noobs I can see sticking with it are those who've never used a computer before and have no idea that it's possible to do better.

[1] Sorry if this isn't up to date. I don't use Macs much; the last time I used a Mac was sometime around 2004.

[2] I played a lot of DOS games in the 1990's. Enough said.

</comment><comment><USER4> Any other netrunner-os lovers here? Its an Ubuntu derivate with KDE by default, but with much more sane defaults and loads of goodness preinstalled (ad-blockers, YT-downloaders, Steam, codecs, etc.)

I love it! (but it's released several months after Ubuntu is released)

</comment><comment><USER19> I tested it in a VM. It is like a low latency version of what the previous version is. Extremely responsive.

Now I need about 6 ppas to add support for Trusty before I can upgrade my main system to it.

Including TrueCrypt.

</comment><comment><USER46> been using 14.04 for about 2 months now. if you're reliant on open drivers (Radeon, Nouveau), and use HDMI output, understand that Kernels 3.13.x and 3.14.x are going to be miserable for you, and you'll be limited to sub-720p resolutions due to regressions in the drivers. 3D has much improved, but the lack of 1080p makes this a dealbreaker for me right now.

</comment><comment><USER47> good to see Ubuntu GNOME has been kept

</comment><comment><USER48> who?

</comment><comment><USER49> I love LTS!

</comment><comment><USER50> Things I would like:

1) drop the ridiculous Unity desktop. maybe I am old and out of touch, but that was <i>horrific</i>.

2) Dual boot just works with UEFI/Windows 8.1

3) Supports audio and graphics hardware in common brands like Acer

I have 9 installed on a samsung since 2009 and it's been an absolute pleasure, just worked. Trying to get 12 or 13 onto a modern Acer however... was a nightmare. V disappointing. I still don't have a functioning soundcard and the battery indicator only starts 1 in 10 boots.

<comment><USER51> Why would you use Ubuntu if you think Unity is ridiculous? That's like getting a Mac and saying that Apple should drop OS X.

It's very clear that Unity isn't for everyone, but I don't understand why people who know it's not for them seem to still want to use Ubuntu.

<comment><USER52> True dat. If unity does not appeal, there are *buntu options. IMO, Xubuntu is the way forward.

<comment><USER53> Xubuntu doesn't have the flashy mass market appeal. For power users its great due to its low footprint, but if I was trying to sell Linux I'd show them Cinnamon or Zorin or KDE, and _maybe_ Gnome, because they all have eye candy and the first three work a lot like Windows (albeit KDE is a lot more powerful than the rest in that regard and would probably scare newbies off).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


EU Adopts Law Requiring User Consent for Cookies - <AUTHOR> http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1700584/eu-adopts-law-requiring-user-consent-cookies <comment><USER2> I'm all for protecting privacy, but this looks like it might have some unintended consequences.

1\. It might give US companies (those without presence in EU) a leg up on their European competition.

2\. It introduces legal uncertainty when using cookies. Cookies clearly have other uses than tracking users (my very first web app, an web-based dictionary, stored user-configurable display settings (like color) in a cookie because it was the simplest way that somewhat worked). They seem to recognize that in the bill and allow exemptions for "strictly necessary" cookies, but who's to decide what is and isn't necessary? Hence, uncertainty.

3\. There are work-arounds. Cookies are just a way to associate a piece of data with a user, to work-around stateless nature of HTTP. There are other technologies that allow that: I can encode data in the urls instead, I can use flash storage, html5 storage. Smart people will invent ways to achieve the same functionality without using cookies. Will legislation be updated every time comes up with a new way?

4\. It might lead to "popup blindness". It's a well know fact of humans interacting with computers: when a computer shows an information and asks for a decision, most people don't bother to read and comprehend the information and make plausible, not informed, choices to dismiss them.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article is dated Nov 10, 2009.</comment>


The Big DNS Privacy Debate at FOSDEM - <AUTHOR> https://blog.powerdns.com/2019/02/07/the-big-dns-privacy-debate-at-fosdem/ <comment><USER2> DNSCrypt has been around for a decade and works really well. Did everyone forget about it?

It's objectively better than running DNS queries over HTTPS: still UDP based, no need to trust a CA but only the DNS server public key, can be cached locally or network-wise, perfect forward secrecy.

There are clients[1] for Windows, Android, BSD, Linux, macOS and lots of providers[2]. It's really a shame it hasn't been made into a standard.

[1]: [https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt- proxy](https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy)

[2]: [https://dnscrypt.info/public-servers](https://dnscrypt.info/public- servers)

<comment><AUTHOR> Some would argue "still UDP based" is objectively worse, since it can be blocked.

I don't think DNSCrypt is better for caching, doesn't it just protect one "leg" from a client (which can be a local cache) to a resolver (which also can be a cache) just like DoH? Similarly for pinning keys (although I think DNSCrypt made exchanging keys easier).

<comment><USER3> In the internet of the future, DNS will move from UDP to TCP because it's better, and HTTP/3 will move from TCP to UDP because it's better.

Web 4.0 will consolidate these improvements, producing DNS over HTTP over QUIC over UDP.

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably, yes. The key from that perspective is to have it in the same format as the content traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> On a related note, I recently found out that Chrome uses its own DNS resolver, ostensibly to improve performance. On some Android devices, this ignores the nameserver precedence set against network connections on the device. The result is that it will often send DNS queries to the nameserver attached to the physical network adapter and not the one attached to the VPN interface. It breaks queries for intranet servers and it breaks loopback-VPN-based ad blockers (a common workaround to manage your own hosts file on Android without rooting your device and breaking many root-hostile apps). There's a flag (async dns) in Android Chrome to disable the internal resolver and use the system resolver instead, but this flag is no longer present on desktop (where a startup parameter must be used).

My point is that, as alluded to in the article, changing how DNS works can have serious side effects. The fact that, as unintentional as it may have been, one of the world's biggest ad networks broke ad-blocking on a number of devices by changing how they handle DNS queries is worrying. I'm concerned that as DoH (or DoC as the article refers to it) proliferates, it'll be used less to circumvent censorship and more to take away control from end users and enterprise network administrators. Every app, the browser included, could creep towards using their own internal DNS query handler, using nameservers they trust to delivery their analytics and advertising queries.

Additionally, giving DoH/DoC choice through the browser suggests that the browser might return different results from other software on the device. This sounds disastrous.

And I suspect that the oppressive regimes that always come up in discussions about DoH would simply block the IPs of those cloud resolvers, which seem to rely on having a well-known IP or domain name.

</comment><comment><USER5> In India, several websites get blocked by different ISPs based on some highly unsubstantiated petitions to some court that doesn't understand what the right move is and just sends the list of domains to be blocked to some ISPs, who gladly comply without any checks or questions. Users see a message saying that the site has been blocked because of some order from the Department of Telecommunications.

There is no grievance management process, no way for legitimate sites to get a quick reprieve when they get blocked either due to operator error or issues with the petitions not being vetted and investigated for malicious intent (a competitor could easily knock you off in some states or regions and you wouldn't even know).

While there are activists working on policies and campaigning for better laws, we really need stronger technological solutions against these (usually ridiculous) blocks that insult "due process" and harm people.

India is also very quick to rap on large multinational companies whenever they seem to provide something that those in power (or their supporters) frown upon. So centralized providers like Google DNS or Cloudflare DNS would have some tough times with the governments, since both have physical presence in the country with their servers/data centers.

 _A decentralized and yet secure /private DNS may be more resilient than these DoC (DNS over Cloud) providers if we have to deal with government censorship effectively._

<comment><USER6> One of the options I've thought of (and I'm sure many others have as well) is to have all zones distributed in a P2P manner via ICANN. To not put too much burden on ICANN and keep things decentralized, have ICANN at the root of the DNS PKI and have all zones signed by the responsible party.

This would solve a few of the big problems we have:

* All sorts of MITM and evil resolver attacks would be prevented.

* Since DNS queries are local, there would no longer be a privacy concern with resolving a name.

* Even if the P2P network mechanism were to be blocked, since every host connected keeps a full record (though not necessarily with history) it can still be distributed via sneakernet.

* DNS updates are as fast as the network is, no longer depending on turtles caching all the way down.

* DNS amplification? That's gone, as resolvers no longer need to query external sources.

As many will quickly notice, we would likely still need remote resolvers for battery constrained devices as this would keep the network interfaces busy.

The one big political issue that would put a stop to this is that this would cause all zones to be world readable. Many people treat zones as something private and to them exposing the zone file is the same as exposing their network. My view is that if it has a publically routable IP then it is already exposed, but not everyone shares my view.

<comment><USER5> > The one big political issue that would put a stop to this is that this would > cause all zones to be world readable. Many people treat zones as something > private and to them exposing the zone file is the same as exposing their > network. My view is that if it has a publically routable IP then it is > already exposed, but not everyone shares my view.

I really don't get this view either. There may be more cases supporting zone files being world readable than not (I can't think of any cases for the latter except for censorship and control).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm disappointed that the fact it will break things only got a mention, and yet the browsers are pushing for using DoH via cloud providers.

My NAS isn't externally resolvable; after all, it's not externally reachable either. And now I have to refer to it by IP address because the Chromecast insists on using Google's DNS servers.

People seem to be unwilling to address known issues before switching defaults :(

</comment><comment><USER8> I attended the DoH talk by Daniel Stenberg at FOSDEM. When talking about alternatives he didn't mention Dan Bernstein's DNScurve ( [https://dnscurve.org/](https://dnscurve.org/) ).

It has low adoption and is not on a standards track (as far as I know) but I think it's the best proposal for DNS privacy and security so far.

<comment><USER9> DNSCurve is over; DoTLS and DoH provide essentially the same value in essentially the same deployment mode, but with mainstream support.

<comment><USER10> DoH failed to keep the important part of DNS, which was statelessness.

Running a stock or DNSCrypt resolver for 10k QPS requires a small to medium sized box that is within the technical realm of most people to operate. Adding stateful connection tracking now creates an operational burden that most IT folks would say "screw it, send it to the cloud."

This centralizes the DNS in to the hands of a half dozen organizations that can operate at that scale, and they also happen to be the ones driving the policy forward.

<comment><USER9> I don't honestly know whether, if I had the choice, I'd take DoHT or DNSCurve. But that's not really my point. No matter how much I might like DNSCurve, it's not going to happen at this point: DoH will be the mainstream secure resolver going forward, because it's firewall-friendly and will have mainstream browser support. With DoH widely deployed, the argument for DNSCurve is cut back drastically.

It's a very positive thing, to my mind; it's equally fatal, I think, to the arguments (such as they were) for DNSSEC --- which not only centralized DNS but also TLS security, and handed them to world governments.

I also think:

1\. No matter what the protocol, centralization of "off-net" DNS services inevitable, for reasons having little to do with performance.

2\. People with concerns about Google and Cloud Flare (it me!) can easily run their own off-net resolvers, and people will inevitably start privacy- preserving DoH resolvers that are open to the public.

3\. Over time, the performance implications of TLS for DNS lookups will become less and less a factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As they say, if it's free, then you're the product. I (as a European) have much more confidence in my ISP to guarantee my privacy than in a company which mostly makes money out of advertisement.

<comment><USER12> Your ISP doesn't sell user data?

I'm in the US and feel the exact opposite. I trust Google and CloudFlare far more than AT&T or Verizon.

<comment><USER13> With these proposals you still have to trust your ISP in addition to trusting Google and Cloudflare. You can avoid trusting all three, your ISP, Google, Cloudflare by trusting instead a single VPN provider of your choice (or a hosting provider where you can run your own VPN server).

<comment><USER14> A VPN provider has a much better source of data to mine than just about anyone else. On top of that, figuring out which ones deserve to be trusted is near impossible.

<comment><USER13> It doesn't have more data to mine than your ISP. It's not harder to figure out who to trust than with any other company. But unlike with any other company there is so much competition across the globe, that you can strategically pick specific jurisdictions and providers known to fight for your interests.

<comment><USER14> > It doesn't have more data to mine than your ISP.

Let's say you are behind a NAT and then you sign on to your VPN. You've helpfully disambiguated yourself from everyone else behind the NAT. Let's say you head out to a coffee shop and sign in to you VPN. Your ISP can't monitor you, but your VPN provider could.

> It's not harder to figure out who to trust than with any other company.

Have you ever looked for VPN reviews? There are many sites that seem to do nothing except review VPNs. One example: [https://www.trusted- vpn.com/](https://www.trusted-vpn.com/). And its "reviews" are basically all advertising copy. So, maybe you check out a bigger name site: [https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403388,00.asp](https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403388,00.asp). And ... it's more advertising copy. The third sentence in the article: "Everyone ought to be using a virtual private network, or VPN, as often as possible" \- which again, sounds more like an article trying to push VPN sales (with helpful affiliate links!) than to provide actual reviews.

And the thing is, let's say you do find some site that is both trustworthy and doesn't seem to be trying to push you to click an affiliate link. What can a reviewer actually tell you about how you should trust the VPN company? Basically all they can do is read the privacy policy and rate that - which is absolutely no better than believing Google or Cloudflare when they say they won't track you with their DNS servers.

So, by all means use a VPN - but don't trust it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm disappointed by this situation where we have to shove encryption in at the application layer one application at a time because we couldn't get our act together with ipsec. I understand how it's come to be, but from an engineering perspective, it's absurd to move dns into https.

Oh well, this is the nature of evolution, like the recurrent laryngeal nerve in a giraff.

<comment><USER16> I am not sure you need to do it at the application layer. All you need is a local caching resolver that your apps query over local host using standard methods. Then the local service can do all the fancy you want.

Today, I have this setup for work. I don't like them spying on me while at work. So I have setup a local resolver that forwards some request to the companies resolver, and others over a secure line to a set of public resolver. I did not need to change any software.

<comment><USER15> My use of "application" is ambiguous. I was referring to the fact that DoH moves DNS from on top of udp/tcp to on top of https, itself on top of tcp, primarily to benefit from the 's' in https.

I actually also run a DoH proxy on my home router and point dnsmasq (also on the router) at it, so all my home network DNS goes out over https.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Through the two major DNS privacy talks on FOSDEM I felt a bit at odd that so much effort is being put into the idea that giving all information to google will give best privacy. In basic security theory we talk about assets that need to be defended, and attackers we need to defend against. Why give everything to a company which revenue is based on breaking privacy? It sound completely incompatible with the idea of privacy.

Running your own resolver will give the authoritative servers the ip address of the request, but does this leak any assets to any potential attacker? The owner behind the authoritative servers already get the web logs so what additional information is being leaked. It seems to me that in order to get higher level of privacy you would need to run a VPN or Tor, in which case the DNS traffic can just go through the same path.

<comment><USER18> >Running your own resolver will give the authoritative servers the ip address of the request, but does this leak any assets to any potential attacker? The owner behind the authoritative servers already get the web logs so what additional information is being leaked.

This is addressed in the panel. The argument is that there is some "privacy mixing" because owner of the authoritative server only sees a highly- trafficked resolver as the source, and not your home network resolver.

<comment><USER17> Yes, the authoritative server get less data from the DNS server but the owner of the domain already get the information from web server logs and similar sources. I do not see how dns mixing provide any privacy in any common threat model.

In the first case a client that request a webpage contact company X authoritative server with private information [IP ADDRESS], creating a record on the DNS server, and then visit company X web server creating a second record at the same company with the same [IP ADDRESS].

In the second case a client request a webpage of company X by contacting google, creating a record on google DNS server with [IP ADDRESS], and then visits company X and create a record there with [IP ADDRESS].

In one case one company has the data, and in the second case two companies has the data. It does not make any sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Potential workarounds:

1\. Round Robin your DoH requests across several providers. Eg, if CloudFlare sees one quarter of your DNS requests it's less revealing then if they see all of them.

2\. DNS proxies. Sort of like a VPN for the DNS requests such that they're aggregated to one source IP before being passed to the DoH provider. Done at the ISP level? Or some other arrangement. The VPN here would not be privy to the requests due to TLS.

These ideas may require more work to be practical.

<comment><USER10> Round robin won't work because a 25% sample is just as useful as a full feed. All they need is enough users to provide a statistically significant representation of traffic.

For you personally, if you send a query for www.example.com to one provider, and a query for images.example.net to another, you've outed yourself as browsing example.com to both.

<comment><USER19> Agreed, see reply to your sibling comment for a less-broken idea

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is a lot of misinformation and false choices. The ISP scaremongering seen here is not real and only serves to further entrench SV based global surveillance data collection unimpeded.

An ISP is local, accountable to its customers and more important subject to local laws that can be enforced. An added benefit is ISPs cannot collect, collate and correlate vast amounts of global user data. This is a huge win for wider society.

Compare that to unaccountable global organizations built on stalking and hoovering up every single piece of user data with zero regulation and subject to and support of their own home governments.

With this already in play 'concern' with localized ISPs cannot be justified without first offering more immediacy and potent solutions to the larger global surveillance problem.

<comment><USER21> Here's the thing, right. SV global surveillance gets us better ads.

Meanwhile, governments ("An ISP is local" \- you've GOT to be joking) actually systematically damage people based on surveillance data. Try visiting Pakistan and then see how governments react to that country's stamp being in your passport.

But it's hardly just that. Credit reports (are government mandated, and a monopoly, they _are_ therefore government) really damage people. Police actions, "random" searches, ...

And of course, heavy handed copyright enforcement.

So we would be transfering DNS authority from entities, the SV companies, that have a VERY long history of not abusing that data, to entities, the governments that not only have a long history of abusing this data, but haven't even stopped doing so when caught with their hands in some cases literally torturing people.

Governments' accountability is a JOKE, a sad, distasteful joke. I will not be counting on that, sorry. And there is nothing local about those local ISPs in any of the countries I use them.

So: no thanks, given those choices, I'll take the Google/Cloudflare option, thank you very much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is the research of homomorphic encryption far enough that it's practical to implement for DNS? The server would accept DNS queries using such cryptographic algorithms on encrypted database, that he nor anybody else can't say which record was queried. Only the client.

<comment><USER23> I think the science is there and the technology exists as a proof of concept [1]. The hard part, as is often the case, is getting the providers to adopt it and users to use it.

[1] Cristofaro, Lu, Tsudik: _Efficient Techniques for Privacy-Preserving Sharing of Sensitive Information_ [https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/113.pdf](https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/113.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Encryption usually solves _three_ problems:

1\. Authenticity of data; i.e. fixing DNS spoofing.

2\. Privacy

3\. Censorship

Problem 1 is fixed _today_ by DNSSEC.

The best solution for problem 1, 2 and 3 would be if IPsec had a working and deployed PKI, so IPsec could be used for all IP-based traffic, and nobody had to worry about encryption on _any_ layer above that.

Lacking that, the next best thing for problem 2 would be for DNS to use TLS and/or DTLS, and there is a standard for DNS over TLS (DoT), which makes perfect sense to use today between resolvers and authoritative servers, and between master servers and slave servers. However, this does not solve problem 3, since DoT uses a separate port and can be trivially downgraded by a MITM to use old non-TLS DNS. In theory, this could be fixed by something similar to how DANE solves the same problem for SMTP, in that a separate channel can be used to indicate not to allow protocol downgrades.

But, this problem of censorship is in practice, today, _primarily_ an issue between the client and the resolver. If that traffic can use DNS-over-HTTPS, this would avoid problem 3 as well.

Note that none of this requires any centralization of resolvers, and is technically completely tangential. The problem of centralized resolvers existed since centralized resolvers first appeared; witness the prevalence of using Google's 22.214.171.124, etc. This is a huge problem independent of DNS-over- HTTPS.

The connection, as far as I can tell, between DoH and centralization is that _browsers_ want to fix as many as possible of problems 1-3, and using a centralized provider of DNS-over-HTTPS does that, at the expense of centralization and a single point of failure for problem 1-3. This is of course a terrible idea. But I can certainly see why browser vendors are attracted to the idea, bad though it may be.

<comment><USER25> DoC doesn't actually address 2 or 3.

I trust Sonic to not data mine or game my DNS queries much more than I trust Google or Cloudflare. I actually run my own recursive resolver locally, but if Firefox or Chrome default to DoC then the effect will be to _lessen_ the privacy of Sonic Internet users, and users of similarly trustworthy ISPs. Worse, the techniques employed by browsers to select between a DoC resolver and a local resolver will inevitably on occasion break anonymizing VPN setups. When the browser becomes the OS, you lose interoperability with third-party software as browsers aren't built as platforms for _local_ interfacing.

And centralization makes censorship easier. A U.S. court may not be able to block resolution of a domain under co.uk, but it definitely can force Google or Cloudflare to block it. And it's much easier to execute an injunction against a small handful of service providers that reach 90% of users than trying to execute one to hundreds or thousands of smaller providers. Here's a recent injunction ordering Cloudflare to block a DNS name: [https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-lists-dns-and-routing- serv...](https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-lists-dns-and-routing-services-in- broad-anti-piracy-order-181116/)

<comment><USER24> > _DoC_

Surely you mean DoH?

> _I actually run my own recursive resolver locally_

As do I.

> _I trust Sonic to not data mine or game my DNS queries much more than I > trust Google or Cloudflare._ […] _And centralization makes censorship > easier._

Oh, I agree. When you can't trust the single point of failure to not actually fail or not to be already fundamentally failed, then everything about centralization is bad.

<comment><USER25> > > DoC

> Surely you mean DoH?

DNS over Cloud (DoC) is the term coined in the article to differentiate the underlying transport (DoT, DoH) from it's deployment (centralization).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases.ars

<comment><USER2> In some cases I could see how it would be beneficial for the judge to have a solid understanding, and previous experience with, the subject matter in order to be able to make more informed decisions. Some bad decisions are certain made now by judges that don't understand the complexities or technical nature of some cases.

One of the benefits of the common law system is that courts can use previous rulings as a basis to maintain consistency in enforcing the law.

It's unfortunate that until there are well established precedents that a the result of a complaint is a bit of "luck of the draw". One file sharer could end up with a huge judgment while another gets the case thrown out, depending on a judge's understanding, or lack-thereof, of the nature of the offense.

<comment><USER3> Clearly this judge should have recused herself simply to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Any judge with even a sliver of integrity would have done so.

<comment><USER4> I am in full support of a judge that deeply understands the issues at hand. However there is a clear conflict of interest here.

The law is supposed to be impartial. I am all for judges sympathetic to the cause, but I don't want that either. The law must treat both parties big and small equally, and assume that even if its the RIAA that they may have merit in their claims, and vice versa.

So in conclusion, its a tough call here. I would hope this gets much more media attention and either her COI is exposed and she is forced to step down OR she is taken off these sort of cases and her knowledge is put to use elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There were/are 2 judges on the CFTC panel, which deals with commodity and futures trading.

Wendy Gramm (wife of Phil Gramm) approved a judge with the understanding he would never rule in a complainant's favor.

Source? The other judge: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/39746954/Judge-Painter- Notice-and-...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/39746954/Judge-Painter-Notice-and- Order-dcpdf-1)

<comment><USER4> Scary... Go forth internets and spread the word!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> An interesting metric; how many years back would it be before the judge would have instantly recused herself from ruling on any case involving file-sharing?

<comment><USER7> I'm guessing the answer is zero.

Cases involving the RIAA might be a different matter but it's unlikely that there would be any blanket assumption of that sort for any file sharing case.

The thing to remember here is what people, particularly people in the law, are paid to do and what they believe are very different things. It's possible, even likely, that she has no strong opinions on file sharing one way or the other, that she was just doing a job and that she's entirely capable of taking a clear and unbiased view of things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I recall that there are several high-ranking RIAA lawyers in the justice department, too.

<comment><USER9> Plenty of former criminal defense attorneys too.

However will we rid ourselves of their outrageous _pro-murder agenda_?

<comment><USER10> Not that I believe the idea that defense lawyers are pro-murder in the first place, but sharing files and murder are hardly equivalent. Further, I don't think it makes sense to conflate criminal and civil law, and because it is civil, the burden of proof is lower. Sharing is natural and victimless, and while I guess there would be little (if any) debate over whether murder is wrong, I would guess there could be great debate over whether file sharing is wrong.

<comment><USER11> In your zeal to make it clear that file sharing isn't a crime like murder, you managed to utterly miss his point.

<comment><USER12> Which was what exactly? I ask because I am light on this subject and haven't a clue.

<comment><USER11> Everyone has potential biases, and there are practical biases for judges that are more significant than "took a paycheck from the RIAA", and we accept them routinely.

<comment><USER8> While it's true that there are many such biases, judges are required to excuse themselves whenever there's the _appearance of impropriety_.

The article discusses why, as a technical matter, this judge can choose to hear such cases, but the mere fact that we're discussing this or that there are news articles concerning it, creates an actual appearance of impropriety.

But we'll see how things go. It is possible, after all, that they're not so biased as they appear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I encourage our community to assess the costs of file-sharing in the context of the benefits afforded by a liberal stance on technical mischief. I prefer to have rtm as a phd rather than as an inmate.

<comment><USER11> Does rtm trade files, or are you suggesting that owning up the Internet with a worm should be decriminalized?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> grellas, I'm surprised you would submit this — when I clicked on it I figured I'd find a comment from you in this thread agreeing with the linkbait's eventually acknowledged punchline: "problems of perception, if nothing else"

<comment><USER14> _Perception of bias_ is sufficient reason judges to recuse themselves. The article is claiming that the perception of bias is indisputable and an actual conflict of interest, considering she benefitted financially as a lobbyist, might exist as well. That sentence is not an acknowledgment linkbait at all.

[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0608/p02s01-usju.h...](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0608/p02s01-usju.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Firstly, I would like to point out that I am anti mass-p2p lawsuits. They abuse the law, the courts and the system. It is a shakedown scheme, pure and simple. Due process is abused to such an absurd extent. Never mind the strain these lawsuits are putting on ISP's for ip lookups, -so much so that multiple ISP have come out and sided against these frivolous lawsuits.

All that being said, the issue here is not what the right decision is, but rather how Howel a former RIAA lobbyist and lawmaker could possibly make an unbiased decision.

Frankly, regardless of your stance on the p2p subject, her even being appointed to such a position leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. If I were in her shoes, I would recognize the ethical dilemma and sit that one out. But to add insult to injury she has chosen to ignore the hand full of precedents set by multiple judges around the country to disallow such abuses inherent in these mass joint filings.

Ironically, numerous people have argues that her past knowledge of law would make her a better judge. So she knows the laws, many of which she helped write; when and where did she learn a damn thing about technology, -I don't know like the fact these law firms are paying for cheap inaccurate methods for infringement detection so they can pad their lawsuits with still more innocent person to shake down. Guilty until proven innocent because the plaintiff told me so.

</comment><comment><USER16> Our legal system is broken.</comment>